Wikipedia:Featured article review/Vampire/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 6:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC) [1].
Vampire[edit]
- Notified: Casliber, WikiProject Bulgaria, WikiProject Christianity, WikiProject Death, WikiProject Eastern Europe, WikiProject Folklore, WikiProject Horror, WikiProject Occult, WikiProject Romania, WikiProject Serbia, WikiProject Skepticism, 2021-06-10, 2022-08-07
I am nominating this featured article for review because lots of information has been added to the article since its FAC, and that prose sometimes uses low-quality or unreliable sources. There are also lots of short, stubby paragraphs that should be evaluated. This is an article with high readership, so it would be great if this could be fixed up. FAC nominator has not edited Wikipedia since 2012, but since Cas is a top editor I notified them. Z1720 (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a lot of articles listed above that are not in the article history of Vampire (Vampire: The Masquerade - Redemption/archive1, Vampire lifestyle/archive1). Anyone know how to trim these out? Z1720 (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Darn, I so need Cas at schizophrenia and major depressive disorder, as I keep hoping they can avoid FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok @Z1720: have removed material that is too narrow for article and kept valid updates since its promotion. Main thing now is formatting some references (sigh) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Casliber: I tried tackling some references, but when I went into the wikicode I found a wide variety of reference formatting methods. Some books are listed in References, some have citations in References then are listed in Bibliography. Same goes with journals. Should this be standardised? There are also many reference formatting problems, with missing information and disorganisation. I also am suspicious of some references, like biffbampop.com, Didjaknow: Truly Amazing & Crazy Facts About ... Everything., Die Bestattung in Litauen in der vorgeschichtlichen Zeit (a thesis from 1947) and world-science.net. This is much more than a quick fixer-upper; if sources are kept, the information should be verified if the source was added after its promotion. If it is removed, the information that it is citing will also need to removed or better sources found. This is much more than I am willing to tackle, as I am very busy at the moment and will be even less available later in the week. Z1720 (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The way I have generally done references is that I have the whole citation in the References section, unless it is a book that I've used multiple bits of. In which case I'll have the complete reference in the (what has been renamed on this page) the bibliography section. High traffic articles suffer from frequent additions. Have been busy myself with house moving etc. Will plug onwards with referencing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Casliber: I tried tackling some references, but when I went into the wikicode I found a wide variety of reference formatting methods. Some books are listed in References, some have citations in References then are listed in Bibliography. Same goes with journals. Should this be standardised? There are also many reference formatting problems, with missing information and disorganisation. I also am suspicious of some references, like biffbampop.com, Didjaknow: Truly Amazing & Crazy Facts About ... Everything., Die Bestattung in Litauen in der vorgeschichtlichen Zeit (a thesis from 1947) and world-science.net. This is much more than a quick fixer-upper; if sources are kept, the information should be verified if the source was added after its promotion. If it is removed, the information that it is citing will also need to removed or better sources found. This is much more than I am willing to tackle, as I am very busy at the moment and will be even less available later in the week. Z1720 (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok @Z1720: have removed material that is too narrow for article and kept valid updates since its promotion. Main thing now is formatting some references (sigh) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that work is continuing on this article by Casliber. Z1720 (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Casliber's last series of edits was Oct 11. Is this ready for another review? Z1720 (talk) 12:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay @Z1720: can you see any problems still....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Posting that I've seen this, but I am busy with other tasks so this might get delayed. I have no objections to others reviewing or this article deemed "keep" without my input. Z1720 (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I reviewed the article, made changes, and added ALT text. There's some MOS:SANDWICH concerns and the refs are a little disorganised, but overall I think the article is OK to Keep. Z1720 (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Close w/o FARC, good enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.