Top Qs
Timeline
Chat
Perspective

User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Remove ads

Following the appearance of an "old" FA on Main Page in October 2012 that contained several significant flaws, Dweller initiated an effort to review all articles that:

The reason is to see if they are, at a quick glance, of a standard appropriate for a Featured article appearing on Main Page, would require a light brush-up or need so much work that their appearance would inappropriate, as not reflective of our best work.

The reason for choosing 2008 as a cut-off was that the FA standards rose significantly in and after 2009.

At the request of the TFA Coordinators, the scope has been expanded to articles that passed FA more recently.

There are no Featured articles pre-dating 2005 that have yet to appear on Main page.

Remove ads

2005

Summarize
Perspective
  • Question?Dietrich v The Queen FAR: 2009 Review: n/a Not considered due to relatively recent FAR. Now reviewed. Looks fine. --Dweller (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggested date: The incident that kicked this off took place on 17 December 1986, so 30th anniversary this December --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

    • I don't know the standards for Australian legal articles, but for an article on an American Supreme Court case of central importance, you'd expect to see relevant constitutional cases from both before and after, and I'm not seeing that here. I think it needs expanding. - Dank (push to talk) 23:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Bilby, you're the most prolific contributer to this article, even if the inactive Stephen Bain wrote most of what went to FAC and another editor nominated it. What do you think of the issue raised by Dank? I'd love to get this on Main page. 12 years when we're apparently very short of FAs is ridiculous. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
        • I'll have a look into it - I have a friend who has a lot of expertise in this area, so I'll grab his opinion early next week and see what we need to do. - Bilby (talk) 08:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
          • Bilby, how's it going? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
            • Bilby? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
              • Thansk for the reminder. He had a look. but didn't offer much. I'd actually really like to do this - I want to take a break from off-wiki stresses and do something here. I'll endevour to go over everything in the next week. - Bilby (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • ☒NCincinnati, Lebanon and Northern Railway FAR: 2008 Review: Large sections devoid of inline references. Inappropriate for Main Page currently.
Remove ads

2006

Summarize
Perspective

Many of these articles have short Leads, frequently two short parags.

  • ☒N 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) FAR n/a - Review: "Plagiarised" used several times but looks like editorial comment... Incidents of destruction referred to in Lead not mentioned in article. Probably needs a close look before going on Main Page.
    • I had a quick look at this, and if it were my call, I wouldn't run it. Readers could easily get confused by the manipulative style of the band into thinking that we're trying to be manipulative at TFA (starting with the name of the album). - Dank (push to talk) 15:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • ☒N All You Need Is Love (The JAMs song) FAR n/a - Review: Large tracts of unsourced material. Inappropriate for Main Page currently. Let's see if we can fix this. notification Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:00, 31 January 2018
  • ☒N Battle of the Tenaru FAR n/a - Review: Serious issues. Unsourced casualty numbers in Lead, conflict with casualty numbers in Lead and infobox, conflict in combatant numbers between Lead and infobox, contradiction between Lead and body as to what the Japanese commander knew of US strength. Final citation used to apparently source detailed comparison of real events and depiction of the battle, but none of the detail is actually present in the source. Inappropriate for Main Page currently.
  • Battle of Tulagi and Gavutu–Tanambogo FAR n/a - Review: "frenzied mob" needs a source, as does "one of the finest natural harbors in the South Pacific". Some text issues, eg "utilizing improvised explosive charges to kill the Japanese defenders taking cover in the many caves and fighting positions spread throughout the hill and ravine.[27] Employing the improvised explosives, the individual Japanese fighting positions were destroyed." Otherwise, probably fine with a going-over
  • ☒N Don Dunstan FAR n/a - Review: Huge paragraphs in an oversized Lead. Pretty well referenced. Minor niggle: MATS "plan" or "plans"? Taking a random part of the article for a close look, I examined his retirement, straddling two sections of the article. Some odd use of photo caption to include important sourced material that should be in the main text and is not. What was he "seriously ill" with when he resigned? What was "stage-managed" about the press conference (aren't press conferences by definition stage-managed? They're hardly spontaneous.) Article doesn't properly address his retirement from anything other than premiership - retirement from politics is alluded to only. These issues makes me suppose there are others I'm missing on this whistlestop lookthrough. Probably inappropriate for Main Page currently.
  • ☒N Effects of Hurricane Isabel in North Carolina FAR n/a - Review: Title inconsistent with opening words. Article opens with what sounds like a big claim, but is puzzlingly small (worst in four years) so on reflection must be a comment about it not being so bad... but it's worded like it's dreadful. Just not sure what it's supposed to mean. Worse, the claim doesn't appear to be in the main text, so is unreferenced. "light wind shear"=? "average track forecast error" =? "flood potential statement"=? Huge, lightly referenced paragraphs. The before and after photos are perplexing: the top one seems to show flooding on the right of the picture, but the bottom one seems to show sand (dumped by a storm?) along the seafront properties. Or is it that the storm blew that sand away? Inappropriate for Main Page currently.
  • ☒N Empires: Dawn of the Modern World FAR n/a - Review: Lead includes a one sentence paragraph - and it's one that's neither cited there, nor in the body text. "complete 3D perspective" - what's an incomplete one? multiplayer component spoken of in present tense, despite lead saying it closed 3 years ago and the body then saying it closed five years ago. Better style to list the civilisations in the body, not the lead. Surely the lead can be longer without artificially puffing it up? Absence of citations suggests significant amounts of OR in the Campaigns section - and that alone would be enough to make this inappropriate for Main Page currently.
    This had a 2015 FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • checkY Final Fantasy X-2 FAR n/a - Review: Early sections mostly unreferenced. Inappropriate.
  • ☒N Fuck the Millennium FAR n/a - Review: Includes tracts of unreferenced material. Inappropriate.
  • Hurricane Irene (2005) FAR 2008 - Review:
  • ☒N Hurricane Nora (1997) FAR n/a - Review: Some expansion in the impact needed.
  • Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater FAR n/a - Review: Prequel/sequel comment in lead is unintelligible and does not appear in the body copy. Otherwise seems fine.
  • ☒N Pixies FAR 2011 Not appropriate currently, per Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Pixies (2016 April Fool nomination) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
    Why is this here? I am unable to find a FAC or a FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
    It should be Pixies (band) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • checkY Tropical Storm Henri (2003) FAR n/a (key dates September 3-8) - Review: Looks ok, all text cited bar one covering sentence. web links appropriately archived. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ☒N Witchfinder General (film) FAR n/a - Review: Looks OK Sources need improving. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Remove ads

2007

I don't think there's any particular date or anniversary that would suit this being a main page topic, but I'll try and have a look at that unreferenced section you mentioned. Angmering (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Eyes of the Insane FAR n/a - Review:
  • Final Fantasy IX FAR n/a - Review:
  • ☒N Final Fantasy Tactics FAR n/a - Review: Too many uncited sentences to use at the moment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
    I see no problem with running an article like this TFA. Most of the uncited is storyline/plot, and the rest can be dealt with on TFA day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • ☒N Herne Bay, Kent FAR n/a - Review: Lead might not fully summarise article, some short paragraphs. Some uncited claims - likely to have been added since FA status. Checklinks shows quite a few broken links
  • checkY Ian Chappell FAR n/a - Review: Looks pretty good. --Dweller (talk) 09:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Suggested date: Birthday is 26 September --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Remove ads

2008

Summarize
Perspective

FAR'd

Remove ads

2009

See logs at WP:FA2009
More information Article, Review (sign and date please) ...
Remove ads

2010

See logs at WP:FA2010
More information Article, Review (sign and date please) ...
Remove ads

2011

See logs at WP:FA2011
More information Article, Review (sign and date please) ...
Remove ads

2008

See logs at WP:FA2008
More information Article, Review (sign and date please) ...
Remove ads
Loading related searches...

Wikiwand - on

Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.

Remove ads