Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/March 2014

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed. Dana boomer (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sertraline

Review commentary

Notified: Paul gene, WikiProject Medicine

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is full of primary sources which contradict secondary ones. This is against

• Delist. In defence of the editors: when the article reached FA status (2008),
  WP:MEDRS did not place such emphasis on the use of secondary sources. This was also an issue for "Lung cancer", which was promoted in 2007—it took me three months to remove/replace the primary sources in 2012. If the main authors of "Sertraline" are not going to remove the primary sources, I could do this. In the meantime, the article should be delisted. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delist, per "Nevertheless, a considerable body of later research established it as one of the drugs of choice for the treatment of depression in outpatients. Sertraline is effective for both severe depression [14]" and it's reference. For such a considerable body of research supporting this hypothesis, there is one randomized controlled trial linked. It may or may not be a true claim, but how do we know without secondary sources confirming it? --—Cyclonenim | Chat  15:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Agree, requirements for FA have increased a lot of 2007/2008.
  talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I'm not going to have time to rework this one. Or the motivation either, really, since until bupropion it's a totally generic SSRI. Looie496 (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have already trimmed more than 30,000 bytes of text and there is a lot more needed. This article more or less needs a rewrite to update it to secondary sources and to current sources. Happy to give people a couple of weeks.

talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section focus mainly on referencing. Dana boomer (talk) 13:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delist Still needs lots of work.
  talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delist. There are still many primary sources. The list of adverse effects is unwieldy. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed. Dana boomer (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Chan

Review commentary

Notified: soangry, quebec99, zzuuzz, Ohconfucius, WikiProject Film, WikiProject China, WikiProject Hong Kong

This "featured" article may no longer qualify as "Featured". Some statements are either unverifiable or poorly sourced. Unreliable sources, like IMDB, is used. Some sources are dead. I would be concerned about contentious material used in BLP, but I'm unsure which is contentious. It could be the illegitimate affair, but it is presented without undue weight. It could be the Controvery section, but I'm very uncertain. The introduction may have inadequately summarized the article because it was probably written at the time of Promotion in 2007. To make matters more difficult, this article requires a lot of effort to make it stay Featured, and some contributors are inactive. I would be proposing a demotion right away, but I can't at the Fixing stage. I would love to cite challenging facts, but I would focus only on Awards and nominations, not elsewhere. George Ho (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, almost forgot: I did ask whether there are article issues, and I haven't seen replies. George Ho (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the two dead links by adding archiveurls. GoingBatty (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• GoingBatty,@George Ho:I've performed a substantial excision of dubious and crufty material. Reading through the refs to verify if the article accurately reflects sources would probably be the next step, adding appropriate tags where there needs fixing. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a go at this page. What do you want addressed in the awards? Citations added? Unsourced awards removed? Both? CammieD (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove awards yet; I'm sure that awards exist. Citation should do. George Ho (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi George - I started building a separate awards page for Jackie Chan based on the same for Arnold Schwarzenegger. I nicked the wikitables code from Arnold's page and am modifying it for Chan's awards. It is on my Sandbox, which I think you can see? If you have a moment to look, and can see it, let me know if you like what I'm doing? It's only half way done so far. Thanks CammieD (talk) 04:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include sourcing, comprehensiveness and MOS compliance. Dana boomer (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delist. Sourcing (citation tags) and prose (strange and unclear phrases such as "When he was 9 and 16 years of age he lived in Thailand for a short time").
  talk) 19:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delist - Per its sourcing issues. GamerPro64 17:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed. Dana boomer (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rus' Khaganate

Review commentary

Notified:

User:Dbachmann, User:Staszek Lem, and User:Lvivske

I firmly believe that this article fails 1.b, 1.c, and 1.d, and currently 1.e Chaosdruid (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

The

featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include referencing and comprehensiveness. Dana boomer (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Pinging

talk) 17:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• With regards to #2, the date range on the infobox is citing Magocsi, who is a super-expert on this and not some 10th century source, so use him as reference to the formation and dissolution dates. --Львівське (говорити) 18:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a little confusing, 2 refers not to the dates of formation and dissoluton, but to the dates of the so-called primary contempoorary material. Material written 60-100 years after the events, and speaking in the present tense, cannot be relied upon for information on a possible khaganate existing 60 years beforehand. In particular, Ibn Fadlan () and Hudud al-'Alam (The Regions of the World). There do appear to be contemporary sources from the table in the site you posted:

I. Khurdādhbih

first draft 232/846

second ,, 272/885

Sulaymān

written down 237/851

completed by Abū Zayd 304/916

Ya'qūbī, Geography 278/891

Perhaps these can be considered primary, though Sulayman was completed 50 years later and by a different author. I would also consider Ibn Rustah primary, as he was contemporary and died around 890 AD.

As for the dates used, we are using more than one source, as we should - we are using David Christian and Paul Magosci. There is no such thing as a super expert in this case as there is so little evidence from the time, and so little about it is know, mostly it is speculation between larger known truths. Of the sources, they are from a time period after the events which is so far apart as to mean they cannot be relied upon to reflect the time period we need - more importantly it is Magosci who is proposing the term "Rus Khaganate", and pushing it as a truth. Magosci is the one trying to convince the world that the state existed, yet with no supporting material that I have seen as yet. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it is not only Magocsi, as Nicholas V. Riasanovsky & Mark D. Steinberg speak of the Russian khakanate or Khakan-Rus. (When I called him a 'superexpert', I was kidding obviously, I just hold his work in high esteem) --Львівське (говорити) 01:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Please notice that since the start of this review I heavily edited the intro to stress the hypothetical character of the polity.

At the same time, the article notably lacks the criticism of the concept. Yes, some controversy is described, but it is more about disagreements in detail: it was located there or yonder, it existed then or before, etc. All refs are from the proponents of the concept (or primary sources) and none from the opponents. Why is that? Multiple-choice hint: (a) all experts agree (b) nobody but the proponents care about a fringe theory (c) wikipedians-in-charge are biased or non-diligent to dig for opposite opinions.

talk) 21:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

If the whole theory to be transferred to North America, one can easily invent "American Chieftainate" among American Indians and write big sections about religion, customs, economy, etc., of the "Chieftainate": it is pretty obvious that wherever people live, they would have cutoms, religion, and the leader were surely known by some indigenous or borrowed term. So the recipe is simple: postulate that "Chieftainlate" existed, and then pile up all data into its article. Well, South America had empires, North America did not, big deal. But the Russians are itching to have a claim for an ancient civilization. Again, no big deal, but this itch must be described from a proper angle, and the article may be featured. After all,

talk) 21:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

User:Chaosdruid, User:Lvivske, User:Staszek Lem, and anyone else who's interested, could we get some final comments on whether this article should be kept or delisted from FA? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Demote to GA - Since the criticism (both here and in article talk page) was not addressed; in fact, nobody bothers to edit the article at all. Over its life several people expressed concern. Each time the reply was basically shrugging off. The article has good chances to restore its FA status, if somebody would like to work out the listed issues in a non-dismissive way. I checked google quickly and find the article FA-salvageable, if approached without attitude.
  talk) 18:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Demote to C class

While I am prepared to work on the article, I have tried to leave it to the interested editors to fix it thus far. Some work has been done, but collaboration has proved impossible. Indeed, Staszak Lem has proved to be possibly the only other editor prepared to work on this, though his comment "if approached without attitude" hints at the loggerhead situation that could easily arise after his refactoring of the talk page, and his accusations of someone having "an attitude".

The article is contentious, will probably go through some period of readjustment and editing, and needs a lot of work to provide refs and reliability needed for anything above a C class. I do not see that happening quickly due to the problems of sourcing refs and info on the subject. It is also a neologism, relies on primary sources not from the time period in the article and has a very POV set of edits from a small number of editors. I consider it as failing GAC on 2b, 2c, 3a & 4.

Many of the issues I raised were there when it was a GA, and it is radically different now. There is also the issue of demotion from GA with regard to GAR/GAC - "Accordingly, demoted featured articles are not automatically graded as good articles and must be reassessed for quality."

The major issue here is that the subject has no refs to show it even existed, only that their leader was given the title "Khagan" in Arabic texts - Khan/Khagan means "leader of the empire" and so would be written like this in an Arabic book as that is their word for "ruler of the empire", be it the ruler of their empire or of the Rus'. This leaves us with the problem that simply being called king does not make one's kingdom so. With no primary or secondary evidence to support the existence of a khaganate, and with some sources being completed over a hundred years after the "khaganate" had been superseded.

"The Secret History of the Mongols, written for that very dynasty, clearly distinguishes Khagan and Khan: only Genghis and his ruling descendants are called Khagan, while other rulers are referred to as Khan. Khagan or Khaan refers to Emperor or King in the Mongolian language, however, Yekhe Khagan means Great Khagan or Grand Emperor."

With this difficulty in achieving consensus and action, I have to go with recommending a C class. If work is done to strip out the factual discrepancies, rebuild POVless text, complete info from primary sources/secondary sources, I can see it getting through and GA or FA easily. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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