Wikipedia:Featured article review

Reviewing featured articles

This page is for the review and improvement of featured articles (FAs) 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.

1. Raise issues at the article's talk page

  • In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Concerned editors should give article watchers 5–7 days to respond to concerns. During this step, articles are not yet listed on this page.

2. 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, and DrKay—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.

3. 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.

The FAR and FARC stages typically last 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:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating an article for FAR

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

  1. No more than one nomination every two weeks.
  2. No more than four nominations on the page at one time, 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

Asperger syndrome

Notified: WP MED. The main contributors are User:Eubulides, who has been gone for 10 years, and SandyGeorgia. Talk page notification 2020-01-16

I am nominating this featured article for review because its main contributor, User:Eubulides, left Wikipedia ten years ago and the article has not been updated significantly since. I am the second contributor, but my contributions were mostly keeping the citations, MOS issues, etc clean, and I have not significantly contributed for more than five years. I have no interest in continuing to maintain the article. No one else has taken on this article, and it is now considerably out of date. I have listed numerous reviews on the talk page that should have been incorporated long ago, and there are many more. The problems with datedness can be seen everywhere, but the Epidemiology section provides the best example. Perusing the few samples of new reviews I listed on talk gives an idea of the amount of update needed. The majority of the article is cited to sources well over ten years old, as no one has kept the article updated since Eubulides left. The talk page notification resulted in zero edits, and zero talk response. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Delist per nom. Research on this condition is ongoing meaning that a dated article cannot satisfy comprehensiveness requirement. I am also surprised by how short it is. Although summary style is used, some sections could stand to go into more detail. buidhe 02:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
    Buidhe, please see FAR instructions, Keep or Delist are not declared in the FAR phase, which is for identifying problems and determining if someone is willing/able to work on them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The condition has been merged into autism spectrum disorder per the APA. Would need to look to see were the ICD are at with things. And update will require a large amount of work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by John M Wolfson

  • I'm surprised at the amount of LEADCITEs. They're certainly not prohibited by any guideline, but modern standard practice in FAs is to not use them.
  • Speaking of citations, there are a couple of paragraphs that end in uncited sentences. I have marked them with CN tags as needed.
  • The "Classification" section might stand to be expanded per DocJames; I'm also not sure it ought to be the first section, but I can go either way with that.
  • The "Causes" and "Mechanism" sections should be merged.

That's all for now. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 22:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Usually I would keep the causes and mechanisms separate. Makes it easier for people to find what they are looking for and maintain due weight. This is an incredibly controversial topic and thus references are even more important. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
@John M Wolfson:, yes, the lead is overcited, but more importantly, it is choppy and unpleasant to read. Here is the lead as it looked when this article was last reviewed for FA standards.
Causes and Mechanism are two different things; no, they should not be merged.
The bigger concerns here are comprehensive and outdatedness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I fixed both of your cn tags. One was an off-topic addition which I removed. The other resulted from paragraphing that chopped one sentence from its source. Both addressed now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 21:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard

Notified: User talk:MartinPoulter

I am nominating this featured article for review because it lacks inline citations (and those that it has are questionable with regard to reliability). It is suffers from weasel words and the prose is sub-standard for a contemporary FA. There were several unstruck valid opposes at the FAC. Graham Beards (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you need to be much more specific about your concerns:
  • What citations do you think are missing?
  • Which do you think are unreliable?
  • What are the weasel words?
  • Which prose do you think is unsatisfactory?
Without more specificity, I'm afraid there's not much for others to go on. Prioryman (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I think a review's a good idea given the age of the article, but it needs to be focused and specific. Prioryman (talk) 13:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I have indicated using the {{fact}} where I think additional citations are needed. With regard to the citations, (which are inconsistently formatted) what makes this, for example, a reliable source; [1]? There are also single sentence paragraphs and the prose flows badly in places. Graham Beards (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I see from the article history that it's had a lot of piecemeal edits over the years, so it's no wonder it's a bit choppy. I'm happy to have a go at fixing the problems you've highlighted; in particular I should be able to supply the citations you suggest.
Regarding the source you mention, I note that it's from a veteran journalist and author who has a particular expertise on Scientology (and his own Wikipedia article). Per WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Ortega certainly counts on both criteria (two books and multiple news articles). Prioryman (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Prioryman. I agree with your comments regarding Ortega - I had not heard of him before. The citations are the main issue IMHO, but the prose does need some attention. Graham Beards (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
OK, I'll have a look at the prose too. I have some skills in that regard. :-) I probably won't be able to do it before the weekend though, due to other commitments. Prioryman (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
You are too modest. :-) There is no rush; this isn't FAC. Best wishes. Graham Beards (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! I've fixed all but one of the citation issues. The next step is to review the prose and see where improvements can be made. Prioryman (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd encourage a hard look at the sources used here. I was put in a position, as Graham Beards mentioned, of promoting over valid opposition because the editor who commented on sources basically disappeared and didn't participate in the discourse. As far as I can tell, the other opposition was over article size, which personally I don't care that much about. Most of the guidance written here about article size is based on research that's both 10+ years old and was of questionable validity even when it was current. --Laser brain (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned to Graham above, I would encourage you to be specific about which sources you see as being problematic, as it becomes a bit of a guessing game otherwise. Prioryman (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't. I'm encouraging specifics from anyone criticizing the sources. --Laser brain (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Big Bang

Notified: WikiProject Astronomy, WikiProject Physics

I am nominating this featured article for review because this was last reviewed for FA status in 2007 and our FA standards have acceleratedly expanded since then. The "Misconceptions" section is a mess and can stand to be better formatted. The "Overview" section, which might not even be needed, has a {{Refimprove}} tag on it; there are also many uncited paragraphs throughout the rest of the article. I raised these concerns on the talk page two weeks ago but little work has been done on the article since then and there was no response on the talk page. This is also a Level 3 Vital Article, making this even more important. Overall, I don't think that this represents Wikipedia's best work, although there isn't anything that can't be reasonably fixed in the course of an FAR. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 22:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@John M Wolfson: Please go ahead and improve the article. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Something that needs fixing is the lack of alt= on the images. This is needed for accessibility. I think that the overall size, number of sections and pictures is fine. But perhaps there could be some more tables, perhaps a Penrose diagram. Perhaps there is a suitable infobox exists for astronomical event, as it is not quite an object. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The image which appears in the lead,
    Timeline of the metric expansion of space, where space, including hypothetical non-observable portions of the universe, is represented at each time by the circular sections. On the left, the dramatic expansion occurs in the inflationary epoch; and at the center, the expansion accelerates (artist's concept; not to scale).
    , is seriously misleading and deficient. No scale is given. The image makes it appear that the expansion suddenly slowed at the end of the inflationary period (which is false) and that the universe is only slightly larger now than it was then (also false). No doubt there are other errors in the details of the image. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:50, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I have removed the "Overview" section and rearranged the content somewhat. However, I noticed that there's a large "Further Reading" list. Such lists are absent in the majority of Featured Articles, as generally speaking a source that belongs in a Further Reading list for most articles should be incorporated into a Featured Article to make the article as comprehensive as possible. There are of course exceptions, and this topic is certainly niche enough to have readings that would make good further reading while being too specialized for a general encyclopedia, but I wonder if someone who knows more about cosmology would be willing to check out these sources and see whether they can be incorporated into the article's prose. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 21:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • What exactly is the Beyond the Big Bang section supposed to talk about? It's title it extremely vague, and its prose is highly convoluted (at least for me, a layman). Is it trying to say hypotheses for the origin of the initial singularity? I'm sure the Misconceptions section could be merged into this one if that's the case   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I believe that it's about the limitations of the model and potential expansions on it (such as eternal inflation, brane cosmology, etc.), but the first paragraph doesn't seem to jibe well with it. I think that the first paragraph can be removed and each of the competing theories can be expanded to each have their own paragraph rather than a bullet point (subject to FRINGE, of course). I disagree that the Misconceptions should be merged into it, but I agree that both sections could stand to be greatly expanded. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 04:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I usually see this subject referred to as "Pre-big-bang cosmology", since it appears to be exploring the extended origins of the big bang event. Praemonitus (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I have e-mailed Sean M. Carroll about this article and asked him to review it for its physics. I doubt that there's much wrong with the article in that respect (my major qualms are rather with presentation and prose), but I think it'd be nice to have a pair of expert eyes on it. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 05:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Looking through the article I noticed that the value of Hubble's constant was given as measured by the WMAP but that no mention was made of the discrepancy between that value and the one provided by the cosmic microwave background as detailed here (admittedly not the best source, but hopefully it's adequate for what I'm saying). I don't think it's that terribly important for the article, but I think some mention of it could be made. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 21:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@ComplexRational, R8R, and Double sharp: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid I may only be of much help for the little bit about Big Bang nucleosynthesis, but I'll give it a look. ^_^ Something that comes to mind immediately is that the section on BBN as evidence comes a bit out of the blue: we have only so far had a brief mention that that happened during the first few minutes, and then we hear about abundances of nuclides all the way up to those minuscule little traces of lithium-7. So I would guess that the organisation needs quite some improvement, if I can spot this on a quick reading of the part I understand the best. Double sharp (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
R8R review

Not the topic I am most competent in, but I think I've got a good mix of more or less generally understanding what's going on and not being an expert in details (I've read a few pop-sci books from authors like Michio Kaku, and I've just recently started to watch videos from Fermilab to refresh my knowledge). I usually strive to make my articles readable for as many people as possible, so I hope I'll be able to provide you a review you'll find useful. But I'm afraid I'll only have enough spare time in a week or so. I hope that is okay.--R8R (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from ComplexRational

I'll drop a few comments, but I may be busy and only focus on areas where I generally have a better understanding of the specific content and jump around between sections (though I will try to keep order within). At first glance, I'm seeing lots of uncited statements and areas where the prose needs work.

Here are a few examples from some sections:

  • Here, and throughout the article, all first- and second-person language (we, our) needs to be eliminated, as do phrases such as "catch up" (note the quotes in the article text). This is not formal or encyclopedic prose.
  • This defines a future horizon, which limits the events in the future that we will be able to influence. – I get a general idea of what this means, but I feel it could be better explained to the layperson and am inclined to ask "why?"
  • though the horizon recedes in space – not entirely clear what this means
  • Even with the hatnote, this could be elaborated upon. Why are horizons so important as suggested in the opening sentence?
Cosmic acceleration
  • a mysterious form of energy known as dark energy, which apparently permeates all of space. – this is uncited and uses language that suggests too much speculation; even though the science is not confirmed, this could be worded in a more encyclopedic way.
  • after numerous billion years of expansion – I'm pretty sure we can replace this with a number, and one that does not connote "numerous"
  • prior to 10−15 seconds or so – minor and easily fixable by itself, but I hope this isn't reflective of informality or prose issues throughout the article
  • Understanding this earliest of eras in the history of the universe is currently one of the greatest unsolved problems in physics. – citation needed
  • I would recommend introducing all individuals and their credentials, so the reader has more context and does not believe arbitrary people are being introduced. English astronomer Fred Hoyle is a good example of this. I could go ahead and make the changes myself, but the prose might still need some adjustment.

I'll post some more comments and look at other sections later on. From this, I see several recurring issues that are workable; I'm not convinced criteria 1a, 1c, and 1d are entirely met. ComplexRational (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: This may or may not apply to your work, but I thought it was appropriate to let you know of this. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 21:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I am actually a condensed matter physicist, but I will try to have a look (can not guuarantee I will understand the details, and in any case I am mostly travelling for the next two days).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@ComplexRational, R8R, Double sharp, and Ymblanter: FAR and FARC work at a much slower pace than FAC. The original nominator/writer of this article is gone, so the question now is if someone wants to take this article on and bring it back to standard. If someone is willing to work on it, the article can hold in the FAR phase as long as work is progressing. If the problems are too great, or if no one is willing to take on the repairs, then our next step is to give the Coordinators an indication to move this to the FARC (removal) phase, by entering a Move to FARC declaration. Then, in the FARC phase, it still has a couple of more weeks, where if repairs don't happen, we !vote to Delist (or Keep if they do). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SandyGeorgia, for clarification. I'm in no hurry; if RL allows, I may even try to patch a few things up myself. My above comments were just short samples of the main issues I believe are present throughout the article, and hopefully a guide for others to chime in. ComplexRational (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm willing to assist bringing the prose up to standard but I'm interested in further commentary on how the article meets 1c and 1d. There, I'm at a complete loss. --Laser brain (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
    • My personal thoughts on that matter are that the sources are currently too primary for my liking; there are probably quite a few secondary sources given that this is the Big Bang we're talking about, so this seems to not live up to 1c as well as it could. This does seem neutral, IMO, although perhaps the "Beyond the Big Bang" section could be looked at by someone with more expertise in cosmology (Dr. Carroll unfortunately never got back to me) to weed out the fringier, although eternal inflation and its competitors are legitimate enough for some discussion there IMO. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 18:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
      • An enumeration of secondary sources that should be consulted is probably the most helpful next step here, if work is in fact to proceed. It would also give us an idea of just how much work is needed, so we could better gauge if it is doable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
        • I'm not an expert in cosmology, but the Further Reading looks like a good place to start. I'll look through that list and narrow it down (or expand it) from there. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 19:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
          • The primary citations to Milne, Tolman, and Zwicky caught my eye but maybe those are appropriate. It seems odd to my untrained eye to speak of three formative works and cite the works themselves rather than a secondary source explaining their relevance. I live in fear of Further Reading sections because sometimes they are lazy receptacles for stuff the author didn't have time to review. --Laser brain (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
            • I initially thought that those citations were appropriate as well, but then I thought and became sure that there had to be some secondary sources that mentioned the discredited rivals. I agree that Further Reading sections tend to be anathema to FA status as I've said above, though perhaps it might be appropriate in this complex area. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 19:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Conversely, because space is expanding, and more distant objects are receding ever more quickly, light emitted by us today may never "catch up" to very distant objects. I think it's important to note here that the expansion of space alone is insufficient for this to be true; if space were expanding at a constant (even superluminal) rate light would still theoretically eventually reach us due to something similar to the ant on a rubber rope. The expansion is accelerating, hence why this is true. I don't have an authoritative source on that, but I think it should be added when one is found. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 08:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    Perhaps it is better to keep specific text suggestions at the talk page of the article, and focus here on giving the Coords information about whether to move to FARC, work is ongoing, what work is still needed, etc. Otherwise, this review is going to grow extremely large. We have enough indications now that there are problems; resolving those problems can move to article talk, with periodic updates here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    Fair enough, I just didn't want to add unsourced material, and I didn't think enough people were looking at the talk page, although they probably are now. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 18:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

List of possible secondary sources

  • Barrow, John D. (1994). The Origin of the Universe. Science Masters. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 978-0-297-81497-9. LCCN 94006343. OCLC 490957073. – This looks like a decent work, but it predates the 1998 discovery of dark energy that is present in our Universe so should be treated with caution in that respect.
  • Weinberg, Steven (2008). Cosmology. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-852682-7. – A more modern textbook from a Nobel laureate.
  • Greene, Brian (2011). The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos. ISBN 978-0307278128. – A speculative work from a string theorist, but I think it is authoritative enough for the "Beyond the Big Bang" section on eternal inflation, etc..
  • This is not at all exhaustive, there's also Physical cosmology#Textbooks.

John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 19:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

    • All of these are quite old. I limited my search at Google Scholar to 2016 oldest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
      • I tended to look for more general books rather than sources like journals; the book sources I think are more appropriate for the basics (expanding space, the history of the theory, etc.), while journal articles should be used for cutting edge things like eternal inflation and string theory. This is of course not a strict dichotomy, but I think the sources given are still adequate and authoritative. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 19:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • This is well-cited by other works according to Google Scholar: Calcagni
  • Cited by 500 according to Google Scholar: Cyburt
  • Another highly-cited article according to Google Scholar: Freedman

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I can get Calcagni from the local university library. --Laser brain (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates

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

Original: Original: