Wikipedia:Featured article review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, 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: WP Baseball, WP Sports, Woohookitty, no other active unblocked significant contributors ‎

This featured article review is a procedural nomination as there was sockpuppet involvement at its last 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) 09:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Notes, @Fasach Nua: reviewed images, so they should be good, unless new images have been added. @Giants2008: the only active FAC supporter. I did not promote this FA, so will be participating in this review, particularly with regard to WP:SIZE and WP:SUMMARY SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Well, I'd describe myself as kind of active the way things have been going, and I've been dealing with other issues (having a TFL changed on you unilaterally isn't fun!), but I'll try to find some time to look at this article. I remember adding a few cites to it at one point, and it looks to be in decent shape at first glance. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:SIZE recommends WP:SUMMARY at 50 kb. The readable prose size of this article greater than 62KB, about 12,000 words (the Drpda prose script is not picking up considerable KB in lists and block quotes, so I measured it directly by copying text into Microsoft Word.) I suggest that summary style could be better used at:

Hatnotes are used incorrectly, since Summary style is not generally used. For example, the section, Uniqueness of each baseball park, is not a summary of Baseball park; that hatnote should be changed from Main to something else, like further information. This happens everywhere.

Checking for outdatedness is in order:

  • ... for example, stated records in the popularity section.
  • Another example, "As of 2007, Little League Baseball oversees more than 7,000 children's baseball leagues with more than 2.2 million participants ... " ... It is 2018, why 2007 data unless it is in History section?
  • "In 2008, nearly half a million high schoolers and over 35,000 collegians played on their schools' baseball teams.[183] The number of Americans participating in baseball has declined since the late 1980s, falling well behind the number of soccer participants.[186]" Why a 2004 and 2008 source?

Player rosters; idea of DH rule in other countries where baseball is a major sport.

Prose can be reviewed, example redundancy: "... the first games of baseball to charge admission took place. The games, which took place ..."

This archived source does not point to the text it is citing, so a page number is missing for the book:

  • The tactical decision that precedes almost every play in a baseball game involves pitch selection. By gripping and then releasing the baseball in a certain manner, and by throwing it at a certain speed, pitchers can cause the baseball to break to either side, or downward, as it approaches the batter.

This is a dead link, that is not at should be easy to source:

Another dead MLB link, not at

Would it be appropriate to mention the extent in the US (Japan also) of players coming from the Caribbean and Venezuela?

Going through 12,000 words to make sure everything is up to date will be a chore-- this is one of the problems that occurs with size bloat. This is only a brief foray. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I ran the DYK checker on both the current version and the one that passed FAC, and the current one is longer by about 1,000 words. That indicates that I may be able to do some trimming, although some of this is surely the effect of updates. In general, I'm not as bothered by the length as you are, Sandy. FAs in general are longer now than they were in those days, and any article on a major general subject like baseball is going to be longer than a run-of-the-mill FA if it is truly comprehensive (and it will fail the criteria if it isn't comprehensive). I wrote an FA about this long that passed with flying colors, so length alone should not be a barrier if it has a purpose. When I go to copy-edit this page, we'll find out how necessary it is.
  • Changed as many of the hatnotes as I could find.
  • When I get a chance, I'd like to take a shot at finding those pages. They changed their website at some point, and I've had some success digging through the archive to find old pages that were tagged as lost causes. My editing has been cut down to almost nothing because of real-life work, so work on this page may come in stops and starts. However, I will do as much as I can for this page, as it is so important for all of us sports fans. Giants2008 (Talk) 12:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Just took a quick look at the size of the section that were mentioned by Sandy, and the rules section is the one that really need trimming. Just doing that will take the size down by a good amount. Some trims should be possible in the history section, although I tend to like long history sections so I may not be the best judge. As for the "around the world" section, we do need some of this information for the article to be comprehensive, so I'd lean towards the conservative side in making changes there. Giants2008 (Talk) 13:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I suspected you would have some tricks up your sleeve re finding those links, which is why I tagged them! They are also things that could easily be re-sourced, and I suspected you also would know where to find other sources. I trust you on size, but I would say to take into consideration what an average reader is looking for. As of now, this is 40 printed pages! But what do you think about the outdatedness of some of the info, records and such? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Giants2008: Any update on how work is progressing here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
    • My busy season is over, so I'm ready to resolve the remaining issues. I've fixed some of them already, and the rest will soon follow. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:33, 21 April 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)

Film Booking Offices of America[edit]

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

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)

Film noir[edit]

Notified: WP Film

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)

House (TV series)[edit]

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

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)

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

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)

Swedish language[edit]

Notified: Peter Isotalo, WikiProject Languages, WikiProject Sweden

The article was promoted in 2005 and hasn't been properly reviewed since then. (The 2007 review was aborted.) It's been tagged for citation for over 3 years and there was very little response to the verifiability concern raised on the talk page then. DrKay (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

There aren't many tags, actually. I'll see about some refs for them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I've added a dozen refs, and removed a few bits of uncited text, so it's now tag-free. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I have absolutely no idea how the whole FA stuff works, but I would expect from an article about a major language a little bit more content about the syntax. This article very briefly touches upon some aspects, but given the enormous amount of literature on the topic, I think this is far from adequate. – Uanfala (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
The article covers grammar (including syntax), and is linked to a subsidiary article on Swedish grammar. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
My point was that the coverage of syntax in either of the two articles is rudimentary at best. – Uanfala (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I would like to bring the article up to snuff, so I'll try my best to address any concerns.
I would like to aim for a reasonable level of detail. Can you provide some bullet points on some of the most essential facts that you believe should be added to the article text?
Peter Isotalo 17:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, there don't appear to be any decent Swedish grammars easily accessible in my library, so I'll have to go by my first impressions from reading the section in the article – some of the following may not be relevant. For example, there is a mention of reflexive pronouns with a hint that they might be unusual. But why are they unusual? How different are they from neighbouring languages or from English? Given how important anaphora is in Chomskyan syntax, there's bound to have been research out there that has uncovered interesting aspects of the way the reflexives work in Swedish. There are two sentences about word order, but this almost certainly glosses over a more complex picture. At the very least, some examples would have been needed at least to show how SVO differs from V2 order. How are questions formed? How are relative clauses constructed? How does the grammar of the spoken language differ from the written standard?
These are all things I would expect to see in a top-quality article about a language. But I won't go far as predicating the FA status on them. If anyone is interested in syntax and they are willing to expand the article tha would be great. But it's better not to have any content than have content contributed by someone without a background in syntax solely for the sake of passing FA review. – Uanfala (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarifications. I've started working on this, but I feel a bit rusty, so the going might be a bit slow. I'll be sandboxing the content here User:Peter Isotalo/Swedish rather than trying to screw up the article with too many minor edits.
Do you have any examples of other language FAs that you believe contain good descriptions of unique, unusual or fairly specific traits? It might prove very useful inspiration.
Peter Isotalo 09:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
@Peter Isotalo: Any update on progress here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I would suggest writing a full grammar section based on the chapter on Swedish by Erik Andersson in Auwera and König's "The Germanic Languages" - that is a very useful little grammar sketch that has all the main elements for a sketch of the language. I would do it similar to what I have done in the articles on English and Danish - which have sections that also cover basic syntax.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • also I would suggest cleaning up the references to have a harvard bibliography, with citations using harvrefs and then a separate note section.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I have this as pdf and can send it. Ahlgren, J., Holmes, P., & Serin, G. (2006). Colloquial Swedish: the complete course for beginners. Routledge. And I have ordered Holmes' two grammars from the library.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:16, 24 March 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.

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)

Halo: Combat Evolved[edit]

Notified: JimmyBlackwing, WikiProject Video games, WikiProject Halo

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this article for FAR because I do not believe it meets the featured article criteria anymore. It was promoted way back in 2006, when the standards were far lower (this is what an FAC looked like back then).

Problems I notice are:

  • It's not "professionally written" (1a) (these examples aren't the only ones, either):
    • For one thing, the lead is structured kind of weirdly—"it was released as a launch title for the Xbox gaming system on November 15, 2001, and is considered the platform's "killer app" is the second sentence of the first paragraph.
    • The gameplay section is poorly worded: "As a first-person shooter, the gameplay of Halo: Combat Evolved is fundamentally similar to that of its peers". How can a video game have peers? Also, the phrase "FPS" is repeatedly used with no context given as to what this means.
    • The reception section follows the ill-fated "A said B" list of facts format, rather than an overview of the critical reception (WP:RECEPTION).
  • It's not comprehensive (1b):
    • The development section barely even talks about how Bungie made the game and is more like a schedule of major announcements about the game. One big question: why did Bungie change it to an FPS?
  • It's not well-researched (1c):
    • There are many questionable sources, such as "The Adrenaline Vault" (which is explicitly listed as unreliable at WP:VG/S) and "Xbox Kombo".
    • Mass amounts of text are unsourced. This is a big problem.

JOEBRO64 19:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment: There was an inadequate delay (24 hours) between the nominator raising concerns on the article's talk page and nominating it here. Per WP:FAR, "Each stage typically lasts two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process." This includes the initial concern-raising stage. The nomination should be closed until the proper procedure has been observed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

We can give this stage twice the length in time if you want. :) --Izno (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Whichever way works for the FAR coordinators. Sad as it is to see this article nominated here, Halo doesn't grab me like it did 12 years ago as a research subject—I don't plan to mount a rescue operation here. I will say that the prose quality seems to have been deteriorated by drive-by edits over the years, so I might rescue a few paragraphs of the old text from previous versions. Beyond that, we'll just cross our fingers that others at WPVG are interested in saving it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Happy to leave it sitting here for longer given the speed of the notification. Given you know the article and subject well @JimmyBlackwing: it'd be great if you could just double check the additions anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do. Halo's development in particular is a really, really big subject (probably article-worthy in itself), so I don't envy anyone who wants to write a 2018-quality version of that section! We'll see if someone makes an attempt. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll do it.💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 02:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include prose, comprehensiveness, and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 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)

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)

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)