Wikipedia:Featured article review

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 director, Raul654, or his delegates Dana boomer and Nikkimaria, 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 director or his delegates 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. Older reviews are stored in the archive. A bot will update the article talk page after the review is closed and moved to archives; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAR}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{articlehistory}}. Table of Contents – This page: , Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured sounds Featured portals Featured topics Featured article tools: Featured article criteria Featured article candidates Featured article review Today's featured article This month's queue Main page requests Today's featured article statistics Most viewed today's featured articles Featured article log Featured article statistics Former featured articles Related pages: Good articles Good topics

Nominating an article for FAR Nominators are strongly encouraged to assist in the process of improvement; they may post only one nomination at a time, 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. 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. Place {{subst:FAR}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article. Write "FAR listing" in the edit summary box. Click on "Save page". From the FAR template, click on the red "initiate the review" link. You will see pre-loaded information; please leave that text. 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 "Save page". 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 "Save page". 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 article stats script), 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

Free will

Notified: Edhubbard, LoveMonkey, Peterdjones, Lacatosias, WP Philosophy, WP Neuroscience, WP Religion

Unfortunately, the quality of this article has deteriorated over the years, to the point where a FAR is needed. Some specific thoughts:

• The biggest issue is the lack of referencing. There are two citation needed tags, but these do no illustrate the whole of the issue. In the In Eastern philosophy section, for example, the last two paragraphs of the In Hindu philosophy section are unreferenced and the end of the first paragraph and all of the last two paragraphs of the In Buddhist philosophy section are unreferenced. This is repeated throughout the article.
• Expand tag on the Hard determinism section.
• Numerous book references lacking page numbers.
• Clarification needed tag in Compatibilism section.
• Prose needs some work. First and second person language (we, our, etc.) is used throughout the article when third person should be employed instead. Contractions (doesn't, won't) are used in the body of the article outside of quotes. A mix of British and American English is used (I saw both behavior and behaviour, for instance).
• The See also section is quite long and could use a trim.
• Why is it "In western philosophy" and then "In Eastern philosophy" (capitalization)?

The referencing (or lack thereof) is currently the biggest issue. An examination of the layout, coverage and prose will be easier to undertake once the referencing work is completed, since content sometimes changes significantly when major referencing work is done. Dana boomer (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Night of the Living Dead

Notified: Dmoon1, DrJohnnyDiablo, WikiProject Horror, WikiProject Film

This article uses IMDB as references, yet IMDB is a self-published source. Keith Wayne is claimed to commit suicide as a result of death, but I could not find one reliable source in Google. Nevertheless, suicide is possible. Also, is the information about the cast intricate or necessary? I still don't know which other issues this article has, but the entry looks well-written, and citations look well-stylized. --George Ho (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The cast information I believe works, but the section should be trimmed to only include entries with actual information—not to just simply list roles. IMDB should be avoided entirely, but I doubt any information sourced to it needs to be, as this is a well-known film and that information should be available elsewhere. Looking at it, though, a lot of that information is unnecessary. Judith O'Dea's filmography is irrelevant to the article, after all. I think this could be retained with a little work, and I'm prepared to go through the sources and find better ones within the next few days. GRAPPLE X 02:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Night_of_the_Living_Dead&action=historysubmit&diff=473655580&oldid=473089332 --George Ho (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Here's my take:
  • Several of the refs are malformatted, with <greater than and less than signs> around the links or [1]s for the links.
  • What makes Homepage of the Dead a reliable source?
  • Most of the revision section is full of red links. These should be combed over — I'm not sure how many, if any, are relevant.
  • The Revision section also contains citations to Facebook, YouTube and Amazon that need to be removed.
  • What makes House of Horrors a reliable source?
  • What makes Films 101 a reliable source?

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I seem to recall pointing this out to you before, TPH; red links are not a valid reason to oppose a FAC or delist a FAR. If you can show that this article is incomprehensible or not comprehensive because of some missing information, then the red links might be relevant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Azerbaijani people

Notified: User talk:Khoikhoi, User talk:Parishan, User talk:Lysozym, User talk:Grandmaster, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Azerbaijan, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups; User:Tombseye inactive

I need help on this article. It fails criteria 1a, 1c, 2 and 3. As of this version:

• 1a: Prose. In the lead alone examples of prose include: "have a various other heritages including Turkic, Iranic[38] in addition of indigenous Caucasians." and "Azerbaijanis are the Indigenous small-numbered people of the Republic of Dagestan". Repetition includes "Russia (Dagestan)" and "Dagestan (Russia)" and "international border since the treaties of Gulistan (1813) and Turkmenchay (1828), after which Iran lost its then northern territories to Russia" and "the treaties of Gulistan in 1813 and Turkmenchay in 1828 finalized the borders with Russia and Iran".
• 1c: Reliability: Citation needed tags; dead links; potentially unreliable sources such as everyculture.com and lawru.info
• 2: Blockquotes formatted as pullquotes. Inconsistently formatted citations.
• 3: Thorough media review is needed. Copyrighted images without fair use rationales are used in the lead composite image. Two images were recently deleted as copyright violations[1][2]

It is unclear whether concerns over 1d (bias) and 1e (stability), are resolved.[3][4] DrKiernan (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The lead composite image issue is easy to solve. A year ago, there was a nice fair-use image above the infobox, which in my opinion, looked a lot better than a collection of barely visible images, where some, as it turns out now, even lack a fair use rationale. Parishan (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

That image is still in the article, below the infobox at the top of the "Part of a series" template. DrKiernan (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I'm the one who initially posted the notification to the talk page (back in late December), and unfortunately nothing has been done to address the concerns I brought up in that notification. Besides the obvious (tagged) issues with dead links, citations needing page numbers and places needing references, there are also unreliable sources (some examples mentioned above by DrKiernan, but there are others), poorly/inconsistently formatted references and poor compliance with MOS (including issues with image sandwiching and quote formatting). Also agree with the prose and image licensing issues brought up by DrKiernan. Dana boomer (talk) 03:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment—A bit of a problem with 3. The infobox is too thick due to the number of pictures. It probably should only have at most four columns. --Article editor (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I've reduced it by one column for the moment by removing the files with the least solid licensing information; it could be further trimmed by removing the next 5 least reliable files or 5 files with the least licensing information (missing sources; broken sources; etc). DrKiernan (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've copy-edited, spot-checked, and thinned out the images. The article is no longer tagged with any clean up tags, and there have been no complaints or comments about bias or any edit-warring during my edits. DrKiernan (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Wow, that looks a lot better - nice work! A few more thoughts:

• What makes refs #4, 14 (LookLex) a HQRS?
• What makes refs #58, 60 (Iran Chamber Society) a HQRS? Also, the publisher should be formatted consistently between these two.
• Ref #35 is supposedly to Encyclopedia Iranica, but upon going to the reference it's a completely different website (and in a different language, so I don't know who the publisher is/what the content is).
• Refs need to be checked for consistent formatting. Some use a note:page number format (for example [6]:113[54]:285), while others include the page number in the note itself.
• Image licensing needs to be checked more closely. For example, File:Azeri 1900.PNG uses a author life+70 tag, but the author is unknown, File:Sattar Khan.jpg has the same issue (tag based on author lifespan, but we don't know the author). I didn't check any of the images in the lead composite, and I am also not an image expert, so I may have missed things on the other images in the article.

• I haven't taken a thorough look at prose yet, but from a quick glance it's looking a lot better. Dana boomer (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking a look. I've just chopped those five sources: two can be replaced and three are just extra sources for statements already supported by other cites. The page numbers in the footnotes are for sources that are used once; whereas for sources used multiple times the page numbers are by the identifier. I don't know why this format was used, probably accident more than anything, but I just kept it the same. I think for Sattar Khan, we're using the second half of the license: 30 years after publication? (But there's no proof of publication either I guess..hmmn..I'll think on that.) I've changed the tag on Azeri 1900. DrKiernan (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry for taking a bit to get back to this, and my apologies for putting my review up in pieces... I've had a read through the article and just have a few more comments:

• The paragraph starting "Brief independence for northern Azerbaijan in 1918–1920..." could probably use a reference, just for safety's sake.
• The paragraph starting "Azerbaijan and Iranian Azerbaijan have developed distinct institutions..." could use a reference.

• Once these two things are taken care of, I think should article should be good to go. Prose looks good. Dana boomer (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2012 (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.

Mysore

Review commentary

Notified: Amarrg, Dineshkannambadi, IMpbt, Abhishek19288, Wikiproject India, WikiProject Cities, WP Karnataka

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has been over 4 years since this article was featured and drastic changes in FAC have been brought about in the interim period Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 16:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I had a quick glance and found the following issues with the article

• The lead does not summarize the civic administration, Demographics, Business and Economy, Education and Media sections.
• There are large chunks of unsourced texts, particularly, the first paragraph of "History" section, the first paragraph of "Business and Economy" section, the last paragraph of "Education" section, the last paragraph of "Tourism" section and whole of the section on "Information Technology".-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 16:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I have requested that the nominator complete the notifications of involved projects. Dana boomer (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Since Dinesh is long gone, notifications to WikiProjects listed on the article talk page are needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Move to FARC with a problematic note: nothing whatsoever has been done to improve the deficiencies since this nomination was listed, so it should Move to FARC. However, it was once considered an abuse of FAR process to overtax editors working in a particular area, and it was customary to avoid having multiple FARs in the same area up at the same time, since that pretty much guarantees editors who work in that area won't be able to respond. There are currently THREE Indian city FARs on the page. Bad practice; in the future, nominators should be encouraged to wait a few weeks if editors in a given area are already hard at work on saving one star. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Comment One thing was done, 8 days after the nomination the appropriate wikiproject was notified.
  • It's very difficult to edit articles on South Asia on en.wiki. It's probably safest (as in least likely to send packing editors with knowledge of South Asia) to demote it.
  • I was able to easily fix some listed problems on today's main page article, Vijayanagara Empire. The only hard part was finding the prior editor's incorrect fixes. How many editors can make those fixes quickly? I'm okay with referencing things, but I often need titles translated to add the references, and other editors are very impatient. I work full time. I can't fix a major article in 5 days. This requires library research, not on-line research. Last time I spent the time to check out books, I got dissed before I could add the sources.
  • Kolkata, Chennai, Mysore are unlikely to tax the same group of editors, though. Pseudofusulina (talk) 06:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include references and MOS compliance (specifically WP:LEAD). Dana boomer (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Katie Holmes

Review commentary

Notified: Users: (the only three that edited the article in the past year) Nymf, Malkinann, MarionFrazier. Projects: Ohio, Actors and Filmmakers, Scientology, Religion, United States.

Article was promoted in 2006. Talk page notice was given in September 2011. Work was performed in the interim but there are still issues present.

• 1a Many areas of the article have the "In .... and on..." disease and are list-like in their appearance as single sentences. The phrase enchanted the press is a bit of glowing narrative but also the cherry picked quotes of praise are quite noticeable. The addition of material since the article passed FAC in 2006 has been inserted without considering the flow of the article.
• 1c There are maintenance tags present, factual accuracy, dead links, not in citation given, update and others. Are mainstream entertainment publications considered "high-quality" sources?
• 2a Lede needs to be more comprehensive in explaining the article contents. It's short and outdated presently.
• 2b I don't understand the purpose of the bibliography and further reading sections. They contain articles that are already listed in the citations for the most part.
• 2c Uniformity, uniformity. There is a mixture of mdy and ymd dates; it should be one or the other. Some publication names are not italicized. Please update the retrieved on dates.
• Reduce wikilinking wherever possible. Brad (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Move to FARC, maintenance tags, yet no work on the article since it was nominated here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include references, MOS compliance and prose. Dana boomer (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Scotland in the High Middle Ages

Review commentary

Notified Users: Deacon of Pndapetzim, and GermanJoe. No other editors have edited the article since 2009. Notified Projects: Middle Ages, Scotland, and Medieval Scotland.

Talk page notice was made in December 2010 and seconded in January 2011. Some minor work was performed in September 2011 yet the major issues remain.

• 1a There is a narrative and essay-ish tone of writing throughout the article.
• 1c The source quality appears fine. Throughout the article there are unreferenced paragraphs. The first section on "Historiography" appears to be original research based on the lack of supporting sources. Overall the citations in the article have not changed much since article promotion in 2006. Some of the citations are in the spirit of "see also" pointing towards other WP articles.
• 2c Work needed here for missing page numbers and uniformity and the presence of some ibids.
• 3 Will check upon photo cleanup.
• Mos Work is needed with MOS:IMAGES in order to prevent crowding. Several photos and block quotes or boxes are crashing into each other and pinching text. Brad (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• There are some issues. On sourcing, the are whole sections (e.g. Ecclesia Scoticana) without any references, and some where the only source is the reference for the quote (e.g. Geography). It feels resolvable with a bit of work. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Taking a wiki-break due to some recent problems with reviewing, but some minor additional comments:

• Agree with Brads analysis, i tried to tweak some of the most obvious "essay" parts in September, but a complete thorough recheck of the whole text is needed.
• The article f.e. uses 12 times "perhaps"-statements, most of those should be completely removed. If an important fact is still in discussion, more background would need to be provided (why is the fact in question? who is the most prominent supporter? what are opposing views?...). Somewhat vague information can't be avoided completely in a history article, but should be trimmed down where possible.
• The Christianity section is of course an important part of this period, but appears too detailed. Parts like the poem or the list of bishops would fit better in the specialized sub-article.
• The value and relevance of the modern jousting image for overall Scottish military is debatable.

Despite the very good and interesting content, the article fails FA criteria with the current style, missing sources and MOS problems. GermanJoe (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Without samples, this is unacceptable for a FAR nomination:

*1a There is a narrative and essay-ish tone of writing throughout the article.

So, if someone can document what issues there are, and examine whether anyone is working here, that will inform decisions about whether to move this to the FARC phase. This nomination is two weeks old, and no one has done that work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Quick samples of unencyclopedic tone and other prose issues:

• "G.W.S. Barrow, who has devoted his life to studying"
• "there is nothing special about his reign"
• "It was Máel Coluim III, not his father Donnchad, who did more to create the dynasty that ruled Scotland for the following two centuries, successfully compared to some. Part of the resource was the large number of children he had, perhaps as many as a dozen" - grammar, lacks clarity
• "As long as one remembers the continuities, the period can also be regarded as one of great historical transformation"
• "The MacWilliams appear to have rebelled for no less a reason than the Scottish throne itself"
• "There is a lot of evidence that the native Scots favoured pastoralism, in that Gaelic lords were happier to give away more land"
• "Cattle, pigs and cheeses were among the most produced foodstuffs,[41] but of course a vast range of foodstuffs were produced"

These in combination with the MOS and sourcing problems suggest that a move to FARC is appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The image and prose issues should not be impossible to address. I have had a quick look at the sourcing issues and whilst I lack many of the sources themselves the problems don't seem as a difficult to address as I originally feared. I will start this at the weekend Insha'Allah. Of more concern to me is that the focus is very much on the development of the "Origins of the Kingdom of Alba" at the expense of other pertinent issues. To a degree this is editorial choice, but it might take quite a bit of work to incorporate some of the subject matter I think is missing. Ben MacDui 08:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include references, prose and images. Dana boomer (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The Relapse

Review commentary

Notified: Bishonen (no other editors have over 13 edits to article since 2006) Projects: Theatre and Books.

Article was promoted in 2005. Notices about the lack of citations were given in 2008 and 2009 but little has been accomplished. The first page of the article history goes back to 2006, for example.

• 1a The article reads like a review of The Relapse and it has many peacock terms and weasel words. Some examples:

• This unusual document is signed by nine men and six women, all established professional actors, and details a disreputable jumble of secret investments and "farmed" shares, making the case that owner chicanery rather than any failure of audience interest was at the root of the company's financial problems.
• Following the surprising success of this young cast, Vanbrugh and Rich had even greater difficulty in retaining the actors needed for The Relapse.
• John Verbruggen was one of the original rebels and had been offered a share in the actors' company, but became disgruntled when his wife Susanna, a popular comedienne, was not. For Rich, it was a stroke of luck to get Susanna and John back into his depleted and unskilled troupe.

• 1c Overall lack of citations throughout the article. I'm not familiar enough with the article subject but of the sources that are listed, they appear to be acceptable. I'm aware that "plot" sections are not normally cited therefore that section would be exempt.
• 2c The citations that are in place make little sense to me. Page numbers are missing and several of them only point to a "see also" type of reference.
• The above three issues are the most important. If serious work begins then further review will be warranted. Brad (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding 1a: I think you misunderstand the purpose of WP:PEACOCK. When talking about the subject of an article, terms like "unusual", "established professional", "surprising success", "popular comedienne" are often inappropriate. That is not because such expressions are bad per se but because when applied to the subject, they are either relevant and should be explained in greater detail using the principle Show, don't tell, or they are not relevant or even false and should be omitted. That's why {{peacock}}, which you have put on the article, says the following: "This article may contain wording that merely promotes the subject without imparting verifiable information. Please remove or replace such wording, unless you can cite independent sources that support the characterization." (The italics are mine.) Moreover, many of the "peacock" terms can be accurate description rather than puffery, depending on context. Let's look at your three examples in detail. I will make my best effort to guess which words you are actually objecting to.

• There is no harm in pointing out that a document is "unusual" if that is the case. For all I know, many documents similar to the one described in the article may have survived from the era. This is a question of verifiability, not style.
• That the signatories are "established professional actors" is a verifiable or falsifiable (or borderline) claim, and relevant in this context.
• That Vanbrugh's previous play, Love's Last Shift was a "surprising success has a precise meaning that is obvious from context: He lost all his experienced actors, had to write something for the unexperienced troupe that remained, and to his surprise it became a success anyway. This created even greater problems for the cast of the play that this article is about.
• Whether Verbruggen's wife was a "popular comedienne" herself, rather than an insignificant one, is absolutely relevant for understanding why he was pissed when she wasn't offered a share. There is no problem with pointing this out unless it's false. Describing her career in great detail ("Within 5 years, the Times printed 12 letters to the editor that praised her for her breeches roles." -- completely made up example) would be totally inappropriate here. This kind of information must be summarised, and sometimes an accurate summary looks like a peacock description.
• You also included the "stroke of luck" sentence. Unless you are also including negative descriptions under "peacock", I just can't see how anything in this sentence could fit. Hans Adler 18:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Hans, very good points. None of the "peacock" (?) terms which Brad exemplifies represent my own opinion; nothing in the article does. To start with Susanna Verbruggen, that Brad quotes me as promoting (? is that it?) and via her, start with the actor information generally: when I FAC'd the article way back in the dawn of time, I first wrote more-or-less short articles on all the actors involved, I think. (Well, Thomas Betterton already existed.) Even though these actors were mostly established and highly regarded at the time, actors were barely respectable as a class, and therefore little verifiable information about them has survived. What we do know about them is summarised, and of course fully cited, in the standard work Highfill, Philip Jr, Burnim, Kalman A., and Langhans, Edward (1973–93), Biographical Dictionary of Actors, Actresses, Musicians, Dancers, Managers and Other Stage Personnel in London, 1660–1800, see my "References" section. Thus, I based the article Susanna Verbruggen on the entry "Susanna Verbruggen" in the Biographical Dictionary, and linked to it from "The Relapse", and so with the other actors. (Btw, per MLA, and per common sense, I haven't given page references to entries in an alphabetical dictionary.) I couldn't very well repeat all about her, about John Verbruggen, George Powell, and so on, here; The Relapse is long enough as it is. It's supposed to be in summary style, per FA criterion 4. If you click on the link to Susanna's own article, you'll get the details of how and why she was a "popular comedienne". Though to know I wasn't making stuff up in that article, I guess you'd have to go to a library, probably a first-class academic library, and check the Biographical Dictionary. I'm well aware that that's not realistic for most people, but you just can't get this stuff from webpages. (If you're affiliated with "NC State Unity Users" or "NC State Library Patrons" you can supposedly access the dictionary via prox.lib.ncsu.edu as an online library resource, in case anybody out there is in this fortunate position.[5])

I was green in some respects when I wrote the piece. I guess I must have thought that even without noticing the links to the individual actor bios, it would be sort of obvious to anybody who read the "References" section that the Biographical Dictionary was the origin of all the individual actor information. (My listing for it does say "All details about individual actors are taken from this standard work unless otherwise indicated".) But with more wiki-experience I realise that looking at that section might be a too roundabout, or unfamiliar, procedure for the average reader. What do you think, Brad, would it help if I put a main article template on top of the "Casting" section, which referred to all the relevant actor bios?

As for your other two examples, "This unusual document is signed by nine men and six women, all established professional actors, and details a disreputable jumble of secret investments and "farmed" shares, making the case that owner chicanery rather than any failure of audience interest was at the root of the company's financial problems, and Following the surprising success of this young cast, Vanbrugh and Rich had even greater difficulty in retaining the actors needed for The Relapse, as well as all the other specifics of the breakaway of the established actors from Rich's "Patent Company", come from Milhous, Judith (1979), Thomas Betterton and the Management of Lincoln's Inn Fields 1695–1708, as detailed in the current footnote 4. That rather elaborate note is supposed to be a citation for the entire five-line paragraph it's placed after, which includes the "Following the surprising success" sentence you use as an example above. Perhaps that wasn't clear. I should probably put in specific page references to Milhous here and there, as is current practice, and I will if I can face it; but I don't think I'll ever literally footnote every sentence.

You know, if anything, I've downplayed the colourfulness of my sources at every opportunity. The unusual document mentioned was not only unusual but bloody unique, and there are very interesting reasons why the actors, for once, and against all the normal social odds of the period, dared sign such a frank... but never mind, I digress. It's all in Milhous, but it can't all go in this article. It's only about The Relapse, with a summary bit of background to how it came to be written the way it was. Perhaps not summary enough, is my own feeling.

More later. Bishonen | talk 23:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC).

This is a lot of tl;dr and arguing the meaning of terms. The prose in this article is not encyclopedic style and I did my best to describe why. A related independent observation at Talk:Restoration_spectacular#Featured_article_concerns points out the same problem even though I made no mention of prose. I'd welcome the same independent observation here as well. Read words to watch per MoS. Brad (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

That the prose here is "not encyclopedic style" is your personal opinion. It is not typical Wikipedia style, but that's simply because the vast majority of editors cannot write half as well as Bishonen and would create a huge, unreadable mess if they tried to, and because many articles were written peacemeal by a large number of editors plagiarising from who knows where, adding ungrammatical sentences, and then trying to somehow turn the result into something that makes sense without properly rewriting anything. Wikipedia does not and should not have rules against good style. The "independent observation" you are relying on is from an account that was blocked as a sock after 4 edits, together with 3 other accounts. [6] Hans Adler 23:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

My first time at FAR, but the above asks for independent observations. I defer to those more experienced regarding citations, etc., but I think the fact that the prose of the article is engaging and colourful is to be celebrated. Our concept of encyclopaedic style is pretty broad and I hope that doesn't mean all of our articles need to be dry as dust. While the tolerance levels for authorial colour may necessarily be restricted for BLP's and the like, surely there is no harm in it in this context. So I'm left a bit scratching my head at the claim that this FA suffers from "peacock words" or "reads like a review" - seems to me it gets into the spirit of things and therefore makes a subject that might otherwise be dull for the random reader quite engaging. (An extreme case of this is Eats, Shoots & Leaves). Let's encourage and celebrate articles written like this one rather than pushing them to "conform". Martinp (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, Martin, thank you. I only just saw your comment; I'll proceed to do what I came here for; post a reply to Brad101. Bishonen | talk 20:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC).

• @Brad101. I was sure your nomination was made in good faith, and I responded in the same spirit, Brad, trying to address what I though your major concern: the shortage of inline citation, which I agree about. And I undertook to return to the other concerns later. You have given your opinion of my response — "a lot of tl;dr and arguing the meaning of terms" — but haven't addressed any of it. If you'd got a bit farther than you did in reading it, you'd have seen me acknowledging that inline cites are needed, and proposing to add them for Milhous, the source for most of the longer sections. And you might have seen me ask a direct question, namely if you thought adding "Main article" templates would help some concerns. None of that worth a glance, let alone imparting advice on?

You don't often see tl;dr in civil wiki society. Not unless somebody has been wearing out your patience with a lot of irrelevant ramblings. Why do you speak to me like that, Brad? Am I personally offensive to you in some way? Do we have some disagreeble history (I can't remember any) or did I talk too academically above, and it sounded conceited? I don't think I come off as the uni professor in most of my wikipedia communication, but "The Relapse" is a sort of academic article, so there's bound to be a touch of that when I discuss concerns over it, especially in matters of referencing and verifiability. Those are also matters that inevitably do run long, see all over FAC. Or was it the "if I can face it"? That was a personal confession that I hate returning to old articles. I do understand that that can be necessary, and was prepared to do it to keep a FA in trim for the sake of the encyclopedia, but it's just.. it's boring. I have a threshold of reluctance to climb. :-( Don't know if that's universal, or just me.

I can't see where I argued the meaning of any terms, perhaps you'd like to specify. My response to your nomination took me a long time to write, and of course I'm now sorry I wasted that time. If it needs saying, I won't actually be returning to this page to address any more of your points. (But I will probably post on Talk:The Relapse about the driveby tags you have added to the article.) As for editing the article to bring it in line with current FA standards, well.. I'll try to gird myself for it, but frankly, it's probably not going to happen. This is a lazy time for me for personal reasons (see the top of my talkpage if you're intolerably curious about them), plus my threshold of reluctance just got higher. Bishonen | talk 20:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC).

• P.S. Anybody who's genuinely interested in this FAR might like to take a look at Talk:The Relapse, where Rex and I have now posted about Brad's tags to warn readers how bad the article is, so they don't risk taking it seriously. Bishonen | talk 00:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

• The article reads, in my humble opinion, as a well researched and equally well written piece. I believe that Featured article criterion number 1(a) requires it to be "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard." I'm in no position to judge how much has to be paid to make writing 'professional', but I fancy that I am able to spot engaging prose – and this is undoubtedly so.

Without anything more specific to substantiate the {{review}} and {{peacock}} templates, I am at a loss to address those concerns. Since Template:Review#Usage requires "Add a new item to the talk page explaining the problem so editors will know what to address, and when to remove this tag" and nothing related has appeared on the talk page, I've removed the misused {{review}} template. I'd suggest that Talk:The Relapse#Cleanup templates is the correct place to seek consensus on the removal of the {{peacock}} template, should no further explanation of its placement be forthcoming.

I would make one small suggestion to assuage the concerns expressed by Brad. At the end of the ante-penultimate paragraph of The Relapse cast section (or penultimate if you treat the quotation as part of the last paragraph), Cibber is described as having a "squeaky personality". Now, that may be the phrase employed in the source, but modern English is dynamic and current usage associates "squeaky" too strongly with "voice" or with the idiomatic compound adjective "squeaky clean" for the phrase to ring true now. It jars slightly in my reading because of the immediate mental association with "clean" - which is a doubtful epithet for Cibber, even more so in the context of the imprinting of his personality onto Lord Foppington. Consequently, I'd recommend removing "squeaky", or perhaps searching for a new mot juste to convey what the source intended. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Cibber's "squeaky voice" in the first line of the same paragraph is from the Cibber entry in the Highfill etc,Biographical Dictionary of Actors, Actresses, Musicians, Dancers, Managers and Other Stage Personnel in London, 1660–1800. I probably did go too far (as in, did editorialise) in applying it to his entire (acting) personality when I rounded off the paragraph in the last sentence. I'll try to think of another way of putting it. Bishonen | talk 00:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

• Can't see any problems with the writing style, perhaps the person who thought it had peacock problems is using the term in a different way to how I normally see it used ("The Scrotums" are the greatest band to come out of Camden Town since Madness...yeah, right!). There have been some changes in custom and practice to do with references - quotations now always have an inline citation for example, and there's no reference or footnote for Sheridan's version of the play, even though it is quoted. These would be easily fixed by any editor, as would adding ISBN's (indeed, whoever tagged it could have done that job). The general style of separate footnotes and references with fewer inline citations is still in use by WP:MILHIST - who generally prefer not to overcite articles (except for claims of numbers killed in battles, and the performance of the fly-by-wire english longbow). Indeed, 5 citations per 10 words is usually a sign of very contentious content, got out between clenched teeth or under mortar fire. Unless one actually takes exception to any of an article such as this (or wants to pirate it for homework) there is no reason to cite every sentence. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Elen. I was going to improve the sourcing but, as I say above, I lost momentum when my proposals for doing that were rudely dismissed by the nominator. Maybe later. The FAR delegates should feel free to de-feature it in the meantime, I don't really care. (That's the upside of being less than interested in my old work.) But for the ISBNs, Elen, on principle, I wish you wouldn't encourage people to add them. Some people seem to think ISBNs are compulsory, or recommended for FAs or something, but that's not the case. Please see my talkpage post where I argue the case against including them. Bishonen | talk 00:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

Indeed. The ISBN can be helpful when one is citing specific pages and the book has appeared in a variety of formats, but even then a full citation is usually sufficient to establish one has a copy of the same edition, size and shape, unless we are talking about something like Mrs Beeton, which exists in hundreds of versions. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

As somebody who has added very many ISBNs in his time, and who continues to add them, let me third this. ISBNs can be very helpful indeed (and we needn't be discouraged by the fact that no dead-tree style guide that's taken seriously recommends, let alone prescribes, their inclusion). They're for when one really does have a single edition in mind. Often, however, more than one edition fits the bill, and then the ISBN for one of these editions is a mere distraction and can mislead the reader. (Incidentally, even for their purpose of specifying a particular edition of a particular book, they're not always helpful: see a conspicuously long footnote to this article.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - There hasn't been much talk here since the initial flurry, so I'm hoping to get some additional input... Do the editors commenting here feel that the article in its current state can be kept as a featured article, or does it not meet the WP:Featured article criteria? Please consider that there are still two cleanup tags on the article, which should be dealt with regardless of any other issues that may be present. Bishonen, I know that you had been considering reworking the article - if you would still like to and/or need more time to consider, please let me know. Dana boomer (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Other than Bishonen's drones removing the tags I placed, no further effort has been made to address the problems. 1a, 1c, and 2c. Time for FARC. Brad (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Like I've said, I don't much mind if the article is FARCd or defeatured. It's Wikipedia's, not "mine", so presumably I don't have to feel responsible for it. Especially as my attempt to take responsibility on December 5 only got me a pie in the face from Brad (see above). Please move it to FARC if you like.

But my "drones"? That's infamous. It presumably refers to the sex life of bees, casting me as Queen bee and User:RexxS as one of my drones. (As for the plural droneS that Brad says removed the tags, they're in his head; nobody other than myself and Rex has removed any tags.) That's not something I need to put up with for the crime of writing a FA back in the dawn of time, and even less something to be flung at Rex for posting civil disagreement with Brad on this page and at Talk:The Relapse. Brad, I hereby request you to strike through your infamous slur and to post no further attacks. Struck through my own stupid request instead. Who cares? B, 00:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC).] WP:FAR isn't AFAIK a free zone for any and all attacks, or an overseas territory of Wikipedia Review in our midst.

@Dana Boomer: You're an admin, Dana. Do you intend to block Brad, for being this far out of line? Or to warn him, a proper stern warning on his talkpage? I merely ask, because if not, I will post this business on WP:ANI. I'd rather not, because I think it's feeble for admins to complain on ANI about PA's against themselves, and I never have before. But since the most direct slur was directed against Rex, I would feel justified this time. On another note, Dana, how do you mean, there are still cleanup tags on the article? I removed the last of Brad's drive-by tags on December 9, after first explaining my objections to them on the talkpage and giving Brad plenty of time to respond. Nobody has put them back, and nobody has responded on the talkpage either. In fact Brad has never addressed anybody's arguments or answered anybody's questions in connection with this nomination. I'm nonplussed and frustrated by the way he'll only weigh in when he has a pie to throw. Is all of WP:FAR this kind of sham? Bishonen | talk 17:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC).

I've warned him; I would much prefer he engage here and this issue be resolved rather than anyone be blocked. Bishonen, there's a {{refimprove}} and a {{deadlink}} in the Notes section; that's likely what Dana was referring to. By the way, I don't think the bee definition for "drone" is the one being used here, but that's not really important. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• I rather think that "drones" was an unfortunate turn of phrase and was clearly meant to be belittling or insulting. Furthermore, the tone of the post was clearly meant to be threatening and intimidating. Does Brad have some extra power here? Are he and Dana Boomer in some form of business union? or is he her heir apparent? Because if not, then he is way out of line. I think we should be told Giacomo Returned 19:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Really? The kerfuffle over Malleus' block along proves that a block for something as minor as this will not stick. Give him a chance to respond, redact, etc. before condemning. No one has extra power here, but this isn't anywhere near the level we block at. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• As fun as the debate over prose is, the article clearly fails 1c—much like John Vanbrugh—and a FARC will delist the article unless it is given citations to meet current standards. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

(after two edit conflicts) If I were personally attacking you, you would most certainly know it. Given that I've been attacked several times now for just the act of making a FAR nomination let alone any comments I've made, I've become shell-shocked in the process. You can look at Francis Petre below here for a good example of that. When I get mobbed either by one or many I don't engage because sooner or later the conversation becomes unproductive. I would rather have seen all of the effort put into debating the prose, put into article improvement. Your comment about "drive by tagging" seems to imply that I just go around to articles and slap tags on things for the fun of it. If I had considered the prose "not so bad" rather than "not meeting criteria 1a", I wouldn't have tagged it. Brad (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh I see, you felt you were being ignored. Oh that's so sad - can we help you in any way? The problem is that the article looks just fine from here. Giacomo Returned 20:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks fine to me as well, but that isn't the same as whether I think it meets the FA criteria. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a comment on the FA in question or are you here for decorative purposes? Giacomo Returned 20:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm believe that you are writing that at me (hard to tell with your indent?), but I made a comment about the article above at 19:31. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that you were expressing your opinion there. Is that it? Are you going to specify exactly what it is that offends you so? Or just jump on the bandwagon? Between ourselves, the problem is that Wikipedia's best editors on these subjects don't really care about FAs anymore. They laugh and are amused by the criteria set up by those who know nothing of these matters and their low literary styles and the prose they demand. These serious editors earn their worldly money from being experts, if a bunch of Wikipedia type people don't feel it's up to much; quite frankly they are not that concerned. I hope that answers any further problems that you, Brad and Dana Boomer may have. No one serious is that bothered by the page. Giacomo Returned 20:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not jumping on anyone's bandwagon, it's just that the article doesn't have enough citations to meet FA's current standards. I have no beef with the FA system, but I'm also far from earning my "worldly money by being [an] expert". I'd like to think I know more about South American dreadnoughts than 99% of the world, but that assumption is probably wrong, and I'm at peace with it. What I do know is that putting articles through FAC has improved my writing and taught me how to cite things I write – a few tweaks was all I needed to translate it to academic writing. But all that is going off topic. If you don't feel the need to engage with the FA system as-is, you don't have to, but without improvement the article will lose its star. If you and the editors monitoring this page don't mind that, then we should all disengage to prevent further bad blood from developing. Internet fights always seemed ridiculous to me anyway. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, this is getting rather hard to make clear. No one other than you, Dana Boomer and Brad is much bothered by the star. Some work was done to try and help you all, but the editors who tried to help were insulted and accused of being "drones." so I'm afraid, it rather looks as though the three of you must remain here in isolation surounded by decaying articles. Giacomo Returned 21:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't really care about the star either. I have no interest in the article, its subject, or its rating on a website. Essentially no work has been done aside from adding and removing templates, unless you're seeing something I'm not. [7] Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about some child throwing meaningless insults at me, but it would help if folks followed at least the barest minimum of guidance given to them when tagging articles. Would you be kind enough Ed, to review the comments I made at Talk:The Relapse#Cleanup templates on 6 December 2011 please? The {{review}} template was misused and no explanation was made of the {{peacock}} template. Failing to engage in process is the very definition of drive-by tagging, and demonstrates Brad's contempt for good-faith editors who attempt to take these issues seriously. The article talk page is the place where tags are discussed, and I am still awaiting Brad's first post there.

I have no intention of playing games was if this were a MMORPG, and I have little time for editors who seem to think that it is acceptable to ignore the prompt requests for clarification for almost a month, and then to attack the very editors who would be willing to respond to genuine concerns. No wonder Bishonen is discouraged from putting in further work on the article.

Let me make this as clear as I can:

• 1a concerns are complete garbage. The OP has no idea of what peacock and weasel terms are, and there is no such concern to address in the article, with the possible exception of the "squeaky personality" issue which should be easily addressable.
• 2c concerns are equally ill-founded. Every single one of the 14 Notes makes perfect sense to me. Page numbers are given for the longer works with the exception of Biographical Dictionary of Actors, which is arranged in alphabetical order. If the OP is having difficulty in finding "Verbruggen, John" in an alphabetical dictionary, he has greater problems than even I can solve for him.
• 1c concerns: I accept that the style of providing a set of sources at the end of an article – rather than an inline citation for every sentence – has fallen out of favour in Wikipedia since this article was promoted. I have little doubt that anyone who read the 10 works cited in the References section would be able to verify the text presented, but I do understand that such faith is unfashionable nowadays. More's the pity then that this entire process has been conducted in a manner almost calculated to ensure that the person with access to all those sources is unlikely to see the value in putting further effort into refining the citations. Frankly, I'd be sorry to see another fine article lose its FA status, but the article will remain among Wikipedia's finest works with or without a star in the corner. --RexxS (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• (e/c with Rex) Thanks for that, Ed. I guess you don't have any interest in reading the first part of this thread either — can't really blame you — where my good-faith attempt to get input on some proposals for improving the referencing came to grief. I no longer care, either. I quite agree it shouldn't be an FA as is, I've said so repeatedly. Perhaps in fact it should be on WP:AFD rather than here, per Brad's {{review}} template.

@Brad: As well as putting forward and asking for input on suggestions for how I could improve the referencing — suggestions which you dismissed out of hand as "tl;dr" — I've put a number of direct questions to you on this FAR. You have never replied to any of them, it's ridiculous. I was going to repeat the questions here, but meh. They're still above, in the unlikely eventuality that anybody cares. About your latest post: You've been attacked several times now? As in, you've been attacked by me? Please specify where I have "shell-shocked" you, as that seems to be your excuse for the rebarbative and dismissive way you speak to and of me. If you're burned out and tired of FAR, shooting the nearest harmless bystander is hardly the remedy. And no, by drive-by tagging I don't mean to "imply that [you] just go around to articles and slap tags on things for the fun of it". I explained exactly what I do mean by drive-by tags on Talk:The Relapse on December 7: "Drive-by" is the term used for tags posted without any talkpage justification. You haven't posted once on Talk:The Relapse, beyond the addition of the {{featured article review}} template which is a technical part of this FAR nomination. This in defiance of the explicit requirement at the top of the FAR page for raising issues on the article's talkpage first, before nominating on FAR, and in nonchalance towards my repeated invitations to discussion, here and on article talk. And now you speak of what I "seem to imply", after I've defined exactly what I did mean? Haven't you even looked at Talk:The Relapse, despite my links and recommendations above? OK, it's official: I give up.

@Nikkimaria, thank you for saving me a pointless ANI brawl, I'm sure that wouldn't have done much for the state of the FAR process. Pity you troubled to say anything to Brad about striking his comment, I don't actually give a shit any longer what he thinks or how he acts. I've struck out my own mealy-mouthed request for comity. Yes, there's a {{refimprove}} template still on the article, I'm well aware of it. (Hardly a cleanup matter.) I haven't challenged or removed that one, in fact it seems to me that I've already said many times that I agree with it: the article would need more detailed referencing to meet today's FA standards. There's a deadlink? Guess what, I don't give a shit about that either. Happy editing, all.

@Giacomo: For god's sake stop posting here. Bishonen | talk 00:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC).

Hey Bishonen. A more accurate statement would have been "little direct work". Sorry about that. The templates were a bit off, and I do question why the ISBN template has not been deleted when they are certainly not required... Anyway, I don't agree with Brad that 1a is necessarily a problem. I do believe that there is not enough citations for this to remain featured, which is apparently a point on which we agree. I'm sorry that you think the FAR process is flawed, and I'm not entirely happy with it either, but in this case it is working, albeit in haphazard fashion – issues have been raised, one has been defended against, and two remain. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's see if it is actually working as claimed then:

1(c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate.

The English Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for quotations, whether using direct or indirect speech, and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Editors are also advised to add in-text attribution whenever a source's words are copied or closely paraphrased.

Nobody has indicated which parts of the article are uncited quotations, closely paraphrased, challenged, or likely to be challenged.

2(c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing.

The article has 14 citations. Nobody has indicated which ones fail 2(c) and in what way.

It appears that anybody can make vague claims about issues without any requirement for specificity. They can indeed ignore the established protocols for raising such issues (e.g. talk page first). Surely any thinking editor can see that this is bound to set up the "defenders" for failure – the principal author is being given the same treatment that was handed out to Josef K. No matter what improvements may be made to the article, the "prosecutors" can always claim that that their unspecified concerns have not been met. Fix your flawed process; look for ways of encouraging principal authors, not alienate them from the process; ensure that initiators of FAR have at least followed the very basic instructions at WP:FAR.

Do you still maintain, Ed, that the Raise issues at article Talk and the Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies steps have been observed? I'm sorry to be so blunt, but I am having difficulty in understanding why a respected editor such as yourself is prepared to excuse such a badly-executed process as this particular review. --RexxS (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for not being more direct. Would you rather I come out and state that I wish to challenge all of the paragraphs that are currently lacking citations? I assumed that was implied, as that's why FAC today has an unwritten rule of at least one citation to cover every paragraph. As for 2c, it's readily apparent that "See Faller" is not consistent with "The London Stage I, 470.", which isn't consistent with "Unless otherwise indicated, the information in this paragraph comes from Harris xxvi.", which isn't consistent with "Dobrée."

The lack of a talk page notification is unusual for Brad, ex. Talk:USS Kentucky (BB-66)#Featured article quality has deteriorated. I do disagree that he did not specify the "criteria that are at issue", as he certainly specified that the article was lacking citations. In my mind, that statement implicitly challenges the unsourced statements in the article, but I'm relatively sure my view is not shared by everyone here. ;-) Perhaps in the future Brad could state that directly. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

... that's why FAC today has an unwritten rule of at least one citation to cover every paragraph. It does? I sure wish someone had told me !!! It's shameful what's going on in here; are we here to improve articles or to exercise our muscles? I have yet to see a nomination from Brad that addresses WP:WIAFA, I've raised that at WT:FAR,[8] and I hope we will see some collaborative effort to improve articles take hold in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I found one: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Katie Holmes/archive1. Improvement noted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

FARC commentary

There was a good deal of ill feeling around this nomination, with some poorly-chosen words on the part of the nominator. However, there were also some valid points made as to spots where the article failed to comply with the featured article criteria. Because of that, and the lack of movement on the article over the past few weeks, I am moving this review to the FARC section. I would ask that the participants refrain from attacking or being uncivil to each other and instead focus on the article and whether or not it meets the featured article criteria. Dana boomer (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Héctor Lavoe

Review commentary

Notified: User talk:Caribbean H.Q., Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Puerto Rico

Notified: WP Latin American Music task force, WP Latin America SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I am requesting that this featured article be reviewed further, because I honestly believe it has deteriorated with time. Not sufficient details are developed within the article to elaborate on Lavoe's professional and personal life, particularly in the mid 1970s, when he was most successful. The incidents about his suicide attempt also need better detail -I know this is a controversial topic, because it is really not clear on whether he wanted to take his life, or went through a drug-induced rampage that caused an accidental fall (his own joking about the incident further blurs this). The tone in the paragraphs related to his early life are, IMHO, a bit biased. Further editing has chopped a paragraph or two. In my view, it deserves a GA rating... and that's being generous. Of course, I want it to improve back to FA status. Demf (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any notices that have been given. Brad (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Move to FARC: there are prose and sourcing problems throughout-- I'll give just one example for starters:

Source: http://www.laconga.org/hl_gdominguez.htm

• Source text: CAMPOS donde conoce a un par de niños genios PAPO LUCCA y JOSE FEBLES. Alli empezó recibiendo clases de saxofón y trombón de las que se escapaba con sus amiguitos para irse a nadar en el rio Portugués.
• Article text: Héctor attended the local Juan Morel Campos Public School of Music where the saxophone was the first instrument he learned to play. Among his classmates were Jose Febles and multi-instrumentalist Papo Lucca.

The source does not say that saxophone was the first instrument he learned to play-- it says that he started taking trombone and saxophone classes at the school.

What does this mean?

His grandfather Don Juan Martínez was a singer of controversial songs, which often went from vocal conflict to physical confrontations.

What does this "since" clause apply to?

He moved permanently to New York on May 3, 1963, against his father's wishes, since an older brother had moved to the city and later died of a drug overdose.

There's more ... including a multitude of MOS errors, which I'll detail if someone shows up to work on the article.

However, I am not able to find any indication that User talk:Caribbean H.Q. was in fact notified-- what is going on here ??? I can't find a talk post to his talk page, although there is an indication above that it was done. Nor is there a post to the Puerto Rican Project. Someone please do the notifications so the two-week FAR phase can start. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I just dropped notes on the two pages listed above (Caribbean HQ and PR Project). I saw that they were listed above and didn't both to check the pages. Dana boomer (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Prose issues are everywhere, more samples:

He survived the attempt, but from that day forward, he would never completely recover as AIDS began to ravage his body due to the use of intravenous drugs and shared needles.

His body was ravaged because of drugs and needles, or because of AIDS? And repetitive prose:

was a strong seller in Puerto Rico, despite strong protests from Puerto

strong ... strong. There are also bare URLs, non-reliable sources (IMDb), sources not accurately represented (see sample above), dead links, incorrect use of WP:ITALICS, incorrect use of WP:DASHes, and significant uncited text such as:

His addiction resulted in him showing up late for gigs, and he eventually did not show up to some scheduled performances at all. Although Colón would eventually cut ties with him, he tried to help Lavoe seek assistance to try to quit his drug habits.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Move to FARC: five days since further notifications, no one has surfaced to work on the article, I suggest moving to FARC to keep the proces going, and if someone then shows up, FARC period can be extended. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Issues raised in the FAR section include prose, MOS and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Transhumanism

Review commentary

Notified: WikiProjects Technology, Religion and Philosophy, User:Loremaster, User:Colonel Warden, User:Shadowy Sorcerer, User:IRWolfie-, User:Ian.thomson, User:Explosiveoxygen, User:Ewigekrieg, User:misternuvistor, User:Wawawemn, User:StN, User Greg Bard

I am nominating this featured article for review because it does not meet FA criteria, and little headway has been made in improving it. Specifically, it does not meet 1. (a). The prose is reasonably good but not brilliant. 1 (b). It does not adequately place the subject in the context of mainstream social science or science research. 1 (c). It overuses sources within the Transhumanist perspective, in particular the work of James Hughes. 1 (d). It sets up criticisms as straw men, and its characterisation of criticisms with short phrases is original synthesis that has the effect of reducing the power of those criticisms. 2. (c). Many citations are to bare URLs. Some are to deadlinks. Citations to books do not always include page numbers. There has been relevant discussion at the fringe theories noticeboard. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"...it does not meet FA criteria...1. (a). The prose is reasonably good, but not brilliant." Is non-brilliant prose disqualifying for a FA? It does not seem so to me. Here is the relevant passage in Wikipedia:Featured article criteria: a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard.

• Comment The article contains synthesis, some of which are from a fringe, undue perspectives. The article contains many fringe viewpoints other than transhumanism. An article should represent the mainstream view and so not contain unrelated fringe arguments or specific criticisms of one fringe against another (i.e neo-luddite criticisms of transhumanism) as it is undue, unless, it is discussed in mainstream sources, but the mainstream position should also be noted. There appears to be a lack of uninvolved secondary sources in the controversy section. This appears to be a systematic problem within the controversies section. I will look at the first two sections of the controversy section (for previty) to demonstrate my point:

In the section Transhumanism#Infeasibility_.28Futurehype_argument.29

Max Dublin is described as a sociologist, I am not sure where this is verified from. (searching for author:"Max Dublin" on scholar.google.com returns 3 results, for author:"M Dublin" a variety of hits are returned in diverse fields which I assume is a collection of individuals). I can not find any information about him. (is this a pen name?)

The Kevin Kelly reference talks about Futorology not Transhumanism.

Bob Seidensticker does not appear to explicitly mention transhumanism in his book 'Future hype: the myths of technology change'. I do not see where he explicitly "argues that today's technological achievements are not unprecedented".

In the section Transhumanism#Hubris_.28Playing_God_argument.29

The vatican statement appears to be directed at genetic engineering in general where it is to improve a characteristic. When read carefully it doesn't seem to support the statement of the inappropriateness of humans substituting themselves for an actual god..

Jeremy Rifkin is an American Economist and based on his book, an anti-evolutionist. His views on synthetic biology seem inappropriate/peculiar and undue as he is not a biologist, chemist or engineer. He is also. (the Kirkus review provided by google books has the statement about his cited book: It's yet another simplistic dichotomy, which grants mankind omnipotence and ignores what biologists have been learning about the behavior of genes all these years.) Perhaps I am merely unfamilar with journals in the humanities but the paper in the Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy seems pecular for a paper in a journal. The journal is run by students and does not seem to have peer review; surely the rest of the paragraph has no due weight unless discussed in reliable secondary sources.

The paragraph with comments attributed to Kirsten Rabe Smolensky appears to be pure synthesis to link it to the discussion in the previous paragraph and to Transhumanism in general. The actual source appears to be directed at any genetic engineering, not only just the fundamental transformation applicable to Transhumanism.

The phrase "Religious thinkers allied with transhumanist goals" seems to imply some sort of conflict. The statement is also illogical as someone can not be allied with a goal. This should probably be reworded.

It appears from the response that, although I can't be certain as I have no reasonable way of verifying it, the opinions of James Hughes and Gregory Stock are not directed at Jeremy Rifkin. But this is unimportant; the views of Jeremy Rifkin do not appear to be, or give no indication that they are the mainstream viewpoints; his anti-evolutionist views are juxtaposed beside those of his anti-tranhumanism.

Transhumanism#Contempt_for_the_flesh_.28Fountain_of_Youth_argument.29

Similar issue to the previous section. His criticisms do not appear to be mainstream. He appears to go further than His praising of the renounching of technology like in the Tokugawa shogunate and amish communities are hardly mainstream viewpoints. His viewpoints on rejecting the use of" germinal choice technology for clearly therapeutic purposes" is even more strict than the viewpoint of the catholic church as seen in the vatican statement above, Gene therapy, directed to the alleviation of congenital conditions like Down's syndrome ... would help the individual to give full expression to his real identity which is blocked by a defective gene. [9].

I suspect the rest of the article also contains many more examples of this mixture of original synthesis, fringe opinions, original research and lack of reliable secondary sourcing. If required I can give many more examples of this in more sections. For these reasons of systematic issues I think it should not be a featured article. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The commentator above seems unfamiliar with the concept of a law review, which in the United States are the main venues for legal scholarship. The Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy is a law review published by law students of the Columbus School of Law of the Catholic University of America. The law reviews of the Harvard and Yale law schools are similarly published by law students at those schools. Is it proposed that citations to those journals throughout Wikipedia are also inappropriate? StN (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Do they typically lack peer-review? The issue still stands with the point that the criticism is not mainstream (the paper is in association with Jeremy Rifkin who's views on biology are not mainstream, i.e anti-evolutionist, which was the basis of the book). IRWolfie- (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

What paper is "in association with Jeremy Rifkin"? StN (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The Paper from Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy mentions his association with Jeremy Rifkin. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to get some sense of the basis of your criticism of the Transhumanism article relative to this point: It cites an article in a law review by a biologist (Stuart Newman) who entered into a joint project with Jeremy Rifkin at some point in the past. Jeremy Rifkin wrote a book (Algeny; 1984) critical of Darwin's mechanism of evolution, which means that Rifkin doesn't believe in evolution (not simply Darwin's mechanism for it). This is discrediting not only of Rifkin, but of Newman, the sole author of the article in question, since it implies that he also does not believe in evolution. Therefore the law review article should not be cited. Is this what you are saying? StN (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The article currently cites Jeremy Rifkin's book for his argument. It then expands on this with the law review in which Stuart Newman refers to his joint project with Jeremy Rifkin. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The comments attributed to Kirsten Rabe Smolensky are an accurate summary of this legal scholar's presentation at a conference on Human Enhancement Technologies and Human Rights. Human enhancement technologies are synonymous with much of transhumanism, as any reader of the article, or anyone familiar with the subject can ascertain. Even though her comments could potentially apply to "any genetic engineering," that was not the context in which they were delivered. StN (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Your deduction is not based on the sources, therefore the linkage is not verifiable. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If you access the web page linked to in reference 98 of the article you will find the name of the Stanford University conference at which Smolensky delivered her talk. It is the same as I indicated above. Are you presenting these criticisms in a serious fashion i.e., do you know anything about the issues you refer to, or have looked at all into the references cited in the article? StN (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not need an in depth knowledge of Transhumanism, I look at the references and see if they make the connection. I've looked at many of the references, I have looked at all the references in the sections I have mentioned. It is through these references that I see the synthesis as the linkage to Rifkin etc is not made in these references. While I do not doubt that transhumanism is interested in an extreme fashion with Human enhancement technologies I do not think they are synonymous. i.e Transhumanism is a subset of those interested in Human enhancement technologies, this is not important, what is important is that no source links the opinions of Kirsten Rabe Smolensky to the opinions of Rifkin, this is not in any secondary source, therefore it is a synthesis. If something does link the two please provide reliable sources that make the linkage or point out something from the existing references that I may have overlooked. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to fully engage in this review (which I deem unnecessary) in order to refute the many dubious arguments it contains. However, I would like to point out that some of the people who are currently trying to strip the Transhumanism article of its featured article status are not only motivated by a bias against the subject itself having such a well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable Wikipedia article but seem more interested in hacking it down to a boring uninformative stub rather than improving it by adding substantive new content. That being said, I am willing to eventually work on fixing the real problems the Transhumanism article has when I have more free time to ensure it remains a great article. --Loremaster (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Attack the argument, not the person. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep.

All of your claims are not critical. They can be resolved without any bureaucratic exercise.

I'm agree with your point about characterisation of criticisms with short phrases. (although you are wrong about the effect - it has the effect of strengthen the power of those criticisms).

We can probably use corresponding titles from Spanish version of the Article (also note: its a featured article, and it is very similar to our article).

Google translate:

5.1 Reviews technical infeasibility

5.2 Reviews of immorality

5.3 Criticism of the concept of human body

5.4 Criticism of the possible trivialization of human existence

5.5 Criticism of unequal access to technology

5.6 Criticism of the impact on social order

5.7 Criticism of the danger of dehumanization

5.8 Threat of a return to coercive eugenics

5.9 Threats to human survival as a species

Also note: you can't name transhumanism as fringe theory, because transhumanism is not a science, but cultural movement. It's all about values and goals, and not about "how the things works". It's not "Creationism" but "Christianity". So, you can't expect scientific purity of the pro and contra arguments. They can (and should) be moral, ethical, philosophical.

"it does not meet 1. (a). The prose is reasonably good but not brilliant."

I can't say anything about the prose (I'm not a native English speaker). But I can use page ratings:

Trustworthy - 4.5 (57 ratings)

Objective - 4.5 (58 ratings)

Complete - 5 (57 ratings)

Well-written - 4.5 (60 ratings)

Its a really good results, don't you think? Almost all of readers think, that the article is well-written. - Ewigekrieg (talk) 10:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep or Delist are not declared in the FAR phase: please see the instructions at WP:FAR. The FAR phase is for listing improvements needed and working on them-- Keep or Delist are not declared until/unless the article moves to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Comment Page rankings in themselves do not indicate if an article is trustworthy, it only indicates that whoever clicked on the page rankings thought the article was trustworthy. Transhumanism is a fringe viewpoint and as such relevant to the FTN. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't say anything about this. It was the answer about a quality of the prose. The readers say, that the article is well-written. Thats all.

"Transhumanism is a fringe viewpoint" Could you provide a reliable source to prove this? -Ewigekrieg (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you claiming that transhumanism is in fact mainstream? Transhumanism has a long history, but in modern times, it has been dismissed by most as a fringe element of ... [10], This is DIY transhumanism, the fringe of a movement that itself lies well outside the mainstream of philosophy, ethics, technology and science. [11] IRWolfie- (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Cable news channel and "Wired"... Could you provide a reliable scientific source to prove this?

I can. Transhumanist works in University of Oxford and events in Arizona State University. -Ewigekrieg (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

You can't have your cake and eat it, one minute you claim transhumanism is not a science and now you have switched to asking for scientific sources? I don't see any reputable scientific sources there either. Also being published does not make something mainstream. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You can ask for scientific sources about something non-scientific.

Compare: feminism is not a science, but you can find scientific works about feminism (sociological, philosophical etc). Also, feminism is not a fringe viewpoint, because it is not a science. -Ewigekrieg (talk) 11:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Philosophy is not a science. Secondly, your references do not show transhumanism is mainstream. Thirdly if you are suggesting that I must show scientific sources, then the non-scientific sources used for claims in the article should also be dismissed. Views described in non-scientific journals or other sources which characterize or discuss transhumanism would be unreliable. edit: I don't think this should be the case but it would be a consequence of only using scientific sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Page ratings for the article are 2.6, 2.6, 2.7, 2.6 now (and going down). Without any sagnificant change in the article for months. Very interesting. Someone want very hard to change the status of the article? I don't see how it can help him, but I don't have another explonation.

-Ewigekrieg (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

There has, frankly speaking, been an attack on this page for quite some time. There has been a significant amount of shouts to "grab the pitchforks" in fringe-based discussion pages, and very little effort on the part of the people making complaints to explain themselves. The earlier argument above to discredit a source based on the actions of someone he worked with far previously is one such weak example, and if one was to try putting that statement in an article it would be immediately removed as original research. Human.v2.0 (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

He discusses his working with Rifkin in the source not in the unconnected manner of "someone he worked with far previously". The particular usage of the source is how he elaborated on the position of Rifkin. Do you wish to describe how Rifkin's biology (we quote his definition of Algeny) related opinions are due when he lies so far outside the biology mainstream? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope. I can't say that I'm particularly familiar with that specific work. It's a big, big article; I've been working through it here and there for years, and I wouldn't claim to have full mastery of it. That's kinda part of the reason I'm suspicious of anyone that pops up stating otherwise for themselves. This is part of the reason for my posts on the talk page, which have not been responded to. It's also part of the reason why editors involved with this article expect anyone suggesting major change to produce a clearly elaborated argument on the talk page; for some of these matters we need to know what you're actually talking about so we can look it up ourselves.

My above comment was more aimed at the rather suspicious sudden downranking without major changes since the previous reviews. The same goes for this general "review" in comparison to the previous reviews linked up there at the top. Human.v2.0 (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

There has never been a featured article review of this article, the last review of this article seems to have been about 5 and a half years ago. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

And I am now wondering whether procedures were followed in its promotion to FA in the first place. It's a long time ago and procedures have changed. I will try and find out. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

We don't just stick the bronze star on any old article: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Transhumanism. Procedures are being followed here-- it's being reviewed. A list of items that can be worked on in the FARC phase is below-- I will provide more as editors begin to work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments Besides the issues already brought up

• 1c The large lists of movies and other "pop culture" items are unsourced. It would appear these are collected lists of what someone believed to be related to transhumanism therefore making original research. There are also numerous uncited passages and entire paragraphs throughout the article. All quotes must have citations. There are several sources reporting dead links. There are citation needed tags.
• 2c The lack of page numbers is a serious problem. External links must have retrieved on dates. Either oclc numbers on all or none; either dashed isbn's on all or no dashes on all. Brad (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Move to FARC: from this version, and see this sample edit of the lead only. [12] Only 23 edits (including mine) and very little improvment since the FAR was initiated. There is WP:OVERLINKing (samples, suffering, gender), words as words should be in italics, not quotes, vague sentences that need attribution or clarificaton (Many of the leading transhumanist thinkers hold views), a list of trivia in Arts and Culture that is also uncited, pull quotes in "Arts and culture", citation needed tags, incorrect use of italics in section headings, missing page numbers, and there is uncited text (samples) :

• and, six years later, produced the cable TV show TransCentury Update on transhumanity, a program which reached over 100,000 viewers.
• several paragraphs in the "Aims" section.

While this list of issues appears long, it doesn't strike me as too much to be able to clean up during the FARC phase, if there are editors willing to work on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Issues raised in the FAR section include prose, sourcing, and neutrality. While there was extensive discussion above, many of these concerns appear not to have yet been resolved. For further discussion, please keep in mind Wikipedia's policies and the featured article criteria, and remember that page ratings are not relevant to FA status. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Superman

Review commentary

Notified: Alientraveller, Ace ETP, Hiding, Maestro25, (all users with over 100 edits to article who have been active in past year) WP Media franchises, WP Film, WP Fictional characters, WP Cleveland, WP Comics, WP Comics - Superman work group

I am nominating this featured article for review because I began cleaning up the numerous dead links that were present in this article, and in the process discovered there were a number of issues that I couldn't fix that together made the article of sub-FA quality. Examples:

• Three dead links
• Update banner in Copyright issues section
• Video games section needs referencing
• Critical reception and popularity section is trivia heavy and could easily be presented as prose rather than in bullet points
• Reference formatting, particularly for books, is not consistent
• Prose could use a go-over. For example, what does "By 1943, Jerry Siegel was drafted into the army in a special celebration," mean? The staff had a special celebration when he was drafted? The Army had a special celebration to draft him?
• Image issues:
  • Lead image, File:Superman.jpg is currently up for deletion on Commons en.wp
  • File:Harold Lloyd in A Sailor-made Man.jpg is lacking source and author information
• It should also be noted that this article has grown from 41 to 55 kb of prose since the last FAR in 2007. It would be interesting to know what all had been added and if this significant growth was really necessary, or if there is fat to trim. At the moment the article is over 9,000 words, which is headed toward the high end of the length guidelines at WP:SIZE.

At this point, due to the number of the issues and the lack of response to two postings over several months on the talk page, I feel that this article needs to go through the FAR process. Dana boomer (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the image issues...

• Harold Lloyd in A Sailor-made Man.jpg is in the public domain as per the file hosted at Commons. An explicit source line would be nice, but based on the notes on Commons it looks like it was lifted from A Sailor-Made Man. If scanned or captured from the film or a related still, finding out who the photographer/cameraman was is highly unlikely.
• Superman.jpg used in this article is hosted on the English Wikipedia and is compliant with non-free content guidelines. The commons file of that name - [13] - is not up for deletion nor is it relevent/useful for this article. What is up for deletion is essentially any of the files related to the Fleischer animated shorts that contain an image of Superman - see: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Superman-fleischer.jpg. The upshot being that the films maybe in PD but the copyright on the character that was licensed for them is still valid and putting them under non-free content.

- J Greb (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

And looking at the other issues...

• Size: Yes, the article currently is in the "upper end" based on size. That means we take a look at the difference between the last FAR reviw - [14] - and today - [15]. The comparison nets this - [16] - which is at least somewhere to start.

- J Greb (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the Lloyd image myself. Yes, I apologize, the image is up for deletion on the English WP, not Commons. It's still up for deletion, though, with some editors arguing that it doesn't meet non-free guidelines. As for the size, it looks like the major additions were sections on Merchandising, In other media, and Musical references, parodies and homages. I would be interesting in hearing the opinion of the major editors to the article on why they feel that relatively large sections are needed for information some might consider trivia, especially when the article is already so large. I'm not arguing that they be cut altogether, simply wondering if it might be better to make better use of summary style and move some of the immense amounts of information and popular culture references to Superman in popular culture, History of Superman, List of Superman comics, Alternative versions of Superman, Superman in other media or one of the dozens of other articles on various facets of Superman that are floating around WP. Dana boomer (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• I agree the article seems to be filled with trivial type entries and tries too hard to include as much as possible. Further along I see many uncited passages that appear to have been tacked on after the fact. Two examples:

• The "S" shield by itself is often used in media to symbolize the Superman character. It has been incorporated into the opening and/or closing credits of several films and TV series.
• Furthermore, the surname Kent, in early 20th century real life, was a common Americanization of "Cohen," and Clark Kent's wimpy, bumbling persona strongly resembled the classic Yiddish schlemiel. But there are so many others I can't list them all.

• At this point it doesn't look like much is going on toward article repair. Brad (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Issues raised in the review section include referencing, coverage and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delist - Basically nothing has been done to improve this article since the FAR was initiated. Still major problems with focus, sourcing, cleanup banners, etc. (details above). Dana boomer (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment; it's not clear to me why a revert to the version that passed FAR in 2007 wasn't discussed or contemplated. At the least, it would then mean less repair work to bring the article to standard, and even if the article is defeatured, it would theoretically be left in better shape than when it came here. At minimum, that option should be discussed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• A revert to the 2007 version would fix the sprawl problems, but would introduce comprehensiveness issues, and I don't think it would fix much else. A glance at the 2007 version (here), shows issues with sourcing (places needing references, unreliable references, etc) and images at the very least. It also shows that the Copyright issues section (currently hosting an update banner) would be put even farther out of date. What would probably work is a reversion to 2007, followed by the integration of necessary material that has been added over the intervening 4+ years, followed by additional referencing, image and general cleanup work. However, I think we need someone with a solid background in the subject matter (or at least access to all of the pertinent sources) to know what "necessary material" is... So, basically, I'm not sure that a revert to the 2007 version would help anymore than, say, wholesale chopping the sections on Merchandising, In other media, and Musical references, parodies and homages that have been added. Dana boomer (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delist. Thanks for looking Dana. OK, so I'm a Delist on that basis, but even if the star can't be salvaged, we can still hope that someone may show up to do the basics you suggest above, as that will at least leave the article in better shape than it is now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delist per above. JJ98 (talk) 08:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Federalist No. 10

Review commentary

Notified: Christopher Parham. Projects: Law, United States, Politics, Books, GLAM/NARA.

I placed a talk page notice about two months ago that had no response.

• 1a There are weasel words scattered about and at least one confusing passage marked with clarify.
• 1c The obvious is the lack of citations throughout the article. Direct quotes need citations.
• 2c Of what citations currently exist they're missing retrieved on dates and publication dates.
• Minor problems not worth a mention at this stage. Brad (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section focused mainly on prose and referencing. Dana boomer (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Delist No acknowledgment of the FAR and other than a bit of copyediting, nothing has been worked on. Brad (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I addressed the above concerns—"many other essays ... saw much wider distribution⁸" If this is what the source states, is it reasonable to demand more? In cases where further detail was in an available source I added it.¶ The cn in the lead was accounted for in the later section Application.¶Direct quotes were clearly attributed to brief works. I referenced them to online copies.¶"missing retrieved on dates ": added.¶I added a brief preceding section on how and why the Constitutional Convention met. 86.44.26.64 (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Great start! Thanks for the effort.
• If a source makes a statement like "many other essays" it needs to be presented; example: Joe Smith said in his book Fun With Dick and Jane that "many other essays...blah blah" So essentially a quote.
• An article on WP shouldn't be cited with the contents of original documents. There are several references to the Fed 10 papers themselves. It's not an ideal situation. Brad (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

  I feel there are precious litte raised issues outstanding.

  If a source makes a statement like "many other essays" it needs to be presented; example: Joe Smith said in his book Fun With Dick and Jane that "many other essays..." I disagree. It sounds like you are mistaking the statement for opinion, whereas it is a sourced statement on the facts. Do you think "many" is opinion? what about "several", or "multiple"? It would be very odd indeed to attribute a statement like this, as it would imply there was something singular or opinionated about it. When a work states something on the facts, or shows that the statement is true, the thing to do is cite it, not attribute it to the author. Otherwise we must attribute every sourced line on the site. The source for the article's statement is Kaminski. 86.44.63.66 (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

  There are several references to the Fed 10 papers themselves You requested specific references for direct quotes. 86.44.63.66 (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry for not having time to contribute to this, but as to citing the original document, my impression is that the precis of a work itself is regularly cited to the work. That seems to be the practice still even in recent FAs, e.g. plot summary sections. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Medal of Honor

Review commentary

Listed at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/Article alerts, Template:WPMILHIST Announcements

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has the most cleanup tags of any featured article. Tagged with: lacking reliable references from November 2011; accuracy disputes from November 2011; dead external links from August 2011, June 2010, October 2011; unsourced statements from October 2011, November 2011, September 2011; disputed statements from November 2011; self-contradictory articles from May 2011. Someone noted problems on talkpage a month ago Tom B (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments There are some fundamental mistakes in the article:

• As there were only two medals that could be issued until World War I including the Purple Heart Wrong. The Purple Heart was not instituted until the 1930s.
• HLI Lordship Industries Inc., a former Medal of Honor contractor, was fined in 1996 for selling 300 fake medals for US $75 each.[58] Wrong. The medals were real. "fake" may mean not awarded.
• Quality of sources are very weak and far from "high-quality and reliable". Too many "homebrew" websites are used.
• The "post-Vietnam" section is out of place considering that no other war era has its own section. Brad (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section focused mainly on referencing and accuracy. Although some work has been done, the majority of the concerns remain unanswered, so I am moving this to the FAC section. Dana boomer (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delist There are major problems with 1c and to a lesser extent 2c. Brad (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Twenty-five edits only since the FAR was initiated, mostly an IP editing the Video game series section, little improvement. Having said that, while there are a large number of categories of tags, there are actually very few tags in the article (they're hard to find!) Some effort should be made to find a MilHist editor willing to work on this. Notifications to templates might not be noticed, and personal pleas may be more effective. Unless someone takes this on within the week, then I will also be an unfortunate Delist, but I consider it a shame, as the article should have been able to be repaired in the month is was here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'm gonna start working on this tonight and see if I can turn it around. I see a bunch of stuff I shoudl be able to fix and expand pretty quickly and I think that will help turn it around. --Kumioko (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'll help out, too where needed. Let me know where.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Chennai

Review commentary

Notified: Sodabottle, SpacemanSpiff, WikiProject India

I am nominating this featured article for review because of reasons given below in the last post of the Talk page. X.One ^SOS 15:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Secret of Success, please detail your concerns with this article's status - your post on the talk page only says that there are a lot of problems. Dana boomer (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, coming to that, firstly, the tag on the "Education" section seems irrelevant. An example farm tag was also put up before, but I cleared all the unwanted companies and institutes to remove it. Another section to be addressed is "Media". It has the same problems that education had, too many examples and no content. In "Geography", some things need sources like "A third river, the Kortalaiyar, flows through the northern fringes of the city before draining into the sea at Ennore. Adyar and Cooum rivers are heavily polluted with effluents and waste from domestic and commercial sources". I'm also not sure if the Chennai corporation website is a good source for some of the data, for it is more of an SPS. For now, that's all. But to address these alone needs a donkey's effort. X.One ^SOS 16:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

This article barely makes use of any published books. However, I don't agree with Secret of success' perception that the corporation website is not a good source. Stats on the civic amenities and utilize services in the city are given out by the corporation. Published books, too, if any, might rely on the stats provided by the corporation.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 18:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Note Talk page notice was archived. It's now here. Brad (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria concerns mentioned in the review section focused mainly on referencing. Dana boomer (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment there may be issues with sources and references, but I'm finding some prose issues as well.

  Chennai is well connected to other parts of India by road. Four major national highways branches out from Chennai.They are National Highway 4 (India) to Mumbai(via Bangalore), National Highway 5 (India) to Kolkata (via Bhubaneswar),National Highway 45 (India) to Theni (via Tiruchirapalli)and National Highway 205 (India) to Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh (via Tirupati).Numerous state highways link the city to Pondicherry and other towns and cities in Tamil Nadu and neighbouring states.

  This section needs to have links piped, spaces inserted between sentences, and just a general copy edit. Imzadi 1979 → 19:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Done —Commander _{(Ping me)} 17:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comments I didn't get to this one before it went to FARC. At a glance I see many troubles. Citations to Britannica, citations missing retrieved on dates, citations with a mess of different date formatting dmy ymd mdy etc, citations with broken harvard refs, and citations with dead links. Education section has a synthesis tag placed last August. The talk page contains a list of "Good quality sources" (whatever that means) but they haven't been utilized. Discussion about article improvements has been going on for months. Brad (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• dmy date format consistency -done --Anbu121 (talk me) 13:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• All dead links fixed --Anbu121 (talk me) 06:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I was the one that posted a shortened version of the "list of troubles" on the talk page. Most of it still applies. As far as the good quality source listing, I just pulled up some books that are considered significant in the discussion of Chennai. I'll try to expand the list soon (per my commitment to Dana a few weeks back, sorry, just been away from WP) and/or try to edit the article, but as it stands I think the article is a candidate for removal. —SpacemanSpiff 06:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delist Problems remain. For example, uncited statements and apparent original research in the Education section. I took a look at the first two sentences in the section: Schools in Chennai are either run publicly by the Tamil Nadu government or privately, some with financial aid from the government.[138] The medium of education is either English or Tamil, with the former being the majority.[139] I looked at each mention of Chennai in ref 138: there is mention of one "Matriculation School"; there is mention of "Corporation Schools"; I don't see anything about private schools receiving financial aid. In ref 139, I see mention of "teaching English" and "Tamil-medium schools"; I see nothing about "either" English or Tamil; nothing about English in the majority. DrKiernan (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have missed out "government and government aided schools" in reference 138. That means government owned schools and other schools (private) funded by government. Regarding the second one, I have made a change in the source. X.One ^SOS 08:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I still don't see support for the statements in either source. It is a fair assumption that there is a government-funded and a government-aided school in every Indian city, but [138] does not seem to say directly "there is a government-aided school in Chennai". Nor do I see "the majority of schools in Chennai teach in English" and "schools in Chennai only teach in English and Tamil" in [139]. Given that The Musalman is published in Chennai, and the population is 10% Muslim, I would expect some education in Urdu, and for there to be madrassas attached to mosques teaching in an appropriate language. DrKiernan (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Dude, that PDF is published by the Government of Tamil Nadu. It applies to the whole of Tamil Nadu, and Chennai is a part. In case of an exception, it is mentioned specifically, like in page 67. It does not say directly that there is a xXx school in Chennai, but indirectly it is understood. I also happened to look at the corporation's website, which says "Education Department, Corporation of Chennai which was started with 40 primary schools in the year 1912, today manages 27 Higher Secondary Schools, 36 High Schools, 1 Urdu High School, 1 Telugu High School, 124 Middle Schools (Tamil, Telugu & Urdu), 141 Primary schools and 30 Kinder Garden schools with an overall enrollment of 1,42,387 Students and 4062 Teachers." That means that there are schools having a medium of education in Tamil, Telugu, Urdu and English, so all 4 need to be mentioned. I don't know if that is a good source, for it is an WP:SPS, but since the information is not self-serving unduly, I believe it can be used. And in the present ref 139, it says "Children hailing from Tamil medium schools are confident and happy individuals suddenly transplanted into a hostile and alien atmosphere are linguistically at sea as English is the medium of instruction in most institutions dispensing higher education." That means English has dominated as the medium in higher secondary schools, but for middle and lower classes, it does not say so. Can the sentence be accordingly modified like "English is the dominant medium in higher secondary schools"? X.One ^SOS 16:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I've no problem with using the corporation as a source, or the suggested wording. DrKiernan (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have modified it accordingly. X.One ^SOS 17:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I still don't understand the education section. The first sentence claims that schools that either government or private, even though the source does not support that. Later on in the same paragraph it talks of "Corporation Schools" that I would assume are schools funded by the Corporation. If so, then schools are either funded by the government or privately or by the local authority. I don't know whether this is the case or not, and the article does not make it clear. The first sentence that the public schools are run by the Tamil Nadu government appears to be contradicted in the very same paragraph when it says the Chennai Corporation maintains the schools. DrKiernan (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding 138, let me be clear. Source. " Her care and concern for the school age children is well expressed in the announcements made namely, free laptops for +1 and +2 students, two sets of uniform in the academic year 2011-2012 and four sets from the academic year 2012-2013, additionally providing a pair of footwear to the students of Government and Government Aided schools." The last bit, says that the measure has been taken for government schools and government-aided (which means, private schools with government aid). The source is used just to confirm the existence of government and private-government aided schools. The Chennai article says "Schools in Chennai are either run publicly by the Tamil Nadu government or privately, some with financial aid from the government."X.One ^SOS 16:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I was mistaken, the Chennai Corporation is a body independent of the Tamil Nadu government. This makes things more confusing. I'll try solving this issue after consulting a few editors. X.One ^SOS 16:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"Independent of the state government?" They are the wings of the state government. Have you looked at any of the corporation websites for that matter? Even the expansion of the city cannot be done on own by the municipal authorities, but decided only by the respective state governments. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Then why does it say "Thus Corporation of Chennai is maintaining 286 Corporation Schools, 336 Government and Government aided management schools and 10 A.D. Welfare Schools." What exactly is the difference between Corporation schools and government schools? X.One ^SOS 17:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Kolkata

Review commentary

Notified: Dwaipayanc, Nichalp, Wikiproject India, West Bengal WikiProject, Indian Cities

Version at start of this FAR

I am nominating this featured article for review because...After so long periods from 2006 this article should be review. - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 03:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The main concern lies with FA Criteria 1(a), (b), (c), 2 (c) and 3. The article in its current condition needs serious efforts to restore the quality. Major part of the article need clean up with proper citation and appropriate use of images. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 09:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with the concerns, the notice went onto the talk page of the article on 6 November. That might not be long enough to permit discussion of these issues on the article's talk page in advance of FAR. Obviously, I defer to Dana or Nikkimaria on this point. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I had intended to wait at least two weeks before nominating, after the notice I gave. But maybe the current condition of the article warrants a FAR. Brad (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I think at minimum a week for the talk-page step is warranted, despite the condition of the article, so this review is on hold. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Delegate comment - After over a week on hold, few (or none) of the deficiencies have been addressed. It looks like there have been a lot of edits made in the intervening time, mostly by a new user, but many of these have added more unsourced comment. Also, the deficiencies identified by the banners and in-line tags on the article have not been dealt with. Due to this, I am taking the review off hold, to proceed per the date in my signature. Dana boomer (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• 1a: The prose is in need of copyediting
• 1c: There are many paragraphs and even entire sections of the article that are lacking citations, there are several dead links to sources
• MoS: There are major problems with WP:IMAGE and WP:LINK
• This is all I'm going to list at this time. If serious work begins I will comment further. Right now this article is a disaster and I'm not going to expend the effort of a full review. Brad (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

  Hi. Could you provide a couple of examples of image and link issues? --regentspark (comment) 13:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

  Image problems are "sandwiching" where a photo on each side of the screen has text between them. Another issue is stacking, where several photos are lined up on one side of a section. The article is overlinked; the best example of this would be the last few paragraphs of the Education section where the paragraphs are almost solid blue with links. Reduce wikilinks throughout the article. Brad (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

  Are image sandwiching and image stacking considered bad things? This is easy to remedy but I personally don't see it as a problem. If someone else can confirm that this is a FA 'no no', I'll fix it. Agree about the over linking and will see if I can reduce the blue in the article. --regentspark (comment) 19:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

  WP:IMAGE is a part of the Manual of style. FA articles should adhere to the MOS. Specifically look at Wikipedia:LAYOUT#Formatting. If this were only a minor problem I'd overlook it but there are just too many photos in the article. Once this is fixed then I will check their copyright status. Brad (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment As nominator of the article when it became a featured article and a major contributor, I feel I may try to do some work on it now. Unfortunately I became aware of FAR just today, as I did not log in Wikipedia for past several weeks. I see work has already been started by several editors. However, the article, as pointed out by other editor, is in poor shape, and would need quite a lot of work. May I ask to kindly allow a good period of time? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Request Being away from significant editing lately, I have forgotten this, so requesting. Is there any method that would help in identifying deadlinks automatically, such as running some bot? Can anyone please do that for this article? Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

This tool is good for identifying dead links, as well as links with other issues. It looks like there are several dead links currently in the article. Dana boomer (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Update Work has been started, although slowly. --Dwaipayan (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Note: I think I've fixed all the dead links (the ones I could find with Dana boomer's tool). --regentspark (comment) 13:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Update Almost 100 new citations has been added, only appropriate images has been added, copyedited in parts, other necessary edits done. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 05:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - It looks like a huge amount of cleanup work has been done on the article over the past couple of weeks. Could we get some thoughts from the reviewers as to what more (if anything) is needed. Comments would especially be appreciated on whether the original research banner at the top of the article can be removed. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment Reliable sources are still a problem. Citing Britannica cannot be considered high-quality source; especially the 1911 version. A lot of sources are taken from the object itself such as universities etc. The article has an overall problem with being little more than a disguised list for universities, hospitals, businesses and transportation and persons of academia. Brad (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree. I'll see if I can remove all britannica references but will have to wait till after the holidays for offline references. --regentspark (comment) 02:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the list of universities, I would like to draw your attention that most of the institutions (in the earlier list) have been conferred a status of either state or national importance or is considered to be the best in the Country(due citations will be provided like Rankings by Notable/reputed magazines/Official statements). Please vote for or against this inclusion. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 08:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Can we get an update here, please? Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Although a significant amount of work has been completed on this article during the course of the review, there are still quite a few concerns above that have not been addressed. I am moving this to the FARC section in the hopes of restarting work on this article and getting some more input from the various parties involved. Dana boomer (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment - To expand on my comment above about concerns not addressed, here is what I saw in a quick look through the article:

• Still a significant amount of text sandwiching between images.

Could not understand this comment. Do you mean, some images need to be removed?? Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 05:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed number of images and text sandwiching. If you have issue with a particular image or images of a particular section, please specify. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 16:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Several refs to Britannica - in general, this is not a high quality reliable source.
• Inconsistent reference formatting - see the difference between refs 185 and 186 (both to the Times of India) for example.

  • Y Done. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 16:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Unreliable refs - for example, what makes ref #180 (Iloveindia) a reliable source?

  • Y Done. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 16:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, these were just things that I saw mentioned above that I noticed were still present in the article. Dana boomer (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Delist unless the issues can be addressed. Just in skimming through, I found the following:

• File:Kolkata transport.jpg is captioned as "Calcutta in 1852"; I don't think they had modern color photography in that era. (I'll note that the photo is duplicated in the "Transport" section.)

  Removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amartyabag (talk • contribs) 05:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• File:Alipore Park Place 'BelAir' (1).jpg is missing caption (I think it's been added as alt text instead)

  Removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amartyabag (talk • contribs) 05:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• There's a cute little mini infobox in the "Civic administration" section that's duplicating content listed in the main infobox. I'm not sure about this, and my gut says to remove it.

  The mini infobox gives info about the other key officials, which are not mentioned in the main infobox. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 05:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• The portal box lists the portals in city, country, sub-national region order. Could we at least get them in city, region, country order so it's geographically logical?

  Rearranged Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 05:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• I thought things like {{IndicText}} went up near the top of the article?
• In looking at the navboxes at the bottom, the one for the geographic coordinates isn't needed. The infobox already lists the coordinates, and they're repeated in the title space as well as inline in the text of the article. Removing that would then reduce the article down to 4 navboxes, which is probably few enough to remove the wrapper around them.

  Removed the geo coordinate. Wrapper used to prevent unnecessary cluttering. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 05:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• We also have a Commons link in the list of External links and one over in the sister projects box. Again, the duplication isn't needed.

  Removed. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 05:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Looking in depth now, but the references need some updating.
  • Footnote 2 has a newspaper name unitalicized.

    Y Done. AshLin (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Several citations have author in "First Last" instead of "Last, First" order. One or the other, but not both, please. (I would understand if these were non-Western style names, but "Ian Black" isn't exactly foreign-looking to this American.)

    Y Done. AshLin (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

  • We also have shortened footnotes referencing longer works without page numbers. (Why are they also appearing in parentheses? It's not a big deal, just very different.)
  • Footnote 108 appears to be linked to an Excel spreadsheet, but there's no indication of that other than the icon I'm getting. (I forget if I have something set up to force those to appear for some less common file types, or if that's standard now.)

    Y Done. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 16:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Plenty of online sources are missing access dates. If they were purely convenience links (like to an online copy of a book being hosted at Google Books) that would be fine, but these are online-only sources lacking the dates.

    Y Done. I have tried to correct all the missing dates and format types, if any has been left out, kindly point it out. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 16:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Please audit all of the references, not just the ones I called out. I didn't go through all of them.
• The Bibliography and Further reading sections should look more consistent. FR is using {{refbegin}} and {{refend}} to produce columns similar to the footnotes list; B should use the same templates, even if left as one column. That way the type sizes will match.

  • Y Done. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 16:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• In the very first sentence, it says "generally spelled Calcutta". I thought that the city was renamed? If it was renamed, then it's not really an alternate spelling, is it?

• changed it to "earlier Calcutta". Though the name of the article is debatable and consistently objected. For more see the Talk Page. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 13:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• The lead says it's on "the Hooghly River,[7]", but the body says that it's on "the River Hooghly". Which is it, and why is the location cited in the lead? (That's not a controversial detail that would really warrant citation in the lead when it's repeated in the body.

  Done away with the inconsistency. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 13:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Some of the entries in the infobox have really small type compared to the others. The sizes should be more consistent; the smallest is hard to read frankly.

  The infobox is a common one for all Indian settlements and it has complex syntaxing. The issue regarding small fonts can be addressed only at the discussion in the template talk page. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 05:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Update. The infobox has been changed and updated by User: Saravask. Please have a look.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm just through skimming the layout and the lead. Based on the lead, There's prose issues in need of a good copy edit. There's layout issues in need of reduced photos. I've never seen such a visually busy article. I think there's too much here to salvage at this time. Imzadi 1979 → 17:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: Copyedit has been done by User:Miniapolis and User:Dwaipayanc. Reduced number of images. Selection of images for culture section pending for vote and consensus. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 15:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The number of images in Culture section is too many. It should not be more than three, considering the length of the section.

We sincerely thank reviewers for giving constructive feedback. We expect more feedbacks. My only request would be to allow some more (substantial) time to work on the article. I understand that the FAR was started more than two months ago, but some more time would be greatly appreciated. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments: The editors who are working on the article are requested to find out reliable sources/third party sources for the following footnotes: 13,18,19, 35,42,47,90,113,123, 166, and 204. Either these footnotes are from unreliable sources or are self references. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 05:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Dwaipayanc, what a pleasure to see you and Saravask at work restoring this article! How can I ever repay you for the early work you did to get Tourette syndrome on the road to FA years ago :) There's a mess above, with never a clear delineation of the work to be done. I see you're both hard at work: how can I help? Should I do a MOS review once you finish, or are there other ways I can help? Collapsed text boxes should be removed, and I do agree there is some visual clutter in the article-- you might want to reduce images. Amartyabag, listing footnote numbers isn't helpful, since they change as the article changes. If you need help locating sources, that would be better placed on article talk, so as not to clutter the FAR. The purpose of the FAR is to determine if the article meets or doesn't meet WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Sandy! Pleasure to meet you, too! I think we have some idea to work on. Saravask, Amartyabag, AshLin, Regents Park - many editors are trying to salvage it. Copyditing, prose improvement, reference improvement are going on. I am not in regular touch with certain things such as MoS. It will be great if you do an MoS review. However, I do not know when you should do that -- now, or, later. May be you can help now. Also, you mentioned collapsed text boxes, please do what you think is needed. Improvement of visual clutter will be greatly appreciated. We are very hopeful that this FARC will end in a positive note, especially with many experienced editors involved and genuinely interested. Your help is immensely appreciated. Thanks a lot.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Collapsed boxes removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

To do

To do, from this version:

1. Population numbers in lead and in Demographics section and in Census table all disagree-- need to be synced and include "As of" date. (I am not going to work on the "Demographics" section yet, because it needs to updated, synced with the lead, and "as of" dates are needed.
2. Education: Kolkata is home to seventeen universities, colleges, and autonomous institutions. The colleges are each affiliated with a university or institution based either in Kolkata or elsewhere in India. The University of Calcutta, founded in 1857, is the oldest modern university in India; it has 171 affiliated colleges.[195][196][197] Which citation applies to 17 universities, and why does the 171 need three citations?
3. In general, better attention to "as of" on data that may become dated is needed-- I've found several, pls check throughout.
4. Culture:
   • Is there not an image more representative of Kolkata culture than the "small magazine stall at book fair"?
   • Not what the source says, please rephrase, remember to give date context: The city had a tradition of political graffiti depicting everything from outrageous slander to witty banter and limericks, caricatures and propaganda, but graffiti was banned by the Election Commission of India.
   • WP:SEASONS fix needed here: ... Durga Puja, in the autumn, ...
   • Non-English words should be in WP:ITALICS-- I'm catching a lot, but missing some, review throughout is needed.
5. Citations:
   • This needs a language icon: Caudhurī, Bhabānī Rāẏa (2006). Baṅgīẏa Sābarṇa kathā, Kālīkshetra Kalikātā: ekaṭi itibr̥tta. Mānnā Pābalikeśana. ISBN 978-81-87648-36-9. http://books.google.com/books?id=3PL2MQAACAAJ. Retrieved 23 November 2011.  This has been replaced by a new ref in English with page number.
   • We reduce caps to sentence case per MOS on Wikipedia and for consistency (some use sentence case now, others use caps): I did some, more needed. [17]
   • Doesn't look like a reliable source, no longer maintained: ["The Asian football stadiums (30,000+ capacity)". Gunther Lades. http://www.fussballtempel.net/afc/listeafc.html. Retrieved 26 October 2006. ]
6. Samples only-- we need to check throughout for conversions and for WP:NBSPs. [18]
7. I believe the article uses British English, but I see kilometer rather than kilometre-- need to check spelling throughout for WP:ENGVAR-- I don't know British spelling well enough to do that.
8. When all else is done, check that WP:LEAD summarizes article. For example, this text is in the lead but isn't really covered in the article:
   • As a rapidly growing metropolitan city in a newly industrialised, albeit developing, country, Kolkata confronts substantial urban pollution, traffic congestion, overpopulation, and other logistical and socioeconomic problems.
   • among them several Nobel laureates

   The lead needs to be resynced with the article, to summarize the main points in the text, per WP:LEAD

9. Review Further reading section: are all of those needed? Some used to be citations, but when page numbers were needed, were switched to web citations.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I've struck most of the list above: remaining-- sync the lead, address my inlines, address comprehensive questions raised below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"Education" section : Kolkata urban agglomeration actually has 14 universities that are run by West Bengal government. I have referenced this from WB higher education department annual report. The report enumerates state government-run universities in the whole state. Among them, 14 are within Kolkata UA. There are other autonomous or central government sponsored universities/institutions as well, and those are names in the following sentences.

Have removed so many references. The number of colleges affiliated is 204, as of 2010, referenced from same higher ducation annual report. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

To do from this version.

Citations needed/replaced/corrected:

1. Note 8. All the inline citations to this note number need to be replaced.
2. Note 9 & 10 lacks page number. Even the citation is not proper, needs a language icon.
3. Note 26. Can be replaced by a more reliable source.
4. Note 44. It is dated, current number with a more reliable one can be added.
5. Note 148
6. The metropolitan area is administered by local governments, including 38 local municipalities. - Add citation

#North Kolkata is the oldest part of the city. Characterised by 19th-century architecture and narrow alleyways - Add citation

1. Note 119. Self reference, need to be replaced by a third party reliable sources.
2. Note 176. Replace by a more reliable source.
3. The National Library of India is India's leading public library. - Add citation
4. Among men Western clothing has greater acceptance, although the traditional dhoti and the Panjabi kurta are seen during festivals. - Add citation
5. Kolkata has many buildings adorned with Gothic, Baroque, Roman, Oriental and Indo-Islamic (including Mughal) motifs. - Add citation

Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 02:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree that all of those statements need citation. Indians can opine better than I can, but is there any doubt that the National Library of India is India's leading public library? If there is, yes a citation is needed. If not, it's not the kind of statement that requires citation-- it seems obvious even to a non-Indian. Ditto for traditional clothing seen during festivals-- not the sort of statement that requires citation. Likely the same for architectural elements of buildings, but I defer to those who know Kalkota. In a broad overview article like this, well known facts that aren't likely to be questioned do not require citation. Neither do I see any reason to replace citation no. 26-- the text is entirely uncontroversial, is already double-cited, and the source is not dubious. Nor do I see anything wrong with 148: it's uncontroversial. What is wrong with 176? And I don't see anything wrong with 119 either-- unless this information is controversial, there is nothing wrong with that source. Please be aware that reliability of sources is related to the kind of statement being cited, this is a broad overview article that makes general statements, and most of these sources are fine, IMO. Let's not make work for the sake of work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

While, I agree with SandyGeorgia, that certain statements are uncontroversial and may not need footnotes. But, it has been my observation that people insists for references even for the most uncontroversial statements on the grounds of NO Originial Research. So, as an extra caution, people may add references. I have striked out the the references for this citations may not be added. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 07:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Kindly vote for the pictures to be selected for the Culture section here. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 02:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a featured article-- before "voting" on images, please make sure they meet image policies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC) hav

Update. As of this version, no page needed or dead link tag. --Dwaipayan (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

And I'm perhaps two-thirds done with citation cleanup, still need to check for converts, NBSPs, italics, other MOS-y stuff, while Dwaipayanc and Saravask are well into copyediting. It would be a good time for others to point out anything else they see. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Poverty stats: I can find only one sentence in the article about slums and poverty in Kolkata: is it not POV to leave out a broader discussion of same?

• http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dpu-projects/Global_Report/cities/kolkata.htm
• http://telegraphindia.com/1120125/jsp/frontpage/story_15050964.jsp
• Dutta M, Husain Z (2011). "Balancing the present and the future: a study of contraceptive use in Calcutta's slums". World Health Popul 12 (3): 23–32. PMID 21677526.  (If Dwaipayance can access the full text of that article, it might provide some background stats on slums in Kolkata, or at least it may point to other sources that discuss stats, poverty, slums).

No, I could not access full text of this article through university access. We are using one source (the Health Survey that has been extensively used in Healthcare section) that has some slum data. We'll try to gather more. Some description of slums is warranted in the Demographics section, besides just dry statistics. We'll work on that. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Slums and poverty expanded and has been added in the demographics section. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 17:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

"As of 2003, about one-third of the population, or 1.5 million people, live in 3,500 unregistered squatter-occupied and 2,011 registered slums." The citation with this line doesn't have the text given. Please check if it was some other link or reference. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 17:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, Page 4 of Kundu's document mentions 3,500 unregisterd and 2.011 registered slums, and the population living in the slum is one third of the city's population (which amounts to approximately 1.5 million). So, this document does support the claim. In addition, now it has support from another document (page 92), which mentions the population in slum as 1,490,811. So, we are ok I think.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Demographics: In the same vein, the "Demographics section gives us none of the sort of financial demographics seen in the articles of US cities (pick some examples from WP:FA, San Francisco, Tulsa, Oklahoma, Minneapolis, Washington, D.C.-- there is no set structure, but I'm worried some content areas that might not be covered (unless more detailed financial demographics aren't published in India).

I could not locate similar detailed financial demographic data from Census 2001. The full data of Census 2011 is yet to be published.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Health: When looking for information on poverty, I came across this and realized this article has no section on Health and healthcare facilities (that is a major miss in terms of 1b, Comprehensive):

• http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-india-polio-20120113,0,5751154.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fmostviewed+%28L.A.+Times+-+Most+Viewed+Stories%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

Few lines regarding health care system has been added in the utility section. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 06:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a start, but I'm unsure it provides comprehensive information, and it contained a lot of sysnthesis from individual laypress accounts. This source provides a better starting place for looking for more comprehensive medical information (some status on healthcare in addition to facilities):

• Bagchi S (April 2008). "Growth generates health care challenges in booming India". CMAJ 178 (8): 981–3. doi:10.1503/cmaj.080287. PMC 2276551. PMID 18390933. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=2276551. 

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

On notable individuals, there is a mention in the lead of Nobel laureates, but no mention in the article (for example, Mother Teresa isn't even mentioned). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Nobel laureates added. It is not understood, why a summary article would need citations for individual persons who are notable enough to have their own articles. Would something for which these people are famous in brackets suffice? For eg. Notable scholars from Kolkata include physicists Satyendra Nath Bose (for Bose–Einstein condensate, Bose–Einstein statistics, Bose gas, Boson), Meghnad Saha (for Saha ionization equation), and Jagadish Chandra Bose (for works on Millimetre waves, Radio, Crescograph and Plant science); chemist Prafulla Chandra Roy (establishment of Bengal Chemicals, India's first pharmaceutical company); statistician Prasanta Chandra Mahalanobis (for Mahalanobis distance and Mahalanobis model); mathematician Raj Chandra Bose (for Association scheme, Bose–Mesner algebra, Euler's conjecture on Latin squares) ; physician Upendranath Brahmachari (inventor of urea stibamine, the medicine for Kala-azar); Nobel laureates Rabindranath Tagore (Literature), Amartya Sen (Economics), and Mother Teresa (Peace); and educator Ashutosh Mukherjee. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 16:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, for example, is Mother Teresa from Koklata or from Macedonia? That kind of sloppiness needs to be addressed somehow. The list those names are drawn from is also uncited: how do readers verify these people are "from" Kolkata? Further, claims made in this article need to be cited in this article-- a reworking of how to handle notable individuals throughout the article is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Instead of "from", now the sentence says, notable personalities who "were born, studied or worked in Kolkata". Is it more explanatory now? What do you think? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no specific published list from which the notable personalities have been selected. "From" has been removed, and "born, studied or worked" has been added. That each of these individuals were significantly associated with Kolkata (birth, significant study or work) can be verified from individual person's articles in Wikipedia. Won't it be too citation-heavy if we add citation to prove each of these individual's association with Kolkata? What do you think?

Of note, in case of artists, the named artists were all associated with Government College of Art and Craft, and that have been referenced from the history section of the website of that institution's website. --Dwaipayan (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The list of notable alumni (it has several entrees, and one has to navigate previous or next) and notable teachers of Calcutta University would provide documentary proof of association with Kolkata for most of these notable personalities. Those that are not covered may need their own citations.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

All the persons mentioned now have citations. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 03:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Image redo; the article went from image heavy, to image bare, and the infobox is ... well, ridiculous.

Images if needed for any section, please add them from earlier version or request the requirement for each section. Please be specific about the problem related to the infobox. We can help to the extent of correcting missing or wrong info. The design of the current infobox was selected after discussion and the earlier one specific to India related settlement has been deleted. Personally, I don't like the current design. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 16:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Recreation in addition to organized sports? Parks and open spaces? Something? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Info about parks mentioned in Urban structure section. Adda culture, jatra (theatre), films, music, festivals mentioned in Culture section. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 16:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

We now have a one-paragraph section on "Healthcare" (unwarranted unless it is going to be expanded). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The section has been expanded, thought it need thorough copyediting. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 16:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

More comprehensive now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Potential source of data for poverty, slums, and health statistics. National Family Health Survey published by International Institute for Population Sciences. --Dwaipayan (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Source of data and narrative for slums The reference that has been used to cite the slum dwellers has good data an narrative on slums. However, we have to use "as of 2003", as the publication is from 2003. Indeed, on further scrutiny, this document is same as the document cited by SandyGeorgia as a potntal source for slums and poverty data.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Remaining

• Updates: Most of the issues raised has been addressed. Now a thorough copyedit and MOS check may be done and we can go for voting I guess. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 04:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Will have to sync the lead with the article. There are things in the article that are not mentioned in the body of the article. For example, GDP ranking; Sutanuti as weavers' village, newly industrialized but developing country (dont know what to do with the last one. Probably can keep the "developing" part).--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

As of this version,

1. I still don't understand how notable individuals are being handled. First, what is the criteria for inclusion in this article (how "notable" is "notable" to be included here?), and second, why is Mother Teresa listed in the "Education" section? The whole issue of how to handle notable people needs rationalization. To further confuse matters, List of people from Kolkata is listed under the "Culture" section.

   The criteria for selection of the notable persons in the page are Primary - 1)Notable enough to have a separate wiki article with 2)Individual reliable inline secondary citations proving the same in the Kolkata article; and Secondary - 1)Significant contribution of his/her field of expertise, and 2)Have own recognisable highly prestigious international or national awards or was nominated for it for his/her contribution or 3) is or has been an elected member of a highly selective prestigious scholarly society or association, or 4)The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC and his/her work is well recognised as evidential from secondary sources. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 07:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

   Mother Teresa's listing in Education section has been removed and added in the demographics section. I could not find another appropriate section where Mother Teresa can be listed. Is it ok now or we should omit it altogether??? Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 10:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

   I do not think Mother Teresa should be omitted, as she has been almost an iconic figure related to Kolkata. Mentioning her activity in the slums paragraph of demographics section should be ok. Any better suggestion?--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

2. The terminology of "authorised" and "unauthorised" slums is most jarring to a person unfamiliar with India; does the government there actually "authorise" slums? Some explanation is needed; I may have addressed that, please check.

   You have perfectly addressed the issue.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

3. No idea what this means: As of 2003, the majority of households in slums are the informal sector; 36.5 percent are involved in service sector and 22.2 percent are in the marginal sector, mostly casual labourers.

   Clarified the sentence. Please check.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

   More specifically:

   • "Economy" says:

     Flexible production has been the norm in Kolkata, which has an informal sector that employs more than 40% of the labour force. One unorganised group, roadside hawkers, generated business worth 8,772 crore (US$ 2 billion) in 2005. Around 0.81% of the city's workforce is employed in the primary sector (agriculture, forestry, mining, etc.); 15.49% works in the secondary sector (industrial and manufacturing); and 83.69% works in the tertiary sector (service industries).

   • "Demographics" says:

     As of 2003, the majority of households in slums are engaged in occupations belonging to the informal sector; 36.5 percent are involved in servicing the urban middle class, and 22.2 percent are casual labourers. About 34 percent of the available slums labour force in Kolkata are unemployed.

   So, first, no as of date on Economy, so we don't know if these two sets of data are related. The impression is that the second focuses only on slum dwellers, while the first is overall, but are they from the same time period? Second, the Economy data uses standardized sectors in economic terms, but I'm not sure what the second set is doing. Third, why do we have some employment data in "Demographics" and other in "Economy"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

   The dates has been mentioned. Yes, the second set of data is of slums, which can be easily understood from the sentences. The sentence has been re-written and wikified for better understanding. The terms like informal sector and casual labourer are standarised terms, even the non-standarised terms, like "servicing the urban middle class" has been clarified with examples. The economy related data in the demographics has been moved to the economy section. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 07:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

4. Are there no atheists in Kolkata? I can't get the source to load. Further, isn't it obvious that "other religious minorities" make up the difference? Is this sentence even needed? And why not "make up" instead of "constitute"?

   Other religious minorities, such as Sikhs, Buddhists, Jews, and Zoroastrians, constitute the remainder of the city's population. [19]

   Updated religion data. The figures have changed! Either census data got updated, or, somehow the data were vandalized in the article. I have double-checked the data now. Also, percentage of people who "did not state religion" (may be a portion of them are atheist) has been mentioned now.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

5. The infobox is still ... awful. It goes on and on and on, and what does that map add to the article? Further, one of the reasons that this article deteriorated before is that folks plopped in all manner of images-- have editors here rationalized the use of images here, and based on what? Are the images used the most representative of Kolkata, and has the compliance with policy been reviewed on each one?

I think if we can get these few remaining niggles addressed, the article is within "keep" territory. No FA is perfect, but this is close enough to no longer warrant defeaturing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

As of 6 February 2012, one inline comment by SandyGeorgia remains unaddressed. The one regarding the pronunciation of Kolkata and Kalikata in the Etymology section. I have requested and emailed an user knowledgable in IPA and Bengali language for creating the IPA for those. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The IPA pronunciation keys have been inserted now for Kolikata and Kolkata, and some other Bengali terms in the etymology section, thanks to User:SameerKhan. No more inline comments remains.Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

New to do

• "According to the 2005 National Family Health Survey, around 14 percent of the households in Kolkata were poor, while 33 percent lived in slums, indicating that a substantial proportion of households in slum areas were not poor."

• Is the addition of the wording "indicating that a substantial proportion of the households ... were not poor" from the source? If not, it's original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• The source says, "The overall results indicate clearly that a substantial proportion of households in slum areas are better off economically than the bottom quarter of urban households in India in terms of wealth status."

• The statement uses India, and not Kolkata, as this trend was present in all cities except one that were surveyed. (This is based on Figure 2.1 on page 23 of the document). So, what do you think? Can we use "poor", or, shall we exactly say what has been said in the source?--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'd stick closer to the source in this case, still seems ORish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• The wordings from the source have now been used.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• "... one of the oldest automobile associations in the world (established in 1904),[20]

• A self-citation is not adequate for a claim that it is one of the oldest-- that would need independent citation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Now a citation has been provided from a 1904 issue of an automobile journal "The Horseless Age" (must be a collectors' item!). The article in the journal says that with the establishment of these two automobile associations, (Bengal and Western Indian) the automobile movement is making considerable strides in the Far East.

• Not sure if this will suffice. Otherwise, will remove "one of the oldest" from the article. Please have a look. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• No, I don't think that supports the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Removed "one of the oldest..." part. Re-inserted the earlier self-reference from the automobile association website, in addition to that journal reference. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Notability

The criteria for selection of the notable persons in the page are Primary - 1)Notable enough to have a separate wiki article with 2)Individual reliable inline secondary citations proving the same in the Kolkata article; and Secondary - 1)Significant contribution of his/her field of expertise, and 2)Have own recognisable highly prestigious international or national awards or was nominated for it for his/her contribution or 3) is or has been an elected member of a highly selective prestigious scholarly society or association, or 4)The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC and his/her work is well recognised as evidential from reliable secondary sources.

Here is the list of person mentioned and the reason for their inclusion:

• Physicists Satyendra Nath Bose (for Bose–Einstein condensate, Bose–Einstein statistics, Bose gas, Boson), Awards/Member - Padma Vibhushan, General President of the Indian Science Congress, Fellow of the Royal Society.
• Meghnad Saha for Saha equation, Awards: Fellow of the Royal Society of London, Recognisation by peers
• Jagadish Chandra Bose (for works on Millimetre waves, Radio, Crescograph and [[Plant science]) Awards:Companion of the Order of the Indian Empire (CIE) (1903), Companion of the Order of the Star of India (CSI) (1911), Knight Bachelor, Fellow of the Royal Society, President of the 14th session of the Indian Science Congress in 1927.
• chemist Prafulla Chandra Roy (establishment of Bengal Chemicals, India's first pharmaceutical company) Awards: Companion of the Order of the Indian Empire in 1911 . He was Honorary Fellow of the Chemical Society and Deutsche Akademie, Munich. He was president of the 1920 session of the Indian Science Congress. The Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) honoured his the life and work with the first ever Chemical Landmark Plaque outside Europe.
• statistician Prasanta Chandra Mahalanobis (for Mahalanobis distance and Mahalanobis model); Awards: Weldon Memorial Prize (1944), Padma Vibhushan (1968), Fellow of the Royal Society, London (1945), President of Indian Science Congress (1950), Fellow of the Econometric Society, U.S.A.
• physician Upendranath Brahmachari (inventor of urea stibamine, the medicine for Kala-azar) Awards:Kaisar-i-Hind, Knight Bachelor, president of the 23rd session of the Indian Science Congress in Indore, fellowships of the Royal Society of Medicine, London
• Educator Ashutosh Mukherjee, VC of Calcutta University. Awards:Order of the Indian Empire, Knight Bachelor, three times president of the Asiatic Society, president of the inaugural session of the Indian Science Congress in 1914.
• Noble laureates Rabindranath Tagore, C. V. Raman, Amartya Sen. By virtue of the contribution to their individual fields they were awarded Noble Prize which is an universally recognised highly prestigious award.
• Film Director/Author/Poet Satyajit Ray, Awards:Academy Award-winner, the highest civilian honour, Bharat Ratna, List of awards conferred on Satyajit Ray
• Ritwik Ghatak, Films recognised by International Films Critics, In a critics' poll of all-time greatest films conducted by the Asian film magazine Cinemaya in 1998, Subarnarekha was ranked at #11 on the list.[11] In the 2002 Sight & Sound critics' and directors' poll for all-time greatest films, Meghe Dhaka Tara was ranked at #231 and Komal Gandhar at #346 on the list.[12] In 2007, A River Named Titas topped the list of 10 best Bangladeshi films, as chosen in the audience and critics' polls conducted by the British Film Institute. Huge peer recognisation.
• Mrinal Sen Awards: 7 National Film Awards, Padma Bhushan, Commandeur de Ordre des Arts et des Lettres (Commander of the Order of Arts and Letters), the highest civilian honour conferred by France, Dadasaheb Phalke Award, More Awards
• Tapan Sinha 19 National Film Awards , Dadasaheb Phalke Award.
• Aparna Sen, winner of three National Film Awards and eight international film festival awards.
• Buddhadeb Dasgupta, 11 National Film Awards and many international film awards
• Rituparno Ghosh 11 National Film Awards and many international film awards
• Author/Social Reformist Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar Awards: Order of the Indian Empire, Peer and Public recognisation. References in main article provided.
• Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay Author of National Song of India Vande Mataram, Wide peer and public recognisation. References in main article provided.
• Michael Madhusudan Dutt, He pioneered what came to be called amitrakshar chhanda (blank verse). Wide peer and public recognisation. References in main article provided.
• Kazi Nazrul Islam, Nazrul is officially recognised as the national poet of Bangladesh, Padma Bhusan by GOI
• Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay. Novelist. Wide peer and public recognisation.
• Social reformist Ram Mohan Roy, He is known for his efforts to abolish the practice of sati
• Social reformist Swami Vivekananda Founder of Ramakrishna Math and Ramakrishna Mission
• Abanindranath Tagore, Painter, Unique painting style. wide peer and public recognisation.
• Jamini Roy: Unique painting style, Awards: Padma Bhushan
• Painter Nandalal Bose: Award: 'Padma Vibhushan' Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 10:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I think what SandyGeorgia is trying to say here is not only inclusion criteria but exclusion criteria as well. AmartyaBag has mentioned some criteria here. These are retrospectively applied criteria, in the sense that the notable personalities were in the article even before we thought of those criteria. Indeed the personalities mentioned came into the editors' mind naturally, we did not even think about any criteria, while contributing to the article. This happened, as we (major contributors to the content) have some existing knowledge already about the city and their notable residents.

However, this is not the case for someone who is not acquainted to the city. systemic bias may also play a role in this, as a popular rock band in some US city is more well-known name than a nineteenth century poet in Bengal, although the contribution to the local culture is more significant in the case of the latter. To maintain transparency and neutrality, it is expected that we can utilize some criteria. Unfortunately there is not really any published list of notable Kolkatans which we are following here. And admittedly, there may be other persons who meet the criteria but are not included yet in the article.

What I want to say here is probably we can follow the criteria mentioned by AmartyaBag, as I do not know if there exists any suggested guidelins in Wikipedia for inclusion of notable personalities in a city article. As this is not a journal article, we probably do not need very strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, rather we set some acceptable criteria, and gradually build on those. I hope we have not excluded any very eminent personalities, and also hope the names so far included have not made the article just a list of names.

If there is still question on transparency, exclusion criteria etc, we may need to be very strict in inclusion criteria, and remove many names, except those who are internationally renowned in their field, or, popular in public. Personally I think the at present the article has slightly more than optimum number of personalities mentioned.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

What I'm after is an idea of how you all will prevent the addition of "every Tom, Dick and Harry" who has a Wikipedia article. That becomes a future maintenance nightmare. For example, in the medical realm, we include people who have made a lasting impression upon public perception of the condition. Do you have a means of limiting future additions to those who are indelibly connected to Kolkata in reader's perceptions (eg, no doubt that Mother Teresa has to be there, she's synonymous with Kolkata, but where do you draw the line to keep the list from growing inappropriately in the future)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

While the criteria laid down by me is basically a guideline on who should and who should not be added. The names added should be such, who has a higher degree of notability rather than the less stricter criteria of notability. Say if a director or an author gets a say Oscar/ Bharat Ratna/ Padma Vibhusan / Booker / Noble or have own significant national and international film awards / literary awards (say at least 8-10) he may qualify. However, we should use commonsense in selecting who and who should not be added. Eg, a single noble prize can be a sole ground of addition, while a director with 5 National Film Awards may not be added. Further, the names should be added in such a manner that it should not look like a laundry list, rather it should flow into a prose. Any addition of new names must be closely monitored by the editors periodically. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 04:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I hear you, SandyGeorgia. It will be a problem. We do not have strict exclusion criteria. On the other hand, there are other people who have not been named despite meeting inclusion criteria. Amartya has said an important thing here, that the names should be added in such a manner that it should not look like a laundry list, rather it should flow into a prose. More importantly, the watching of the article has to be more vigilant from the part of regular watchers of the article. Even then, an acceptable inclusion and exclusion criteria would have been the best deterrent against random addition of names. Unfortunately, we do not have the criteria ready yet, although the set of criteria mentioned by AmartyaBag can be considered as a beginning.

Is there any precedence of such working criteria known? I will try to look it up. If not available, we can work towards creating a set of acceptable guideline, with the above-mentioned criteria as a foundation. Also, we will add the criteria (which is in the development phase)in the talk page of the article. Is that an acceptable solution for the time being? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the answers to those queries-- I'm only aware of the criteria in use for medical articles-- but I imagine that anything you can do to keep the list from turning towards TRIVIA (such as posting your criteria to talk) will hold the article in good stead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This will continue to be a problem, as it is nearly impossible to set objective inclusion and exclusion criteria. We will have to consider each case on individual basis :( Please see how is this FAQ section. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I have another question for this list of people. How do you decide that a person is "from" Kolkata? What is the criteria for inclusion into this set? Is it (a) the person stayed in Kolkata for X years? (b) was born and brought up in Kolkata? (c) the person's ancestors are from Kolkata? Many of the people listed above were not from Kolkata or even West Bengal for that matter. Some, like Jagadish Chandra Bose spent only part of their education and career at Kolkata. So, the criteria for inclusion should be clearly stated in the article. --Ragib (talk) 07:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

As told by Dwaipayanc above, there cannot be a strict objective criteria, the essence of the selection is that the person must be significantly related to Kolkata. Obviously a person who was born in Kolkata, but shifted elsewhere at the age of 5 and never returned to Kolkata may not be added in the main article, even if his contribution very much significant. But a person, who was not born in Kolkata, but studied and lived a major part of his/her life in Kolkata may be added. I am against setting a straight jacket criteria. But obviously a rough guideline which can show the path is needed. I guess we must go for a common consensus on the issue not just for this article, but for similar articles on Wikipedia as a whole. I am posting the issue at India Noticeboard for a broad consensus. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 12:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Amartya for taking this matter to the Indian noticeboard, as this a more general problem rather than only of this article. Ragib, you know that this is a very general problem, and more so for people from British India period. We are trying to discuss it in the India noticeboard, please comment there as well.

I propose that when mentioning notable people in the city (or state) articles, the word "from" should not be used. Rather, more specific, and if possible "action-words" should be used in the proper context. As an example, the education section in Kolkata article now reads, "Notable scholars who were born, worked or studied in Kolkata include physicists Satyendra Nath Bose, Meghnad Saha, and Jagadish Chandra Bose; chemist Prafulla Chandra Roy...". So here specifically born, worked or studied have been used. it would be great to have more specific criteria, such as worked for X years, or worked on a project that brought him international award or recognition etc. But again, that is not a specific problem of this article only, and a more general discussion is needed.

To reply the specific example that Ragib used (Jagadish Chandra Bose), although born hundreds of miles away from Kolkata, his school and college education, and more importantly most of his research works took place in institutions in Kolkata. So, he has a significant association with the city.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Polish–Soviet War

Review section

Notified: WT:RUSSIA, WT:POLAND, WT:MILHIST, User talk:Piotrus (asked for futher commentary after he posted here on 9/4), User talk:Novickas

I raised some issues on the talk page on the 10th. So far, only minimal work has been done.

• Image bunching issues before Prelude; the previous image juts down too far, making the Prelude section very narrow.
• Two one-sentence paragraphs in "Diplomatic front, part 1".
• "Red Army" needs a copy edit. Several sentences begin with "by".
• Other sections need copy editing; "Kiev Offensive", "String of Soviet Victories", "Battle of Warsaw" and "Aftermath" have multiple one-sentence paragraphs.
• "Battle of Warsaw" also has several sentences beginning with "the".
• A few [citation needed]s here and there.
• Red links all over the place, particularly in the refs. These should be checked to see if any have article potential.
• There are ibid.s in the references, which is a no-no.
• Some instability issues, as another user started an edit war.
• Way too much "further reading". It takes up more than one screen just for the English books, and another for the Russian ones.

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Image bunching in Prelude fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• 1a TPH mentions several prose issues but the entire article suffers with prose problems. Thorough copyedit needed.
• 1c Is a major problem. Many citation needed tags, several paragraphs without citations and dead links. WP:NOENG should be followed.
• 1d Seems to be a long standing problem with this article. Talk page threads are full of disputes.
• 2c There is no uniformity of citations whatsoever. Missing requirements for authors and publishers. The "further reading" section is unbelievably large. There is no "bibliography" section for the material that was cited in the article.
• 3 Too many problems to bother listing each file. Incorrect licensing, incomplete information on authors and publication dates leaving files with questionable copyright statuses.
• MOS Problems with MOS:Images, MOS:LINK. Brad (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Delegate note - TPH, have you notified the primary contributors? According to this tool, that would seem to include, at the very least, User:Piotrus. Once you have notified them, please list them at the top of this review page. Dana boomer (talk) 12:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Piotrus has already posted here, so I've asked him for further input. I've also notified the second-highest editor who's still active (all the others haven't edited since at least 2008). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, wonderful, thank you! I had missed seeing Piotrus's comment here; my apologies. Dana boomer (talk) 10:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a more general question but one that I've been wondering about for awhile and this is as good as place as any to raise it - what exactly is the problem with "one-sentence paragraphs"? I mean, obviously if there's a bunch of them, then that's a problem. But if you look at lots of scholarly articles (though I'm sure this varies by discipline) or even literary works, one sentence paragraph, while uncommon are usually not entirely absent. Sometimes a one sentence paragraph says exactly what it needs to say and it does its job in a way that it's supposed to. Is this addressed in MOS anywhere (I looked, couldn't find anything about it, might have missed it though)? Or is this just another one of those Wikipedia conventions that have developed (for no reason, except possibly hubris on part of some past reviewers)? It's not hard to fix here, but the question is, should it? Volunteer Marek  22:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Brad says: "Many citation needed tags". NO. There are 2 (dos, dwa, two, 1+.9999999999...) cn tag in the article currently. That's not many, that's something that can be easily fixed. Let's not have a replay of what happened at the Katyn massacre FAR. Please take some time before making comments here. Volunteer Marek  22:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Paragraphs, "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text;". While I (and I think pretty much everyone else) agree that occasionally single or double sentence paragraphs are a good thing, since they help to provide emphasis on certain points, having an excessive amount of them can render the article listy and choppy. On the issue of location of publishers (I just saw your question elsewhere, but am answering it here for ease), the convention is to include publication locations for either all books or no books, for the sake of consistency. AFAIK, there is no guideline that says you must include them, but to follow FAC criteria 2.c (consistent citations) the article needs to be internally consistent about either providing them or not. If you would like examples of this being enforced, I can provide them from current FACs. Hope this helps, Dana boomer (talk) 10:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does, thank you very much, both for the location and thing and the single sentence thing.

However, I'm not so sure that "two" single sentence paragraph is "too many". Actually, I don't see any single sentence paragraphs in that section (Diplomatic front, part 1) - there are two two sentence paragraphs but they are used to summarize and "wrap up" the section, which I think is stylistically appropriate. I guess they could be combined into one four sentence paragraph if this is really that important.

Also, I took care of the two citation needed tags, and the "ibid" thing in the refs. The reference section does need to be cleaned up a bit and streamlined though it's not as bad as it's being made out. The "Further reading" list is in fact too long, but removing unnecessary cruft is easy and quick. Volunteer Marek  11:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I have went and did image cleanup, all seem to be free. I've added descriptions and sources to the ones which were missing them (but they were PD anyway). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Media criteria 3

• File:Polish-soviet war 1920 Polish defences near Milosna, August.jpg Life +70 tag but author is unknown. Missing US copyright tag.
• File:Jozef Pilsudski1.jpg Life +70 tag but author is unknown. Missing US copyright tag.
• File:Polish-soviet propaganda poster 1920.jpg Life +70 tag but author is unknown. Missing US copyright tag.
• File:Petlyura Sold UA.jpg Life +70 tag but author is unknown. Missing US copyright tag. Missing source.
• File:Podarok panu.jpg Using Life +100 tag but author died in 1946; tag incorrect until at least 2046.
• File:Cooper Fauntleroy.jpg Life +70 tag but author is unknown. Missing US copyright tag.
• File:Polish-soviet propaganda poster 1920 Polish.jpg Life +70 tag but author is unknown. Missing US copyright tag.
• File:Polish-soviet war 1920 Aftermath of Battle of Warsaw.jpg Life +70 tag but author is unknown. Missing US copyright tag. Brad (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The "Missing US copyright tag" issue - looking at images in a whole bunch of other similar (warfare) FAs on military topics that are non-US centric, I'm not seeing many US copyright tags. Are they always necessary or something? For example Battle of Arras (1917)'s images mostly have copyright tags for the EU, UK and Australia. Most images in these kinds of articles have the tag that states "This applies to Australia, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years." - which I presume includes the US. But that's essentially the same tag as the images here. I don't work with images that often so am I missing something? Why isn't that tag sufficient? Volunteer Marek  10:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hrrumph. I think that commons:Template:PD-1996 may be the one useful here (since 20+70=90<96), so adding it to all the pictures should deal with this breeze of meta:copyright paranoia. That aside, I am however curious about commons:Template:PD-EU-no author disclosure which I think is the one VM mentions. This seems applicable for numerous items from 1926 to 1940 (and of course, from before 1926). I see that this template says nothing about requiring a corresponding US copyright tag. Why the difference? Also, the weird claim about having to prove it was not published with a claim of autorship seems like a joke, how are we supposed to prove something like this satisfactory? Other than saying "the used source does not cite an author", I see no reasonable way to fulfill this condition. PS. Anyway, why does it even exist when commons:Template:Anonymous-EU makes no such requirement? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

There isn't much doubt that the files in question here are PD. The trouble is making sure that the files have the correct license. A lot of the older files on commons are a terrible mess for various reasons. {{PD-old}} is the tag that claims Life *70 and you will see that it also requires a US copyright tag. If the author is unknown the file should have a tag based on date of publication from the country of origin or commons:Template:PD-EU-no author disclosure seems to fit as well. Commons requires files to be out of copyright in the US because the commons servers are located in the US. For FAs the copyright tags need to be without question. Those of us here are confident that the files are PD but it must be made clear via the license for those who don't. To make every file look nice and neat and uniform the information template should be used: {{Information |Description={{en|}} |Source= |Date= |Author= |Permission= |other_versions= }} Brad (talk) 11:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I fixed the templates for all but the Russian posters, for those I am not sure what other template would be more appropriate. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I struck the ones that are ok now. If you can't fix the licenses on the remaining files ask at commons for help or remove them from the article. Brad (talk) 07:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Update - Can we get an update here on how things are going? Have the comments by Brad and TPH been addressed in full? Can those two revisit? Does anyone else have any comments? Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• I've cleaned up red links, removing some. All that remain are notable, per WP:RED (all red linked authors, for example, have articles on pl wiki). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Some work was done on the references but the majority of issues still need attention. Brad (talk) 11:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Like? Oh, and can you point me to where MoS discourages sentences beginning with "by" or "the"? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• It's not that the sentence begins with "the". It's that so many of them do, and many of them are adjacent. In other words you have "The blah blah blah. The blah blah blah. The blah blah blah. The blah blah blah" and it reads rather tediously. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• TPH and Brad, can you provide more specifics on what needs work, maybe by striking the issues above that have been resolved? TPH, can you please provide examples of the spots where you feel that the prose needs work? Above, you mention that the prose of the Battle of Warsaw section is repetitive with sentences starting with "the", but I can't find any spots in that section where two consecutive sentences start with "the", and only half a dozen or so sentences at all that start with "the", which is definitely not too many. I believe some other issues have also been resolved, including the "ibid"s and a pruning of the furthur reading section, so an update to the comments above would be appreciated. One thing that I should mention is that the image sandwiching in the Prelude section needs to be resolved, per MOS:IMAGES. Dana boomer (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• I removed one image, I hope it is better now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
• It seems that pointing out specific problems results in only the pointed out issue being fixed and ignoring any others. Based on what I learned down below with the Katyn article I'm not playing that game again. As for this article, only a blind person could miss the still open maintenance tags. I've already struck what has been fixed and will only strike when issues are addressed. Article needs to move to FARC. Brad (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• The Kiev Offensive section still has four sentences in a row beginning with "the". Copy-edit that. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
    • TPH, at this point it would be appreciated if you could give a full review, instead of just pointing out minor issues one at a time. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Almost everything looks fine now. I only have one more issue: Does "opposing forces" really need its own section for one sentence? Expand this or combine it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Replied at User_talk:TenPoundHammer#Re:_Polish-Soviet_War. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. The infobox states 47,571 – 96,250 from the Polish-Ukrainian side killed; a major variance. In trying to verify this, I did an internal Gbook search in the book that 96,250 is referenced to (Bohdan Urbankowski, Józef Piłsudski: marzyciel i strateg, (Józef Piłsudski: Dreamer and Strategist), Tom pierwszy (first tome), and it found no instances of 96. [21]. Other numbers show up, for example 1920 [22] or 26 [23]. The number 96 doesn’t show up in Volume 2 either [24]. Could someone confirm the higher number? Novickas (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I changed this number to about 48,000 based on Norman Davies's White Eagle, Red Star. I can only see a snippet on Gbooks [25] so I called a friend who owns a copy of the book to verify the context. Because I see the 96K number as an outlier that isn't confirmed by either a search of the book or of other sources, I also removed the ref named Urb 493. Novickas (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

So what did your friend say? Typo? Wrong context? I believe it was me who added the Urbankowski's refs, so I am curious what did I do (read) wrong? I don't have the book with me to check it now, unfortunately. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The Davies passage reads: The Polish-Soviet War did no more than perpetuate the existing misery. It was fought off people's nerves, off the remnants of inherited resources, off foreign relief, and with surplus weapons. The effects of its termination were far more definable than the effects of its prosecution. In Poland, miserable conditions were mitigated by the belief that 'victory' would bring improvement. Conditions did not suddenly improve, however, and for a time actually deteriorated. The winter of 1920-1 saw hard times indeed. Demobilization started in January 1921. Casualties totalled a quarter of a million; the number of dead stood at nearly 48,000.(reference) The number 48,000 is repeated in a University Press of Kentucky book. [26]. Up to you and other readers and reviewers about the 96K. Taking in good faith that you found the 96K deaths in a book by Bohdan Urbankowski, I would still want to note that the author is not a historian. Per the Bold/revert/discuss policy you had ought to restore it if you are vouching for it. Novickas (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Query - are reviewers satisfied that this article can be kept without FARC, or do significant issues remain? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Everything looks good to me. I say close the FARC. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Move to FARC; like I said a month ago. Anything that I've not stricken from my review above is still an open problem from 2 months ago. There are still dead links and maint tags. New problems are a neutrality tag and File:Bij_Bolszewika.jpg which has an incorrect license. Instead of fixing the problems they just ram in more photos and move commas around. Brad (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality tag was added by an anon without an explanation, removed. What's your problem with Bij Bolszewika image? It is pre-1923, so clearly PD. Which links are dead? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I already explained to you in an above conversation the reasons for correctly licensed media. From that above conversation you did fix many files but three others are still awaiting correction. Asking me what links are dead when there are tools available to find them and links that are clearly marked with the dead link tag totally boggles the mind. Brad (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

So as far as I can tell, everything has been fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Delegate note - extended commentary related to Brad's !vote has been moved to talk. Everyone please remain calm and civil, and keep commentary focused on the article rather than on contributors. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

See this tool for a list of dead links - it looks like four dead links altogether. There is also a fact tag in the Diplomatic front, part 1 section which needs to be dealt with, but that is the only maintenance tag that I see. Dana boomer (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, these are the four Ukrainian and Russian ones that were left in there with the hope that someone who speaks these languages fluently can track down an up to date link. Anyway, I just removed the links, though where available I left the Wayback Machine version. The cn tag - I'll try to put something in there though the tag is really superfluous as the citation is right there at the end of the sentence. Volunteer Marek  16:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Re cn tag - nm, I see what the problem is. Hold on. Volunteer Marek  17:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, fixed. Volunteer Marek  17:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

FARC commentary

The initial nomination focused on prose, referencing and general structure. Quite a bit of work has been done on the article, and the nominator has stated that he thinks the article is now in a state to be kept. However, another editor has disagreed, and no other uninvolved parties have commented. I am hoping that by moving this to the FARC section we can get some outside commentary that focuses on how this article does or does not meet the featured article criteria. Dana boomer (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment. So how long will we keep this dead horse live before agreeing that we can keep it and moving on? :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Kicks the tumbleweed, mutters about bureaucracy, and moves on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Sorry, Piotrus, I hadn't seen your comments until just now. I was planning to close this today (due to no-one apparently taking an interest in it), but then saw a few things that needed to be addressed:

• Brad is correct that there are still three images that need licensing work. Listing them here:
  • File:Polish-soviet propaganda poster 1920.jpg Life +70 tag but author is unknown.
  • File:Petlyura Sold UA.jpg Life +70 tag but author is unknown.
  • File:Podarok panu.jpg Life +100 tag but author died in 1946; tag incorrect until at least 2046. (Even life+70 would be wrong until 2016.)
• Two dead links (see here.
• A mix of British and American spelling - I see both organize and organise, neighbor and neighbour, realize and realise, for example.
• It feels like there's rather a lot of images stacked along the right-hand side of the page, but they're not sandwiching text or anything, so this is more of a personal preference.

Other than that, the article looks fairly good (although I didn't do a full read-through of prose). So, unless anyone else pops up with concerns, I think it should be good to go once the above are addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the deadlinks, removed the Podarok file (since it DID have inaccurate license) and standardized the spelling. For the two other images, it's true that the author is unknown. But isn't this often the case with historical images? Anyway, I'll see if the authors can be tracked down.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

This is strange. For this image [27] the "description" given is completely incorrect "Petlyura (second from left) and Polish General Antoni Listowski (left). 1920 Petliura (segundo desde la izquierda) y el General Polaco Antoni Listowski (izquierda), 1920 |Source= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Petlyura_Lis" - and it appears to refer to this image [28] instead.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't know about that specific image... As for the author thing, there's another tag that (I think) licenses an image as free use if it was first published before 1923, and is used especially for when the author is unknown. I don't know what the coding is for it though :( That might be helpful here, if you know when the images were first published. Dana boomer (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Should I even bother commenting about what problems remain? Brad (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

No, you should simply go away and stop wasting people's time.VolunteerMarek 06:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

VM, that was unnecessary. Brad, if you have comments that relate directly to the FA criteria and are presented in a polite manner (no commenting on contributors!), then please, go ahead. Please be sure to present solid examples, rather than generalizations. It is looked kindly upon if the article editors work through the whole article with a reviewer's comments in mind, rather than just fixing the given examples. I feel like a broken record here. You guys are adults - you should be able to figure out a way to work together to improve content without all of this bickering. Dana boomer (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• After you consider WP:CIVILITY and what it means, Brad, sure. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Proceeding with caution I'm expecting my concerns will be dismissed as usual so I won't list everything atm.

• Citation # 10 is a broken harv ref claiming credit to "PWN" but there is nothing linked to or identified elsewhere in the article that tells us what "PWN" is.
• File:Bij Bolszewika.jpg has no author information listed but is using the life+70 copyright notice. Obviously +70 cannot be determined when the author isn't listed.
• Citations to Britannica are not high-quality sources. Brad (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Putting bad faith aside, I welcome constructive comments like the ones above. I restored PWN cite to an older version, when they were still not broken by the evil harvard template. Britannica is used three times, the first two in discussion of name and dates, where it is rather indispensable (proof that sources differ); the third time it is used for a rather "blue" fact and I think we can simply and safely remove it (needing to cite that JP had a major influence on Polish politics is like saying that Stalin had it on USSR, or Washington on US). Doh! Pic's license changed to PD-1923, as it dates to 1920, so it shouldn't matter who was the author. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

My comments haven't changed since day one. But anyway... I see that PWN is Internetowa encyklopedia PWN which like Britannica, is an encyclopedia. WP is an encyclopedia too and citing WP articles with another encyclopedia is not acceptable for an FA. This situation is a big blockade that needs resolution. Keep in mind that a mixture of citation styles (harvs mixed with non-harvs) should not be used. This is a good place to stop for now. Brad (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

While tetriary sources are discouraged compared to secondaries, I am not familiar with a policy that they are not allowed, article class being a factor or not. WP:RS states clearly: "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used...". I agree we should try to replace them with secondary sources, but I see it as an optional thing to do, not required by the current policies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delist From a quick skim of the article (focused on the references and without reading any section of it in detail) I noticed the following problems, any one of which would be sufficient to derail a new FAC. These all seem pretty obvious to me, and as they should have been fixed at the outset of this process I think that the article should be delisted.
  • A fair amount of material, including several paragraphs, doesn't have any supporting references
  • Several of the notes at the end of the article are referenced to works in the 'further reading' section. Page numbers aren't provided for these references.
  • I'm a bit uneasy about the use of three Polish propaganda posters in the article. Including one seems OK to give a flavour of the approach the Polish Government used to whip up public support, but three is excessive as these images obviously aren't NPOV (even if they are amazingly crude to modern eyes)
  • The lead is probably too long
  • At least one of the books in the 'further reading' section was actually used to reference material in the body of the article.
  • Several of the references to books don't include page numbers
  • The references section includes several notes despite the presence of a dedicated section for these
  • There does not seem to have been a consistent style used for the references
  • Given that Adam Zamoyski's 2008 book appears to be the most recent book-length English language study of the war, it should be used as a reference rather than be included in the 'Further reading' section
  • While the titles of most Polish-language books and articles are translated into English, several are not
  • What makes this a reliable source?
  • All the images in the article other than maps and a photo of Lenin are of Polish or Polish-aligned topics. As images created by Russians who died before 1943 are PD, it should be possible to include at least some photos of Russian forces.
  • I own the 2003 Pimlico edition of Norman Davies' excellent book White Eagle Red Star, and have checked the references to it in this article. Worryingly, all of them are seriously flawed:
    • Page 39 gives the Soviet strength in February 1919 as 46,000, and not "~50,000" as is referenced to it in reference 1
    • The text referenced to this book in the second iteration of reference 2 (which begins with "In the course of 1920...") has been lifted word for word from the book
    • Page 41 doesn't say that the strength of the Polish Army in early 1919 was "~50,000" as is referenced to it in note three - the only use of "50,000" on this page is in regards to the number of Polish World War I veterans from France who arrived to reinforce the Polish military during early 1919. The page doesn't appear to give an estimate of the total Polish strength at this time, though it states that Poland had 110,000 serving solders at the time the Army Law was passed (I'm not sure when this took place) and the military seems to have then been expanded.
    • Page ix is the right-hand side of a two-page map of the war's theatre of operations, so obviously doesn't support the text cited to it in reference 99
    • I'm not sure why the 1972 edition of this book is being cited in note 8 given that there's a much more recent edition available. Likewise, the reference to the Polish-language edition of the book seems unsuitable given that there are English editions available. Nick-D (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I fixed the close wording issue in the sentence you mentioned. Overall, I think you raise a number of good points, which I am not prepared to address right now, so I am withdrawing my support for the article. I do disagree with one argument - the one about using the latest reference (or English, when translation is available). We should not force editors to discard the book they bought (or found in the local library) for another, which may have nothing updated. I am pretty sure there is nothing in WP:V/CITE encouraging that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
        • As Brad noted earlier, WP:NOENG specifies that English-language sources should be used whenever practical. Nick-D (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
          • Practical means that if I have a Polish translation of a book on my shelf, I am certainly not going to waste money buying it in English just so that some page numbers can be updated. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking through it, I also have to admit that some (maybe all) of Nick's points are valid. I will try to fix some of these issues but given limited time it will probably take a while.VolunteerMarek 19:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll put in some time over the next week to make a full copy-edit pass for anything missed. I have the Davies book, so I can check through any of those as well. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Francis Petre

Review commentary

Notified: Top three editors by edit count; Peter Entwisle, Grutness, GiacomoReturned, Projects: Biography, New Zealand, Architecture.

Talk page notice was issued during April 2011 that descended into drama. I find the following criteria are not up to 2011 standards:

• 1a Prose in general reads ok but the "works" section is a long list of bullets that should be in prose.
• 1c The obvious problem is the overall lack of citations throughout the article. The lack of citations leaves "well researched" and "high-quality and reliable" sources questionable.
• 2a Lead section lacks a lot of points raised later in the article body.
• 2c Lack of citations leaves this criteria open to later question.
• 3 File:Frank Petre.jpg, File:StJosephsDunedin2.jpg, File:Sacred Heart Cathedral.jpg, File:Sacred Heart Interior.jpg and File:Blessed Sacrament Christchurch.gif all have various problems such as missing source and author information. Files with no author information are using the life +70 tag which obviously can't be determined when the author information is missing. All of the files need US copyright tags as required at commons.
• MoS Various issues here with MOS:LINK and MOS:IMAGES. Brad (talk) 08:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include prose, referencing, images and MOS compliance. Dana boomer (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Then do something about it Dana - fix the page up if you feel it so bad! I don't agree it all looks fine to me, and no else seems to agree with you, it has languished for weeks since you encouraged it to be reviewed on FAR. You and Brad seem to be the person with the problem, why not act yourself? Or is that beneath you to actually write something? The writing editors are not your servants at your beck and call, I'm sorry if that is a shock for you, but that's the way it is. There are millions of terrible articles for you to concern yourself with - why spend your life knitpicking other peoples hard work. No doubt others will now leap on the bandwagon, but I have watched it for weeks on FAR without gaining one single comment, so you had better go and belatedly stir some of your cronies up! Giacomo Returned 18:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Giano, my comment was a summary of the issues mentioned in the review section, not my own assessment. As you see, it says "criteria mentioned in the review section" as needing work, not "I think that these criteria are at issue". You should really do some research before writing - I may not have written as many FAs as you, but I've been involved in a fair few, so no, I don't consider writing something to be beneath me. As for "cronies"...really?!? The hyperbole at least made for a good chuckle at the end of my working day. If you wanted this review to not progress, there were plenty of opportunities for you to comment - when the notes stating the article needed work were placed on the article talk page, when I placed a note on the FAR page saying that "work needed" notifications has already been made on the article talk page, and during the over two weeks that this article was in the review section. The fact that you chose not to do so is not my problem. Dana boomer (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep:Informative and meets all criteria. Giacomo Returned 12:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
• Query What does Peter Entwisle/User:Peter Entwisle think of it? DrKiernan (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
• Delist Major issues are 1a, 1c, and 3. Brad (talk) 10:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Delist The attribution of the opinions, superlatives and criticisms is unclear. DrKiernan (talk) 15:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC) Revisited. No substantial change. DrKiernan (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Query to Dana: does really a single post by a single user deserve the highfalutin appellation "review section", as in your "Giano, my comment was a summary of the issues mentioned in the review section"? In other words, is it appropriate to proceed to list the article as a "Featured article removal candidate" purely on the basis of a nomination on FAR, when the community has shown zilch interest in either agreeing or disagreeing with Brad's concerns, or coming up with any comments of their own, since September? Also, I'm not sure about those "notes stating the article needed work ... placed on the article talk page" of which you speak. I don't see them, unless you're going with Brad's reference above to a talkpage notice given by User:Ultraexactzz in April, which according to him "descended into drama". Here it is; life must be pretty sheltered here on FAR if you call that "drama". It's barely relevant at all to the concerns raised by Brad, obviously, and in any case stale. For Brad to refer to that in lieu of giving notice of his plans, and his concerns, within a reasonable timespan before he nominates the article for Featured Article Review is, well, just lazy in my opinion. The concerns mentioned by Ultra were only "citation needed tags throughout", a charge he immediately withdrew when Giano challenged it ("Oh hell, I don't know - I just wanted to clear out the category"), and "some image formatting issues.. in that I see a minor bit of sandwiching - though that might be my screen's fault". Ultra is extremely laid back about the inline citations issue, even stating that "it's a non-issue, as far as I'm concerned". Most of Brad's concerns enumerated in his nomination aren't even glanced at on that talkpage. Did you take a look at the supposed drama, Dana? Do you think it's acceptable to refer back to that as Step One of the three "requisite" steps named at the top of this page. when FAR'ing the article in October? To sum up the point I want to make: But is it surprising that Giano is pissed off by this supposed review (putatively, for the purpose of improvement), with two out of the three supposed stages more or less shrunken and mummified, and only the "Removal" step full-size and lively? I don't follow FAR much, so I don't know if this happens a lot. I hope not. Surely it can't have been what the regulars had in mind when they (I presume collaboratively) hammered out the description of the "three requisite stages" at the top of the page ?

That said, the article may well fail to comply with current citation practice. I'll go take a closer look to see if I consider it adequately referenced by the FAC criteria (rather than by the pepperpot practice some editors insist on) as soon as I have time, before I come back to !vote. Sorry for the rush. Bishonen | talk 01:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC).

Thank you for your comments, Bishonen, and I'm glad that you are taking a look at the article - I look forward to seeing your comments. As to the bulk of your statement: There are always two sections in a featured article review: the review commentary section and the FARC commentary section. The latter always begins with a summary by the delegates of the issues brought up in the former. Yes, in this case, there was only one editor commenting the review section, but that does occasionally occur. FAR is unfortunately not as busy as FAC, and what editors we do have tend to only chip in on the review section when there appear to be editors interesting in improving the article or they see other major issues that the initiating editor didn't address. In this case, Brad posted his comments as to why he believed the article no longer met FA criteria, no-one said anything in defense of the article in the over two weeks it was in the review section, and so it was moved to FARC. The FARC was not going to go through without more editors commenting, so it wasn't as if Brad could delist the article by himself. If other editors (you, Giano, whoever) had posted to the review section either resolving or rebutting Brad's points, then it is likely that the article would not have moved to FARC. Ultra's comments on the talk page were valid (and were not rectified until Brad initiated this FAR), and the fact that he backed off rather than argue with Giano says more about his lack of interest in conflict than his believing that he was wrong, in my opinion. I would also like to point out that Giano's comments both here in the FARC section and on the talk page were filled with hyperbole and insults - classic commenting on the editors instead of the article. A reasoned rebuttal of the issues in question, in either place, would probably have gotten him a lot further. Dana boomer (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

After almost 3 months of process nothing has been done to address the issues. The article has a total of 7 inline citations and a long bullet list that should be in prose. I'm at a loss as to why more editors have not seen those two obvious problems and asked for a delisting. This article should have been delisted out of common sense over a month ago. Brad (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep, with the proviso that I am not up to date on current citation practices and the degree of urgency with which we wish to update previously written FAs to this standard. The long bullet list does not bother me in the slightest - insofar as an exhaustive list of works is encyclopedic, it would be much less legible in prose than as a list. Bottom line: does this article remain one of those of which we should be particularly proud? To me seems that clearly yes. Martinp (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• OK Brad, the fact that you and Ms Boomer have had to leave this here for four months and still can't quite grasp that no one is that bothered about the dreadfulness of this page speaks volumes. However, seeing as you both wish to play these games: the bulleted list, that offends you so, which most people find quite useful has been removed to List of buildings by Francis Petre. I have rearranged the pretty pictures. I'm afraid there are still a few testing words with more than two syllables, but they can soon go too. Now, how many words would you and Ms Boomer like removing so that we have adequate footnotes per ten words and not test the attention span of you and our readers too far? Giacomo Returned 20:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep, or else keep on hold while Giano adds more citations, as I suppose he intends, from his latest comment. (Nice new list of Petre's works, Giacomo, but do you have to keep stirring people up so?) I agree that the article needs more specific citations; I suggest a minimum of one at the end of each paragraph (when it's all from one source), plus at the end of any direct quote. Isn't that a sort of standard today? Mind you, it's not my own preference. In my academic field, we footnote the first sentence of a paragraph, making sure it's clear in one way or another that the rest of it comes from the same source and page. That seems more reader-friendly to me. But that's by the way: it's not the house standard on wikipedia. I like the lively, light style, but some of the opinions need sourcing. Bishonen | talk 01:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

I have no intention of adding more citations. I wrote this page, a series of 'New Zealand architecture' pages years ago, when there were very few Kiwis on the site – I thought it was a way of evening the balance. Since I wrote these pages, they have all been edited by Peter Entwisle editing at User talk:Peter Entwisle. I have absolutely no intention of setting myself above a recognised national expert,so you must do with the page as you, the very far removed experts, see fit. Books, I found to assist in the writing of the page, were all returned to libraries years ago, and I am not going to go trudging about trying to find them again just to satisfy the self appointed custodians of Wikipedia's reliability. Ms Boomer and Brad can either verify the facts themselves or demote the page – we must all gain our job satisafaction where we can - mine is in writing not humouring. Giacomo Returned 19:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - Agree with the concerns by GiacomoReturned and Bishonen, this is a featured article and is very informative. I believe it satisfies all of the criteria. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delist - per 1(c). A 30Kb article with 7 inline citations. Unfortunately, the major contributor of the article (Giacomo) has made it clear that he/she has "no intention of adding more citations."--Artoasis (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Clarification, since I've been brought back into this review. This article was one of only a few listed at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles, and I posted a notice on the talk page indicating that fact and highlighting the most critical issue I saw - the issue with citations. I had no previous interest in the subject or in the article itself; as I said, I only saw that the article had not been reviewed. The talk page notice is a requirement to bring the article to FAR, as you are all aware. The response I got was a fairly angry note questioning the quality of the articles I've created (none of them even close to GA, none of them recent, and few in number besides). I chose not to push the matter further, partially because I was not in the mood for drama or personal attacks, partially because I really don't care one bit whether this is or is not a Featured Article, and partially because I thought other editors might add citations to prevent a Featured Article Review. The concern was there, and perhaps it would stir some progress - which is precisely why such notice is required in the first place. I did not withdraw the concern about citations - that problem was still present, and did not magically go away merely because GiacomoReturned pissed me off. Between my comment and the start of this review, there were all of 7 edits to the article. Two added categories, three were wikiformatting, and two were the deletion (and its reversion) of a section of the article. Until the day this review was filed, no citations were added and no movement made. On the merits, I don't think the article in its present form meets the Featured Article Criteria, but there's enough recent progress to suggest that it can easily be brought up to standard - and I agree that it is a fine article even without the citations. But that's not what gets reviewed here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Minor correction: there were 11 edits between your comment and the start of this review, including 4 by me in the morning before the review started (adding two inline citations). --Avenue (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• • I guess a question worth considering is this - would it pass as a FAC today? I'd like to think so, but I don't know. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hold - this shouldn't be hard to sort out really. I'd always planned to go to Dunedin as I had ancestors there. Will see what I can do about inlining in next few days. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Still holding; nothing happening. Brad (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)