Wikipedia:Featured article review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Reviewing featured articles

This page is for the review and improvement of featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria. FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted.

There are three requisite stages in the process, to which all users are welcome to contribute.

Raise issues at article Talk:

  • In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.

Featured article review (FAR)

  • In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "delist". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status.
  • Reviews can improve articles in various ways: articles may need updating, formatting, and general copyediting. More complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness, factual accuracy, and neutrality, may also be addressed.
  • The featured article removal coordinators—Nikkimaria, Casliber, DrKay, and Maralia—determine either that 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.

Featured article removal candidate (FARC)

  • An article is never listed as a removal candidate without first undergoing a review. In this third stage, participants may declare "keep" or "delist", supported by substantive comments, and further time is provided to overcome deficiencies.
  • Reviewers who declare "delist" should be prepared to return towards the end of the process to strike out their objections if they have been addressed.
  • The featured article removal coordinators determine whether there is consensus for a change in the status of a nomination, and close the listing accordingly.

Each stage typically lasts two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria. Given that extensions are always granted on request, as long as the article is receiving attention, editors should not be alarmed by an article moving from review to the removal candidates' list.

To contact the FAR coordinators, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the {{@FAR}} notification template elsewhere.

Older reviews are stored in the archive.

Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache, Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating an article for FAR

The number of FARs that can be placed on the page is limited as follows:

  1. For articles on the Unreviewed Featured Articles list, no more than three nominations per week and twelve per month.
  2. For all other articles, one nomination at a time per nominator, unless permission for more is given by a FAR coordinator.

Nominators are strongly encouraged to assist in the process of improvement; they should not nominate articles that are featured on the main page (or have been featured there in the previous three days) and should avoid segmenting review pages. Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content.

  1. Before nomination, raise issues at talk page of the article. Attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.
  2. Place {{subst:FAR}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article. Write "FAR listing" in the edit summary box. Click on "Publish changes".
  3. From the FAR template, click on the red "initiate the review" link. You will see pre-loaded information; please leave that text.
  4. Below the preloaded title, write which users and projects you'll notify (see step 6 below), and your reason(s) for nominating the article, specifying the FA criterion/criteria that are at issue, then click on "Publish changes".
  5. Click here, and place your nomination at the top of the list of nominated articles, {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/name of nominated article/archiveN}}, filling in the exact name of the nominated article and the archive number N. Click on "Publish changes".
  6. Notify relevant parties by adding {{subst:FARMessage|ArticleName|alt=FAR subpage}} ~~~~ (for example, {{subst:FARMessage|Superman|alt=Superman/archive1}} ~~~~) to relevant talk pages (insert article name). Relevant parties include main contributors to the article (identifiable through XTools), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the Featured Article Candidate link in the Article Milestones), and any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, but there may be other Projects that should be notified). The message at the top of the FAR should indicate who you have notified.

Featured article reviews[edit]


Notified: WT:MCB and WT:PHARM

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 ) 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 ) 02:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^ Aguilar TA, Navarro BC, Pérez JA (December 2016). "Endogenous Antioxidants: A Review of their Role in Oxidative Stress". A Master Regulator of Oxidative Stress - The Transcription Factor Nrf2. InTechOpen. doi:10.5772/62743. ISBN 9789535128380. Retrieved 15 July 2018. 
  2. ^ Vomund S, Schäfer A, Parnham MJ, Brüne B, von Knethen A (December 2017). "Nrf2, the Master Regulator of Anti-Oxidative Responses". International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 18 (12). doi:10.3390/ijms18122772. PMC 5751370Freely accessible. PMID 29261130. 


Notified: WikiProject Rock Music, WikiProject Heavy Metal

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)


Notified: Gary, Chisme, Dank, WikiProject Computing, WikiProject Software

I am nominating this featured article for review because, after much discussion across the years, it has been pared down (changing significantly the content that was once promoted to featurement) and concerns of WP:NPOV have been raised. Leefeni de Karik (talk) 04:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Scene7 was swallowed by Adobe in 2007, eleven years ago. It has not been heard from since. The article as it stands now IMHO is about right considering the import and significance of the company. If anybody can fill out what happened in the last eleven years, I'm in favor of rewriting the article. But otherwise there is no point in beating a dead horse. Chisme (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Parks and Recreation (season 1)[edit]

Notified: WP Television Episode coverage, ‎WP Television, ‎ WP Comedy, Hunter Kahn, no other active unblocked significant contributors

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) 09:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Note, @PresN: reviewed the images, so they should be good. I promoted this article, so will not be reviewing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Good as in the sock didn't review the images, but not good in that it was literally 8 years ago... Anyway, sure, re-reviewed, they're fine. --PresN 01:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment An obvious, and significant, deficiency with this article is that the 'reception' section only presents assessments written at the time this series was first broadcast. No use is made of sources looking back at this series at a later date, including after Parks and Recreation finished up. As I understand it, the general view is that this was the worst series in the show's run, and the show was only successful after a lot of changes were made. Nick-D (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I was the primary author of this article when it was brought to FA review. I will look into some additional sources to add to address this, but I likely won't be able to until after the holiday. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 20:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Sorry it took a bit longer than I expected NickD, but I've added some new information about reviews of the first season following the run of the show (from 2015 onward), in response to your comment. In doing so I also found an additional source and added some additional facts elsewhere in the article. Let me know if you think any changes or further improvements are needed! — Hunter Kahn 20:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Those changes look very good - thanks. Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates[edit]

Place the most recent review at the top. If the nomination is just beginning, place under Featured Article Review, not here.

Film noir[edit]

Notified: WP Film

Review section[edit]

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 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[edit]

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

KaDee Strickland[edit]

Notified: Extraordinary Machine, WikiProject Television, WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, WikiProject Women

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has not been updated to include information on Strickland's career since its promotion as a FAC. Information in the "Career" section ends around 2007, and one can see just from looking at the "Television" and "Film" tables in the "Filmography and performances" section, that there is a large gap of Strickland's career unaccounted for. As for more minor notes, reference 6 is also a dead link (a permanent dead link?) and I noticed that there are several instances of WP:SHOUTING in the reference titles.

I have left a message on the talk page and pinged @Extraordinary Machine: as this was the primary user during the FAC process. I think that a lot of wonderful work has gone into this article, but it requires so much updating that I feel that it no longer fulfills the criteria for a featured article. Aoba47 (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Extraordinary Machine hasn't edited since this past September, so I'm not sure that user will be around anytime soon to help improve the page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the clarification! Aoba47 (talk) 23:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @SNUGGUMS: I apologize if this question has an obvious answer, but I am assuming that this is left open to allow other users to comment and potentially improve/revise the article even though Extraordinary Machine is no longer active on Wikipedia? I am very unfamiliar with the FAR process so I am just uncertain about things work from this point. Aoba47 (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes it is. They can also comment here on issues found within the page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section mostly centred on coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Delist. Article is unbalanced with career prior to 2007 described in detail and career afterwards not at all. DrKay (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Elvis Presley[edit]

Top six editors blocked or no longer active. Notified WP Rock music, ‎WP Las Vegas, ‎ WP Mississippi, ‎ WP American music,‎ WP Tennessee, WP Pop music, ‎ WP Elvis Presley, ‎ WP Musicians

Review section[edit]

This featured article review is a procedural nomination as there was sockpuppet involvement at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elvis Presley/archive4. 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)

  • (partial, limited) image review There are no obvious issues with the images currently in the article, but about half of them are claimed as PD-US under "pre-1963/1977, no copyright renewal". Given the previous image review was performed by one of the socks, the absence of a renewal cannot be presumed accurate and should be audited by someone qualified (which is not me, sorry).
    The one that potentially raises some red flags for me is File:Girls Girls Girls Poster B.jpg. The upload is in sufficiently low resolution to preclude reading the (1960) copyright notice that is present on the original, almost as if it was intended to pass a fair use check (that it wouldn't need if it was really PD), but the given source for the image has a much higher resolution version available here (where the copyright notice is legible, including the names of the physical persons holding the copyright). The image was also uploaded by one of the socks.
    Again, I didn't find any obvious problems, but once good faith can no longer be presumed, there're enough red flags to suggest thorough checking. --Xover (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • General comment: This is one I'm not concerned about. It has a lot of (independent) eyes on it, disputes are readily discussed on the Talk page, and there is ongoing effort to keep the sourcing of high quality and stop the never-ending scope creep and trivia creep. Over time some undesirable passages have snuck in but DCGeist actually undertook a cleanup effort in early January. Despite the socking issues, he did a fine job. --Laser brain (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Right, so that means you think it still meets or nearly meets FA criteria? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to dig a bit more before I make a declaration. Between the socking and Xover's evidence that there may have been deliberate copyios, I'm growing increasingly uncomfortable with assuming good faith about anything this guy did. --Laser brain (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment I read through this article a while back; I wasn't in "reviewer mode" but I certainly didn't think "who on earth thinks this is an FA", so I can't imagine there's that much wrong with it. Your best bet is to ping 7&6=thirteen as he's good at fixing Elvis-related articles. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment, I did not promote this article, but I did archive it once, so have asked at WT:FAR whether people think I should recuse from review. As with all of DCGeist's articles, the WP:SIZE issue is a concern for me, and I never saw any reason he was excused from a perfectly doable compliance with WP:SIZE. This article is HUGE, and unnecessarily so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think you need to recuse. I recall you voicing your size concerns and they are still present. Every time someone finds an eggplant that looks like Elvis they want to add a paragraph to the article. --Laser brain (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Laser brain on this comment and the others. The article gets a lot of careful attention from reliable editors, so I think it merits its FA status, but it errs on the side of inclusion (though the "eggplant Elvis" crowd would beg to differ). Contributors tend to be fans, and they sometimes lose sight of the appropriate scope of an encyclopedic biographical article. I would vote that it be edited for length, but not demoted. Pstoller (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I have concerns with the comprehensiveness criteria (1b) of WP:Featured article criteria: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. From a glance, this article doesn't even mention many of his film roles within article prose after Wild Country, which is a glaring omission when he starred tons of movies. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
This article includes a complete filmography plus a link to a second article, Elvis Presley on film and television. Even that much is arguably redundant. It is neither necessary nor productive for a biographical article to discuss details of every film in which a primarily musical artist appeared, especially when those films are formulaic and held in low critical esteem. One may as well ask why every song Presley recorded is not discussed. The answer is, it's not necessary in order to say the article "neglects no major facts or details." Pstoller (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not saying we have to go into all of the production bits or casting process, but the films at the very least should be mentioned by name, especially when their soundtracks spawned hits for him. As for music, I'd say the same with album titles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I repeat: All the films are mentioned by name at the bottom of the article in a complete filmography. This is in addition to a link to a separate article devoted entirely to Presley's films and TV appearances that also lists all the film titles. There are likewise separate articles for Presley's complete singles discography, complete album discography, hit albums only with chart information, and all songs recorded by Presley, in addition to the partial single and album discographies in the present article. The reason there are separate articles is that, without them, this article would be too long. Thus, adding that information back into this article would be counterproductive. Pstoller (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Simply mentioning them in a filmography section isn't enough if they're not cited anywhere in the page. It otherwise looks like one is using WP:CIRCULAR referencing by trying to use another Wikipedia page as a source. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
First, the other Wikipedia page is not employed as a source: it's a separate article devoted to detail on a subsidiary subject, just as the discographies are. External sources provide the information in both articles. So, it is not at all WP:CIRCULAR, nor does it look like it. Second, if listing all the film titles within the article is not sufficient, then what would be? Again, these films are widely regarded—critically, popularly, and historically—as being without significant individual merit, either as cinema or as examples of Presley's artistry. The article text thus deals with them categorically. That is the the appropriate framework. Otherwise, an already overlong article would become considerably longer still by expanding on the creative nadir of Presley's career. An article, even a feature article, cannot go into detail on every aspect of its subject's work or life, but at best provides a comprehensive overview. To gain a decent understanding of Presley's cultural significance or personal character, it is entirely unnecessary to call out Kid Galahad, Harum Scarum, or Change of Habit. In fact, to manage this article (which, without counting filmography, selected discographies, or notes, is already pushing 100kB) per WP:SIZE, WP:SPLITTING, and WP:CONTENTFORKING, I would recommend deleting the included filmography, as it's entirely redundant with the linked filmography article. Each of those films in turn has its own article, just as all the albums issued during his lifetime and over half the songs contained therein do. All that information and more may belong on Wikipedia—but not in this article. Pstoller (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Moving to get a better sense of current status for this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Film Booking Offices of America[edit]

Notified: WP Companies, ‎WP Film, no other active significant contributors ‎

Review section[edit]

This featured article review is a procedural nomination as there was sockpuppet involvement at its FAC. 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) 09:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Notes, this is a 2007 promotion, on only three supports, so should receive a full review, including images. @Ceoil: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments. The size is manageable (atypical for this nominator), and has not changed significantly since the article's 2007 promotion. Inline citations were just coming in to requirement when this was passed, and it appears they are covered here. Table of contents is reasonable (an issue I find on other DCGeist articles).

On scanning the citations, I noticed that one is a "note", so went to see how it was being used:

The cited source does not verify if was R-C's first, nor does it name the director. So, WP:V should be reviewed more thoroughly.

I cannot decipher what this sentence wants to say, and the source is paywalled:

  • The business began in 1918 as Robertson-Cole (U.S.), the American division of a British import–export company and Robertson-Cole was formed by the English-born Harry F. Robertson and the American Rufus Sidman Cole.
    • REF: "Screen; Again the import tax". New York Times. Retrieved 25 January 2014. 
      Rephrased, and took out mention of Rufus Sidman Cole, who is not mentioned in the article body. Ceoil (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I skipped down to one section, where a prose issue was found:

  • With Thomson's personal contract with Kennedy due to expired in mid-1927,

So, a complete review is in order, and it would be grand if someone had access to the hard-print sources for Verifiability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Sandy, "due to expired" was introduced in 2014 here, ie well after the first retirement.. While I am the last person on earth to degenerate on typos and confused spelling, I don't think they were a feature of Geist's work. But, on the other matters, I don't have access to the sources, and agree, a full review would be no harm. Have the noms watchlisted and will give views. Note, I'm not that enamored by edits since he first retired (as apposed to his recent quote "retirement" unquote), so might in the end urge review of a roll backed version. As time goes on and articles depreciate, I guess this will, alas, become more common. Note also, I am not seeing these through rosy glasses of nostalgia, being disillusioned by the cross over in the two account's editing. Ceoil (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include verifiability and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

House (TV series)[edit]

Notified: NewTestLeper79, Music2611, WP House task force, WP Television, WP American television task force

Review section[edit]

This featured article review is a procedural nomination as there was sockpuppet involvement at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/House (TV series)/archive2. 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)

  • Notes. I promoted so will not be participating in review. Original nominator appears to be inactive, Socks account for the majority of the edits, and the top contributor has not edited since 2010. I can say that the socks were entirely influential in my promotion of this article, and I agreed with the Opposer, who mentioned WP:SIZE relative to WP:SUMMARY. Image review by David Fuchs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
    • As has been remarked I retired from Wikipedia a long time ago, but it so happened I noticed this today during a trip down memory lane. Looking over the article it is clearly visible that the article would benefit from some work to bring it up to date for developments in the show post-2009 as the show was still running at the time this article as promoted. However, it appears the majority of the article's main body is still of high quality, though an argument based on lacking quantity could be made. From the discussion you mentioned regardin WP:SIZE relative to WP:SUMMARY I can only judge that this is a question of interpretation, one which appeared to be ultimately resolved by the promotion of the article (i.e. majority rule). Yet if sockpuppetry was influential in this promotion (how unfortunate! Quick sidebar, I was about fifteen at the time and I remember spending a lot of time on this), I understand the grounds for reconsideration. All in all, I'd say what the article mainly needs updating and maybe some tweaking here and there. Having been absent for such a long time I do not consider myself in the position to judge whether the tilt in favor of the first 5-6 seasons is appropriate grounds for removal, but, again, as far as I can tell, general quality has not dropped significantly. Let me know if I can be of any further service, I'll check this page to watch the developments.--Music26/11 16:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include size and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Sound film[edit]

Notified: WT Film, no active significant contributors

Review section[edit]

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.

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.

In fact, that sentence does not seem to be about sound film at all, but without access to the source, hard to know.

Several dead links, that might be found in, 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?

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

FARC section[edit]

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

Susi Kentikian[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Boxing, WikiProject Women's sport

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because (copying my comments from article's talk page): This article has a few issues that should be addressed if it's to keep its FA status. It's fairly obvious it's been neglected over the past few years. The FA nominator, EnemyOfTheState, hasn't edited in nearly four years, and no one appears to have picked up the slack.

  • Mainly, there are statements that need citations; the 2013, 2014, and "Other activities" sections are all unsourced. There are also a few other statements elsewhere that need sources.
  • There's no prose concerning her career in 2015 and 2016.
  • The most recent information that is there is very poorly written, making it obvious that it was added by drive-by editors. Per FA criteria, prose should be engaging. "On [date], she defeated [person]. On [date], she defeated [person], etc." is definitely not engaging.
  • Sections containing a scant amount of info should be merged into other sections.
  • The "Highlights" and "Awards" sections each contain bulleted lists of only three items; these would be better presented as prose.
  • The "Other activities" section contains a diacritic being used as an apostrophe (trivial, but it highlights how neglected this article has been). Lizard (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – I cleaned up a couple of the things pointed out above and will try to add updates on her recent fights as time allows. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include referencing, prose, and need for updating. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The article has been updated with her post-FAC fights and those updates have been sourced. I'll try to do a prose run-through if time allows. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Just wanted to let everyone know that I've done some copy-editing work on the article, in addition to fixing the issues raised at the start of the FAR. Hopefully this is moving towards keep territory. Giants2008 (Talk) 13:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Cortana (Halo)[edit]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because I think it falls considerably short of FA standards, and personally I wouldn't pass it through GA in its current condition. I raised issue regarding it at WikiProject Video games and the two people who replied there both expressed concerns about the article. The original FA nominator, David Fuchs, has also been made aware of the listing via a discussion on the article's talk page. A commentator at Project video games raised concerns was about the plot length. The article was passed in 2008 when I can only presume standards were lower; I'd argue by today's standards it fails on FA criteria 1a, 1b and 1c. Specific issues listed below.

  • I think the article has too many fictional in-universe details. For example, why do we need to know that Master Chief wears 'MJOLNIR battle armor', and what does MJOLNIR even mean?
  • There's a lot of details about Cortana's appearance in the first novel; why aren't subsequent appearances given the same level of detail?
  • Cortana appears to play a minor role in Halo: Ghosts of Onyx, but this isn't mentioned at all. There's a lot of literature set in the Halo universe, and I'm not convinced this article summarises all her appearances in them adequately.
  • In the 'Character design' there's very little on the characters initial design.
  • Several things are introduced in the article without any background information; her voice actress appears out of nowhere (how did she land the job?). What is '343 Industries'? Who are the Forerunners?
  • I'm most concerned about the reception section though. It begins with the characters reception from the third game, rather than initial reception, and there's no coverage of the character from academic sources/journals even though plenty of these sources exist. There's an embarrassing quote farm with poor prose that focuses heavily on the character's sex appeal (Examples: "Part of Cortana's appeal has lain in her good looks ... [she is] the sixth most "disturbingly sexual game character").
  • There's a fair amount of inconsistency in reference formatting and even several bare URLs and a couple unreferenced sentences. Freikorp (talk) 07:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to square your concerns about plot length when you're asking for more descriptions of minor appearances. As for your comments about coverage and references, perhaps you could link these plentiful sources? Otherwise the comment is less than helpful. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 03:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I mentioned somebody else had concerns about plot length just to give an indication on what others have said; my concerns about under-detail are entirely confined to the 'In other media' section.
  • This thesis comments on Cortana's technically nude appearance: [1]
  • This academic source comments on both Master Chief and Cortana's lack of sexuality: [2]
  • This one comments on Cortana's dialogue and emotional support: [3]
  • This thesis gives a very brief comment on her body type in comparison to other female video game characters [4]
  • This thesis comments on Cortana's personality, dialogue and flirtation with Master Chief: [5]
  • This thesis talks about Cortana's physical appearance and her relationship with Master Chief: [6]
  • This thesis questions why Cortana's appearance is sexualised and comments on the gender stereotyping between Cortana and Master Chief. It cites Cortana as an example of a character "drawn and designed to appeal to heteronormative standards of beauty, even when it does not make sense within the context of the game ... as a computer program Cortana could have taken any form but the game elected to make her adhere to the heteronormative ideal of an attractive, shapely woman. The interviews suggest this may be because of the lack of female representation behind the scenes and the lack of support and encouragement for women to join in the industry." [7]
  • Here's an interesting source about Cortana's nudity: [8] Anita Sarkeesian cites the source and the issue in one of her articles: [9]. Here's another quote from Sarkeesian about Cortana: [10]
I'm sure you can find more. If you don't have access to any of those sources I can email them to you. Freikorp (talk) 07:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I'll look a bit more into the authors, but none of those theses strike me as reliable sources per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Even if all those academic sources fail WP:SCHOLARSHIP, the GamesRadar+ source about her nudity and Sarkeesian's comments on the issue should be used. Freikorp (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I've added both to the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Some decent improvements were made to the article in December, and the bare URLs were formatted properly in early January, but there's been no significant improvements made since then. Many of the issues raised above remain. The article is better, but I still wouldn't even pass it through GAN without further improvements, including heavy modifications to the reception section. Freikorp (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

  • The primary-sourced plot for a fictional character is twice as long as the Reception? Seems like a due weight issue. Also the Reception ¶ on Cortana's appearance no longer passes contemporary FA muster. If the listicles are worth mentioning at all (super low quality sources), they should be stacked into a summative statement. But is it even noteworthy that she was listed among the "top babes" in video games? We wouldn't put the same dubious accolade in a film star's biography—it would be rephrased as, "Video game journalists noted her character design for its sex appeal" or something more encyclopedic and stacked with several refs (only a few of the "best" instances needed). Other generalizations like "Cortana's return in Halo 5 was subject to mixed reception" are challengeable and should have immediate refs. As for the academic sources above, I wouldn't cite theses but mentions made in a scholarly journal would be more applicable. czar 11:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm open for trimming the section, but the idea that you cloud what sources actually say to 'sound' more encyclopedic isn't a great tack to take. Her sex appeal is a large part of the character's reception, trying to cloud the issue because of personal feelings on what "should" be covered is bias. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Not sure where you're getting the sound/cloud stuff. Being ranked #1 supporting character by is a dubious accolade (nevermind that the source doesn't even make that claim). A listicle assertion such as this should be generalized proportionate to the source's weight. What noteworthy elaboration would we miss by stacking the six "lists of babes" refs as I had mentioned? If none, then was it really such a large part of her reception? The section appears to be much more about commentary on her in-game appearances, and on that point, shouldn't it address Halo 1–2 alongside its current coverage of 3–5? czar 01:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I've already stacked the lists. You're welcome to pull commentary for Halo 1 and 2 if you can find it, but there frankly isn't much of anything. That's why it's not in the article in the first place. It's extremely rare to find an review that actually mentions Cortana, much less provides some useful commentary beyond 'she's the voice in your armor'. Chalk it up to people not dwelling much on story in old reviews, I suppose. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Moving to get more input on the Reception section and other issues mentioned above. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delist. It's not a million miles off, but this article will likely need serious work to keep its shiny star. In addition to the concerns about the reception section, I'm also noticing some sourcing issues—"Cinema Blend" is explicitly listed as an unreliable source at WP:VG/S, this forum post is used to source the statement "The character model's face was based on a sculpture of Egyptian Queen Nefertiti", and there are multiple dead links. There are also several unsourced statements (and the massive in-universe plot summary). JOEBRO64 19:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
User:TheJoebro64: The forum post is by a Bungie artist, it meets SPS criteria. Thanks for the update about Cinema Blend, I have removed the statement. Can you be useful and actually highlight what you think is unsourced? As for the plot summary, "massive" is an unhelpful qualifier. Explaining exactly how you think it is necessarily large to detail the character's appearances would be far more useful, not to mention actionable. I will double check the links, but dead links are and never have been a reason to delist an article per WP:FA?. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
The unsourced statements I noticed were "Cortana's first appearance in the Halo franchise is in the novel Halo: The Fall of Reach, a prequel to the first Halo game" (this goes beyond what the primary source (the book) says and needs a secondary source to confirm it), "The assistant is also available on iOS and Android", "Despite mixed opinions of Halo 4's campaign as a whole", and "Cortana's return in Halo 5 was subject to mixed reception" (the last two are unsourced because they are generalizations that can be challenged, so they are required to have direct refs). As for the Appearances section, by "massive", I mean it goes into too much in-universe detail and is sourced only to primary sources. I'd trim details that aren't necessary to understanding the story, and also add a bit of analysis from secondary sources to the section. I think Doomfist and Joker (character) are good examples of pages that give basic descriptions of the characters and their backstories while balancing it with real-world facts and opinions. JOEBRO64 22:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
That Fall of Reach is a prequel and the first appearance doesn't require a secondary source; the Fall of Reach released before Halo 1, and the book itself calls itself a prequel (including in big letters on the first printing "the official prequel to the explosive Xbox™ game!" etc.) I've sourced the assistant mention, I'll see about directly citing the reception lines or rewording the starts of those paragraphs.
As for the appearances section, I'm going to need more specific guidance. It summarizes what the character does in each game in a paragraph. Doomfist and the Joker are not great comparisons because one is a character in a single game with a paper-thin plot and the other is a character of repetitious comic arcs for decades. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Czar and Freikorp: Thoughts on current status? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delist. This would need a lot of rewriting and source work to pass FAC today. Without delving into a full review, here are some areas, starting with the most broad:
  • Plot: Delves too far into individual appearances instead of just providing an overview of her role. This section should be easily sourced to reviews and other secondary source summaries of its plot (game guides even, as a last resort). This would help focus its contents from going off into the weeds and general story summary.
  • Background needs more out-of-universe tweaking. The first paragraph of the body doesn't denote that she's fictional or a character.
  • The Reception still drags out basic points. Lots of periodicals are mentioned inline by name when the sentiment could be generalized without mentioning them.
  • I have serious reservations that the "top 10 babes" listicles are worthy of encyclopedic mention at all, nevertheless as evidence that Cortana has "been recognized for her sex appeal". I click through and there's just zero content. If we removed the refs with insubstantial mentions from that sentence, I don't think that sentence would even be justified. If this is an important claim, is there really no other source that says it succinctly, directly?
  • Topic sentences like "Despite mixed opinions of Halo 4's campaign as a whole, Cortana and her story was often considered a strong point of the game." need immediate refs, esp. if making new claims not cited in the rest of the paragraph
  • Most of the Reception is built around quoting directly from reviewers. Since the majority of those quotes are more for style than essential detail, they detract from whatever the paragraph is supposed to say, especially when done in every sentence. If each sentence was paraphrased without regard to the pull quotes, the section would be half its length.
  • Which brings us to: how much is the Reception about Cortana anyway? This is commentary on par with any major character role in any game—it's the type of stuff than can be summatively stated in a section of a "List of Halo characters" but no Reception source appears to call out the character as independently notable from the series.
  • Overquoting in the Character design section
  • Namedropping of non-notable individuals in the Reception without explaining why their names are important to know
  • No discussion on how the personality aspects of the character translate into the voice assistant? [11]
  • The |publisher= field is redundant for all the {{cite web}} instances. That field was designed for book publishers. The |work= field alone is sufficient almost always, especially if the work is a linked entity with its own article.
That's a taste without even touching whether the prose is engaging (once "brilliant") and the sources are reliably appropriate for FA-level consideration. But that's all the time I have for this right now. czar 17:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delist, unfortunately, for reasons mentioned in my nomination. I was hoping the nomination would result in all the issues being addressed, though most of them remain; the article has received no improvements for over a month now. Freikorp (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Shockingly, things don't get edited when you never respond to my points. Truly hard to understand. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
      • The only post you directed at me was one asking to point out academic sources, and I gave a detailed response. You haven't asked me anything else. I provided a detailed list of issues with the article over five months ago and you still haven't replied to most of them or made any attempt to address the overwhelming majority of the issues. Five months. Five months and you couldn't even take the two minutes to explain something simple like what 'MJOLNIR' means. Don't blame me for your article losing its status. I'm taking this discussion off my watch list as I don't think anything constructive is going to come out of it. Freikorp (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delist for all the reasons already discussed. It would take a lot of work to get this up to current FA standards. Specifically, it feels like the reception section is not really on point, as it feels like the examples given are excerpts of reviews of the game and are not really touching on response to Cortana as a character. The character design section is also out of balance, as there is more about minor changes to the character in later games in the series than there is on creating the character in the first place. Also, as described the Cortana Letters promotional campaign appears to have little to do with the character. Because of the role she served in the Halo story, her name was attached to this campaign, but the character herself does not appear to be integral to it. Right now, this feels less like an article and more like a group of random mentions of the character that do not paint a coherent picture of the subject. Indrian (talk) 05:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
More substantiative discussion of the genesis of the character simply doesn't exist. You're asking for a version of the article that cannot be created from available sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Then perhaps there aren't sufficient sources available to create an FA-quality article about the subject. Popcornduff (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
FA criteria has no such requirements. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
There are countless obscure video games (to pick one topic alone) you'd struggle to find sources sufficient to write about in any depth at all, let alone to FA quality. I'm not saying Cortana is one of them - but it's reasonable to observe gaps in articles, whether they can be filled or not. Popcornduff (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delist given the issues already described above (primarily echoing czar's comments in particular). However, I believe that this article could be substantially revised and put through the FAC process again to reach FA quality. It would just take a substantial amount of work to get there first. I can tell that a lot of work has been put into this article so hopefully it can be further improved in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 02:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Mount Tambora[edit]

Notified: ONUnicorn, Meursault2004, JarrahTree, Materialscientist, GeoWriter, Anthony Appleyard, WikiProject Indonesia, WikiProject Volcanoes

Review section[edit]

First time I am doing this. I am nominating this featured article for review because it doesn't seem to meet 1a and 1c of the FA criteria anymore; there is a large amount of unsourced material and choppy paragraphs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus:, let me take a look at your comments and improve the article. We will discuss this on the talk page of the article further. Tisquesusa (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section focused on sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
this one should be ok with some light copy editing and a few cites. Will report back before year end. Ceoil (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ceoil: Any update on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Delayed but not forgotten. Will give update in 1 week. Thanks for patience. Ceoil (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Ping? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Delist if changes are not made. 2nd para of the lead is overwrought given the article length. Plus, there are 1a issues right off the bat:

"The 1815 eruption was the largest volcanic eruption in recorded history"
"After a large magma chamber inside the mountain filled over the course of several decades"
Food crops "failing" is awkward
"Heavy volcanic ash falls were observed as far away as" > "Heavy volcanic ash fell as far away as" - this suggested change might be subjective as I'm not a geologist, but it seems to retain its meaning.
"1816 became known as..." kinda flabby. How about "1816 is called...." or thereabouts.
Lots of mentions of "the 1815 eruption" - you can probably axe the date from most. It's assumed by the reader.

Hopefully the article is given a facelift per above. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 16:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Delist. Verifiability: unsourced statements tagged since September 2017. Prose, structure and comprehensiveness: stubby paragraphs and a single sentence section. DrKay (talk) 08:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I personally wonder if we should roll the article back to the 2006 version as a first step; it is more comprehensive and has no stubby paragraphs. Of course some uncited statements, broken citations and disambiguations would need fixing, but that can be done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Rollback to featured version - seems that this is mainly a case of someone compromising the featured status of the article. Kirbanzo (talk) 02:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Rolled back to featured version and fixed the most obvious problems. Next step is to fix the uncited material, after that updating, and then someone with better FA criteria 1x skills needs to check over. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
    Fixed part of the uncited material. I note that the article paraphrases and rather closely at times; anyone willing to rewrite these parts? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
    Got almost all issues with sourcing fixed, save for A volcanic eruption as large as the Tambora 1815 eruption would cause a catastrophic devastation with more fatalities. Therefore volcanic activity in Indonesia is continuously monitored, including that of Mount Tambora which I can't find a source for. Help? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ceoil, Deckiller, DrKay, and Kirbanzo: Can you give an update given the rollback? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
    Postscriptum: I've looked for updates but it doesn't seem like there was a lot of new research and information between now and 2006 on the volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
The rollback was the right thing to do. I am keep now on this. Great work from Jo-Jo Eumerus. Ceoil (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Delist unless and until the many prose issues are sorted out, needs a lot more than "light copyediting". Eric Corbett 11:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

"Two nearest cities are Dompu and Bima" Does that mean that Dompu and Bima are two of several nearest cities, or is there a missing "The" at the beginning of the sentence?
Added "The" Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
"The end of this route is the southern part of the caldera ...reachable by means of a hiking track." This sentence purports to be describing the first of two routes, so where does the hiking track fit in?
Based on the source, after the paved road ends, one has to continue on a hiking track to reach the caldera. I don't know how to word that. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
"The existence of Tambora is estimated to have begun around 57 ka BP." That's very unidiomatic. Better would be something like "Tambora is estimated to have been created in about 57 ka BP", or even "... to have come into existence ..." at a push.
"... Using radiocarbon dating technique ..."
Fixed to "Radiocarbon dating has established..." Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
"... at depths between 1.5–4.5 km ..." Should be something like "at depths between 1.5 and 4.5 km" or "at depths of 1.5–4.5 km".
Fixed Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Have you looked at the rest of the article as well? Eric Corbett 15:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
The staccato style of short sentences does not flow very well, hardly "engaging". Corbett 11:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Eric is raising general problems with the article, and using specif, non exhaustive, examples to illustrate. He tends to be right about these things. To summaries, and as a list to work through, these are,
  • Lack of clarity in some areas leading to ambiguity
  • Staccato writing style - short sentences and over puncation
  • General MOS issues (which I see are largely fixed since he posted) Ceoil (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Would like to see this cited - "Since 1972, a commercial logging company operated in the area, posing a threat to the rain forest." Ceoil (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    Checked against source used as reference, it seems to hold up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks; will duplicate the ref after the statement.
    1816 was the second-coldest year in the northern hemisphere since 1400, after 1601 (following the 1600 Huaynaputina eruption in Peru).[4] - Cant parse this. Ceoil (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    It says that 1816 was the year with the second-coldest northern hemisphere temperatures after 1400. With the coldest year being 1601, the year after the Huaynaputina eruption. I don't know how to reword this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    I dont either, so have cut mention of 1601 altogether, and this was rather garbled and confusing. I don't think the current version lacks impact. Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    Aand I just noticed that the article does not mention the 1257 Samalas eruption. Argh. Added it... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    Txs, reworded this a bit. Is it ok in the monitoring sect to make the statement "There has been no significant increase in seismic activity since the 1880 eruption" read that the recient findings indicate that...can be directly attributed to the Directorate of Volcanology and Geological Hazard Mitigation. Atm, its unclear and part of of a series of run on sentences that may be seen as non sequiturs. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    I don't think it is since there have been episodes of increased earthquake and steaming activity. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I wonder if this article is mis-titled; its hardly a geographic survey of Mount Tambora per say, I notice deficiencies in coverage of e.g. its bird (weakly covered) and animal (not at all) population not to mind human habitation, or its general history, political governance, and so forth. And there is very little on theories of its early tectonic formation. Would "Volcanic activity of Mount Tambora" be better. Ceoil (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Otherwise have c/e'd, mostly trying to remove ambiguity and improving flow. Ceoil (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
See, to me it looks like there is enough coverage of that material (a paragraph mainly dedicated to birds, for example). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. A lot of work has been done in the last month by a number of us. I think the article is close to a Keep, but like Ceoil I wonder about its comprehensiveness (though not to the extent that he does--e.g. "political governance"...). To that end I have left a question at Wikiproject Geology. The sentence with "caused by exsolution a high pressure magma fluid" is missing a preposition, presumably, but Id' prefer someone with more geo knowledge fix that. Outriggr (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    Im fine now on prose, I think we have collectively worked through each of the issues raised by Eric in a clam and sedated manner, though I recognise no good deed goes unturned, and our heads could be kicked in at any moment by gremlins from north or south. However I dont so much share your concerns about breath of sources, hard ass as I am; Jo-Jo is grandfathering this re sources, has been impressive when taken to task, and I am inclined to take with good faith. I know this is double voting and said this before, but am keep also, per Ouriggr. Ceoil (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • delist For such a major topic the content is very small. I would expect at least double the amount of content. A lot of work to look that information up and write about it is needed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    The reason why the "content is very small" is because most of it is supposed to be on 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora. The volcano itself is not well known outside of the 1815 eruption. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, when I posted to WP-Geology I hoped for something a bit more actionable. (And I also didn't mean to imply that geology-minded editors were not already involved here—e.g. thank you for that last addition Jo-Jo Eumerus—I just wasn't sure who they were. :-) Outriggr (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
This has stalled after Graeme's comment, but Jo-Jo Eumerus gives sound reasoning, and would like to reiterate my Keep vote. Ceoil (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)