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

Madonna (entertainer)

Notified: User talk:Legolas2186, Wikipedia:WikiProject Madonna

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the many recently discovered problems with facts that are not supported by directly cited sources. This FAR is part of a general cleanup of articles about Madonna's albums and songs, ones in which sources were misused and even fabricated. Because of the high visibility of this article, and because of its status as a biography of a living person, we are very much encouraged to get it right. Let's make sure the article is as accurate as possible. Binksternet (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a note that I have a policy of not participating in FARs of articles that I promoted at FAC, so I'll be sitting this one out, but I share the concerns that have been raised on article talk and elsewhere,[1] and note that I have not been able to decipher why I didn't request a source check on this FAC (I waived source checks if the nominator had previously had one, but I can't figure out why I thought this nominator had). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I wish to add links to the original discussion and the workpage:

• Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_4#Legolas2186_possibly_falsifying_references
• User talk:Legolas2186/Fixing citation problems

Ongoing work on other articles should be brought to the second linked page. Binksternet (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I intend to be involved with this FAR and fix as much as I can. Does anyone have Taraborrelli? My local library system doesn't have it available. --Laser brain (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you think we should move your Partial_source_audit here, or copy it here, or leave it where it is? Binksternet (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. We'll need to make a master list of refs that are OK and not OK so we can track which ones have been fixed. The partial source audit will be a start to that list. --Laser brain (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Laser brain comments copied from Talk:Madonna_(entertainer) (ref numbers need updating)

Ref 4(d), fails verification:

• Article text: "However, she was allowed to retain her fee of five million dollars."
• Source text: Does not mention the fee at all.
• Fox News source reliability. What makes Fox News an expert on Madonna? I don't see any sources cited, and I get no sense of who the editors/authors are, what importance they put on getting this right, fact checking, etc. Should we just jettison the Fox News source and use the reliable book sources? Binksternet (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • At least one Fox News biography source can be traced via quoted comment from Madonna, where she says she arrived in NYC with $35. The Metz/Benson book, The Madonna Companion, quotes Madonna saying "I was only 17. I had $35 in my pocket and knew no one. I told the taxi driver to take me to the middle of everything. I was let off in Times Square." However, the Fox News bio does not dip into Metz/Benson for its information about older brothers Martin and Anthony, nor about Adams High School or the thespian club; these are not in the book. So we know that Fox News is using more than one source. It's wrong, of course, about Madonna's mother dying at 31. What else is wrong? Her older brothers and her thespian involvement are all verifiable in other books. I'm not seeing any obvious mistakes except the mother's final age. Binksternet (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty close to getting a sustained period of time to go through at least the first section. My plan is to eliminate that source. I don't see anything that's not covered by other sources that are proven to be more reliable. I've seen Fox News do okay on some things, but it looks like whoever assembled this bio was just making quick work of it. --Laser brain (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Ref 20, fails verification:

• Article text: "Her first documentary film Truth or Dare (known as In Bed with Madonna outside North America) was released in mid-1991. The documentary chronicled her Blond Ambition World Tour and provided glimpses into her personal life."
• Source text: Does not mention alternate title or anything about "glimpses into her personal life".

Ref 22(a), fails verification:

• Article text: "Her debut single, "Everybody", was released on October 6, 1982, and became a dance hit."
• Source text: Does not mention the single "Everybody" at all.

Ref 32(a), fails verification:

• Article text: "Madonna further came under fire when she performed the song at the first MTV Video Music Awards where she appeared on stage atop a giant wedding cake, wearing a wedding dress and bridal veil, adorned with her characteristic "Boy Toy" belt buckle. The performance is noted by scholars and by MTV as an iconic performance in MTV history."
• Source text: No mention of some details (such as belt buckle) or "noted by scholars". Not at all sure what that's referring to.

Ref 32(b), misapplied/redundant.

More surely to come. --Laser brain (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Alarbus comments copied from Talk:Madonna_(entertainer)

Comments on this version of the article.

• Bronson 2002 (#56, #79, & #118) is undefined, although it may be Bronson 2003 in Further reading.
• Michael 2004 (#95, #96, & #107) is also undefined, but may be seeking St. Michael 2004.
• Taraborrelli 2003 (#136) is another undefined source, that may be intended to be Taraborrelli 2002.

Alarbus (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Gimmetoo comments copied from Talk:Madonna_(entertainer)

Refs 21 and 22 (in the current version) are probably switched. Ref 21 does mention "Everybody", with a release date of April 24, 1982, which was the date given in the article though much of its history, and ref 22 is more focused on the recording contract. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Progress notes

• Life and career 1958–81: Early life and career beginnings is done. --Laser brain (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Frederick Russell Burnham

Notified: Rlevse, Ctatkinson, WikiProjects listed on talk

I am nominating this featured article for review mostly because of sourcing problems noticed while on the main page. Despite efforts to fix it, the article still contains very close paraphrasing of this source (PD, but not cited for the problematic section). An entire section on this individual's influence on the Indiana Jones franchise needed to be removed because of copyright issues; however, for comprehensiveness it is likely necessary to include a rewritten section on that topic. Many of the book sources are missing page numbers, which are required for both verifiability and paraphrasing checks. Some of the sources do not support the information they are citing (for example, few of the given details about Mlimo's assassination can be found in FN 17 - I've been unable to locate the more detailed source). There are also some MOS (repeated wikilinks, missing hyphens, etc) and tone issues (ex. "Burnham decided it was time to leave Africa and move on to other adventures"), but the sourcing issues are the most concerning. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

1. I re-wrote and referenced a significant paragraph that was generically removed. The "Indiana Jones franchise" (aka, Allan Quatermain series) section was not critical to the article, but it was interesting and I agree that an edited version should be re-incorporated. So that WP editors may address any other concerns, note any other sections that you still see as problematic. In the meantime, I have added the following that statement to the references that will address your major concern: This article incorporates public domain material from a biography of Major Burnham: Davis, Richard Harding (1906). Real Soldiers of Fortune. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. ISBN 0-87364-239-2.  Ctatkinson (talk)

Reliability of sources and 1c high quality sources need to be checked (samples for review and opinion):

• 38 ^ Forster, Reverend Dr. Michael. "The Origins of the Scouting Movement" (DOC). Netpages. Retrieved October 2, 2007.
• 42 ^ "Fact Sheet: The Silver Buffalo Award". Fact sheet. Boy Scouts of America Troop 14. 1936. Archived from the original on April 29, 2006. Retrieved November 28, 2006.
• 49 ^ "Frederick Russell Burnham". White Eagle District. Retrieved August 19, 2007. (Dead link, can't review for reliability)

I base my concerns on the issues I saw at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Hillcourt, which was before the change to 1c requiring higher quality sources was enacted. At that time, Rlevse was citing an individual scouting pack's website; I've seen other individual troop websites used as sources, put up by individual scoutmasters, in some of Rlevse's articles (does not the Boy Scout Association have more authoritative information?). All need to be checked for reliability. Paraphrasing should not be the only concern in reviewing Rlevse's FAs; sourcing should also be reviewed for current standards re high quality sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

There are quite a few books written by National Council or historians and each edition of the Boy Scout Handbook has a chapter on the history of the Scouting Movement.--Guerillero | My Talk 15:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I've substituted the former 49 ^ White Eagle District dead link cite with an active link cite from the U.S. Army official homepage: Best Warrior Competitor Continues Family Tradition of Military Excellence, now 50 ^. Ctatkinson (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Image review

• Ideally, File:Fred and rod burnham ca1930.jpg should have permissions logged via OTRS if the release into the public domain isn't published anywhere.
• Several of these photos come from the Burnham Family Collection, but they are missing author information, It would be preferable to find authors if possible.
• I would also note that photos have to be published before January 1, 1923, for the age of the photo to guarantee public domain status. I have uploaded a couple of photos from 1917 that weren't published until 1976 and 1978, and they're only public domain because the first books with them are were a work of the US federal government and a work of the State of Michigan without a copyright notice and no subsequent registration.
• File:Scouting on two contintents cover 1934.jpg fails the WP:NFCC. The cover of the book should still be under copyright protections, and the illustration is not necessary to the understanding of the article, nor is it a subject of critical commentary. It should be removed unless someone can prove that the copyright on it has lapsed.

In addition, the citations need to be checked for consistent formatting. I'm seeing books with and without publication locations, with and without ISBNs or OCLCs, newspapers with and without ISSNs, citations with and without page numbers or access dates as appropriate, etc. (I prefer to list a OCLC if the book is too old to have an ISBN; the citations have one, both or none of these.) I've even found a few where the authors weren't listed in "Last, First" order. Nothing insurmountable, but work is needed. Imzadi 1979 → 23:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

1. I need clarification on your OTRS comment. I have the only copy of the photo and my intent was to release it into the public domain. Ctatkinson (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
2. Publication of the photos within a book, journal, or any other source may be helpful for registration and to help establish age, but it has never been a U.S. copyright requirement. The act of creating an original work is enough to establish U.S. copyright and the people captured in the photos can be used to establish the age of the photograph. Ctatkinson (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
3. I've substituted the Scouting on Two Continents dust cover with the 1896 sketch of Burnham done by Baden-Powell that was later published on the dust cover. Ctatkinson (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

1. If the photo has been published some place, and in that publication it lists that the photo is in the public domain, we can verify the copyright status. If not, the usual procedure is to use WP:OTRS to file a ticket that verifies the status of a photo. As a side note, only f you own the rights to the photo, can you release it into the public domain. Given that there's no apparent linkage between the user name "Ctatkinson" on Wikipedia/Commons and Martha Burnham Burleigh, we have to be careful.
2. Sorry, but that's not quite correct. US copyright law deals primarily with the date of publication, not creation. If a work has never been published, there's a secondary set of rules. See commons:Commons:Hirtle chart if you have questions. If the author of an unpublished work is not known, or the death date of the author of an unpublished work is not known, a work is not public domain for 120 years after creation. That's why it's actually important to know who created a work.
3. When was that sketch first published? If it wasn't published for the first time before January 1, 1923, it's not in the public domain. Publication dates trump creation dates in US copyright law. Imzadi 1979 → 09:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire

Notified: User talk:Yannismarou, User talk:Dr.K., Wikipedia talk:WikiProject European history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Former countries ‎ , Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greece

• Extensive problems with sourcing: "Reconquest of the western provinces ", "Macedonian dynasty and resurgence" (completely unsourced), "Wars against the Muslims", "Relations with the Kievan Rus'", "Komnenian dynasty and the crusaders" (also unsourced entirely). Raised sourcing problems on talk page and they haven't been tended to.
• "Division of the Roman Empire" needs a copy edit. Several sentences in a row begin with the same words. I also see several standalone sentences.
• What makes Roman Emperors.org a reliable source?
• External links need an overhaul. There are way too many, including some on personal websites on mac.com.
• Last FAR was in 2007.

The unsourced sections are my main concern, but a copy edit is also in order in parts. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The See also section is way too long. It is unnecessary to repeat links that occur in the text or in the navboxes. DrKiernan (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with all the above remarks. And these are not the only problems. E.g. the article has far too many photos, and even the ones that will finally stay need some rearranging. According to the new standards, Brittanica should be replaced as a source and some other citations also need corrections, additions of pages etc. etc.

The main problem of the article is that there is no editor constantly looking at it and fixing any problems arising. During the last FAR, I had worked my ass off to upgrade it, and, along with other editors, we had managed to save it. I wish I had the time to do it again now, but I haven't. I wish somebody else will undertake the "dirty work", because it is one of the richest articles of Wikipedia and "it would be a pity to lose it" (as another Wikipedian had said in a previous FAR).--Yannismarou (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

One good thing about previous checkpoints such as FACs, FARCs and GANs is we can compare versions and easily and systematically review additions and subtractions - this might facilitate this whole process. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

My intention is to work a bit on the article during the weekend, since I have some new additions in my library which might be helpful. But no guarantees that I'll do work finally! During the weekends, I often get lazy!--Yannismarou (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I have begun working on the article, and will continue doing so over the next few days. I re-wrote and sourced the intro to the Macedonian Dynasty section, and plan to eventually source the entire section, as well as copyedit it along the way. I think the sourcing will be the hardest part, the external links, see also, and copyediting are easier to deal with. Though I don't have much time, this is an extremely significant article and it would be a real pity to have it delisted. Athenean (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker

Notified: Pagrashtak, WikiProject Video Games

I am nominating this featured article for review because it fails criteria 1c, not enough inline citations to support the article. A talk page notice was started 1 month ago, but no sources have been added so far. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Questions, comments, complaints?) 16:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Which sections exactly need more inline citations in them? GamerPro64 19:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The Gameplay section. In fact it's completely unreferenced. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Questions, comments, complaints?) 20:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Cutecutecuteface2000, now that you have an editor apparently interested in working on the article, please give a list of all the issues that you found with the article, rather than just listing them one at a time. Dana boomer (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Gameplay section is unreferenced.
• Plot is excessively detailed.
• There is no information on the awards it received at E3.

Those are all the issues I could find. If you find more issues, please reply here. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Questions, comments, complaints?) 15:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The Reception section isn't nearly beefy enough for an article like this one. This game received huge reviews from every major publication at the time. Development could stand to be expanded as well. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:48, 29 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.

Free will

Review commentary

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)

FARC commentary

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, comprehensiveness, and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Azerbaijani people

Review commentary

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[2][3]

It is unclear whether concerns over 1d (bias) and 1e (stability), are resolved.[4][5] 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)

• Thanks again.

• Cites added.
• I've dismantled that section and merged it into the other sections that talk about Azeris on each side of the border. There was some repetition and the material is similar.

• Close Comments addressed; tags cleared. DrKiernan (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Looks good. The only further thing that I would suggest is to investigate the charge of non-neutrality in one sentence (see article history), but this is a very minor issue. Dana boomer (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep without FARC - DrKiernan has done a great job on this article, and has addressed all of my comments above. Article is in much better shape than when this FAR was started. Dana boomer (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• The recent edit warring and POV pushing on the article has made in unstable and again pushed it below FA quality. Because DrKiernan seems unwilling to continue working against this type of editing (and I don't blame him, I wouldn't want to either), the article needs to be moved to FARC and delisted. It is disappointing that so much work went into this article and then was disturbed with edit warring, undiscussed removals of sourced information, etc. Dana boomer (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Issues raised in the review section include neutrality, sourcing, and prose. Though improvements were made in the review, recent instability and disputes have necessitated a move to FARC. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Roe v. Wade

Review commentary

Notified: Andrew c, Atlant, Severa, and all active WikiProjects listed here

I am nominating this featured article for review because I think that it no longer meets the FA criteria, specifically that of 1a, 1b, 1c and 2a. I have not been the most significant contributor to the article, but I have done some work on it recently. The primary author of the page (User:Anythingyouwant) has retired from Wikipedia and has been banned from the topic, so I don't think I should inform him of this FAR. I will notify the next three editors by number of edits though, and will also notify WP:SCOTUS and the other WikiProjects which have claimed this article about this filing (I asked at WT:SCOTUS last week if people thought bringing the article to FAR was a good idea, and two people said yes).

Some of the issues I have with the article is that the prose isn't particularly brilliant at this time. That can be fixed by a good copy editor though, so I'm not particularly concerned about that. I'm more concerned with the other matters in criteria 1. The first four sections are built using relatively few scholarly works and far too many primary sources for my liking. That issue is somewhat better once we get into the "Controversy" and later sections, but those sections have a whole host of other problems. The controversy and Public opinion sections are poorly organized and need to be rewritten from scratch. There needs to be a deeper analysis of the overall legal thought about the decision, not just selections from a few authors. I also believe that the "Role in subsequent decisions and politics" is far too long—it gets too far into into the recent history of abortion in the United States. We don't need to recap every single matter that has happened in the past forty years.

Some of these issues might sound like a simple content dispute, but I think they are actually underlying structural problems. If the article still had active editors, I think that we might be able to solve the issue just on the talk page. But it doesn't, and I'm bringing it to here in hopes that we might be able to repair the article.

Best, NW (Talk) 16:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment
  1. "far too many primary sources for my liking" == WP:IDONTLIKEIT
  2. "poorly organized"? In what way?
  3. The analysis of the legal decision seems fairly comprehensive. I'm not a lawyer, so you'll have to elaborate here.
  4. The "Role in subsequent decisions and politics" does not seem overly long, and certainly does not cover "every single matter that has happened in the past forty years"
• You'll have to do more to convince me that what is underlying is structural and not political. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the first issue (too many primary sources) is something that should be looked at and improved on for this article. I don't see it as WP:IDONTLIKEIT, rather asking for sources that can lend a stronger foundation for some notes in the text. This is especially true for a controversial subject like abortion; that only increases the need to ensure the article is neutral and supported in the literature.

And...after a look at the article, there seems a large reliance on Linda Greenhouse's book to interpret the decision itself. As to sources discussing post-Roe politics and legal issues, that is likely fine. Lord Roem (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

1. WP:PSTS seems to cover this fairly well. Some of the primary sources, I have less of a problem with some of the sourcing, but I think that the "Prior history of the case" should be sourced by secondary sources, especially considering the political activity of Norma McCovrvey in the past several decades.
2. Poorly organized: See Talk:Roe v. Wade#Controversy section—User:Noleander and I will try to work on that soon.
3. I wrote much of that section about two months ago. I'm not a fan of its comprehensiveness, and I'm not entirely sure if it is a comprehensive and accurate summary of the decision and its history before the court. I would also feel much more happy if it didn't rely on a single source. The section on the dissents needs to be looked at as well.
4. It does rehash the cases to attempt to give a complete history of abortion before the High Court since the article. Over 20% of the body of the article is dedicated to it.

I'm also somewhat amused that you think that this is political. All I can do is try to assure you that it is not. I hope that you can accept that based on my editing record. Best, NW (Talk) 19:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No need to check your editing record. Your word is enough for me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur that this article in general is not very well written. Not bad, but not great. It also appears quite biased on the pro-life side; it gives quite a few examples of dissatisfaction or disapproval of the decision, with not many in support. This does reek of political bias and a violation of the neutrality of Wikipedia. The data is also outdated, and only one poll (Gallup) is cited. Because of this, I also agree that it's also not very comprehensive in original sources. Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria mentioned as items of concern in the review section include sourcing, prose and structure. Dana boomer (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Night of the Living Dead

Review commentary

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)

I know they aren't, but when you have too many of them, it looks unsightly. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria mentioned as items of concern in the review section mainly focused on various aspects of sourcing. Dana boomer (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

Comment As Sandy has mentioned above, three Indian city articles are in FARC simultaneously. This is difficult for editors. Although Pseudofusulina told that "Kolkata, Chennai, Mysore are unlikely to tax the same group of editors, though.", unfortunately that is partially true. So, my request would be to allow significantly longer time in this case. I have started working on this article. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The review can be extended, if you are planning to work on it. If you wouldn't mind, please drop an update of your progress here every few days and let us know when you are ready for reviewers to come back in and re-check the article. Dana boomer (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Update 1. Lead expanded. Large chunks of text that were completely unsourced (as mentioned in the FAR proposal) have either been removed (as those were undue), or provided with references.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:15, 1 March 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)

• Delegate query: do any reviewers have an opinion on this article? Do its current issues merit delisting? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm troubled that no one seems to watching this important BLP, but can't convince myself that one section that needs updating is enough to delist it. Wish someone who works in this area would have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 29 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)

Missing page nos

I have now covered some of the sourcing issues. I am unfamiliar with the sourcing style and have not attempted to amend it, but if it needs attention this is essentially a mechanical task. Note to self: in the first half, Foster 96 and Stubbs & Howlett still need attention. Ben MacDui 12:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe the page numbering issue has been addressed save for one ref to Foster 96 (#10) and Gillingham 2000 (#64) neither of which I have and nor do I have anything to hand as an alternative. The latter is part of a largely unreffed section which is going to need some other work anyway. Ben MacDui 16:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Peering beneath the clutter there is some inconsistency in the style of referencing so I am using a simpler method. It's less easy to see which source is being referred to, but much easier to see if the reference itself is in a consistent style. Ben MacDui 09:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Essentially done. Ben MacDui 08:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Image crowding

Done. Ben MacDui 16:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Prose *"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".

Agreed and removed/fixed.

• "G.W.S. Barrow, who has devoted his life to studying"
• "there is nothing special about his reign"

Now working backwards through this. Ben MacDui 09:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the specifics mentioned above are dealt with but there may be others. Ben MacDui 12:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Historiography

I doubt there was any genuine OR here but I have removed suggestions I can't confirm and added further information that is sourced. Ben MacDui 20:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Content

• Military now fixed, but:

lacks anything about seapower

odd image problem Ben MacDui 18:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Lack of references

• Christianity and the Church & Geography sections plus odd sentences here and there.

This is now the main issue. There may be others but I think that (generally speaking) the content bases are covered and most of the other issues raised have been addressed. Unfortunately most of the missing information is not available to me and I will now seek assistance from those more knowledgeable. Ben MacDui 08:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Various requests for assistance sent out and offers of help now made. Ben MacDui 10:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

If no one else has volunteered I will take a look at the geography section, which looks like it needs a bit of expansion and a lot of sourcing.--SabreBD (talk) 16:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Please do - I am hoping Billr will have a go at the Christianity section soon too. Ben MacDui 18:25, 29 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)

• Update: I see Ben MacDui is at work here. Hurray! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 29 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 process 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)

Comment - Could we get some comments on whether editors feel this meets FA status or should be delisted? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Leaning delist if some issues are not addressed. I've added some ^{[citation needed]} tags, and there is a bulleted section that could be possibly better written as prose. The prose itself isn't too bad - it is easy to read and errs a little on the colloquial side, but is definitely salvageable. I haven't a clue about the comprehensiveness as I am unfamiliar with the subject. If someone can fix the cites, I am happy to give it a bit of a copyedit to push it towards keep territory, which I don't think is too onerous a task. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Ugh, since it requires Spanish language, I guess that's me :) I found instances were text wasn't supported by source, so I'd have to check each. Will get to it if I can, but no promises. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 29 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. [6].

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 ... [7], This is DIY transhumanism, the fringe of a movement that itself lies well outside the mainstream of philosophy, ethics, technology and science. [8] 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. [9] 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)

Comment - Could we please get some comments here on whether or not editors (those who commented above or others) feel the article meets FA status? Dana boomer (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Could those of you who feel that the article meets FA criteria please comment on how the article does so while still retaining multiple tags and having multiple unaddressed issues above? Dana boomer (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I think the Transhumanism article still meets FA status even if it needs some improvements to make this status permanently uninpeachable. --Loremaster (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I'm agree with Loremaster --Ewigekrieg (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: The article needs improvement but nonetheless meets FA standards in my opinion.StN (talk) 03:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: There has been little or no progress on the technical quality of referencing (deadlinks, missing page numbers), just to mention one very important issue. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I note in regard to the supposed "straw man" nature of the critiques that these should be summaries of material with more in-depth (attempts at) criticism in their own article, since said article exists. (And if people suggest merging these two pages, I suggest doing the same with, say, Criticism of Christianity or Criticism of Catholicism - it's at least as justified, if just as impractical.) Regarding the technical quality of referencing, this should certainly be improved where possible (for instance, if nobody active happens to have a copy of the particular book with page numbers being requested, it may not be). Allens (talk | contribs) 18:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Issues surrounding the Criticism section have been debated and resolved on the talk page a long time ago. --Loremaster (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Could those who are in favor of de-FAing the page please list their remaining issues? Itsmejudith above suggested that there was more than one issue remaining (in Itsmejudith's opinion). Allens (talk | contribs) 21:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Many paragraphs are based solely on primary sources and sources which do not give due weight. A simple example is the large paragraph which starts: "The second category is aimed mainly at "algeny", which Jeremy Rifkin..." which is based on two primary sources for the opinions of the individuals. The paragraph after that is also primary sourced as well as the paragraph after that. (I've already commented above on the substance of the text but now I highlight a different issue) IRWolfie- (talk) 00:07, 28 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)

• Update? Do any reviewers have an opinion on the current state of this article? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 29 February 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)

• Comment - It looks like some work has been done on the article (thanks guys!), and all of the tags have now been taken care of. Can we get some comments by the above editors on how they feel the article stands right now? Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment, work by Mike appreciated, tags removed, but because of past concerns with Vanished User's work, I'd not like to enter a Keep without a source spot check. Where are all the MilHist folk? I'd think they'd care about this one (perhaps so many of them are non-US?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 29 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)

• The infobox should be switched over like was done on Kolkata; the current one has issues with text appearing too small, and it the other one can accommodate up to four leadership officials making the side table in the "Administration" section unneeded. Imzadi 1979 → 03:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• The citations need a review with an eye towards making their formatting consistent. Newspapers whose names don't include their cities should have their locations listed separately, but they aren't. FN 9 has the article title in italics, but the name of the encyclopedia isn't. The article should be in quotes and the book title should be in italics. FN 10 should have its all caps reduced per MOS:CAPS. I could continue, but suffice it to say that each citation needs to be scrutinized and corrected for consistency. Imzadi 1979 → 03:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Can you elaborate a little more on FN 9. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Some stuff has been shifted making them FNs 12 and 13, but they are:

Wagret, Paul (1977). India, Nepal. Nagel's encyclopedia-guide. Geneva: Nagel Publishers. p. 556. ISBN 978-2-8263-0023-6. OCLC 4202160

"District Pofile – CHENNAI". Chennai.tn.nic.in. Retrieved 7 September 2009.

As you can see, the article title (India, Nepal) is in italics, and the title of the overall work (Nagel's encyclopeda-guide) was in plain text. I didn't audit through the whole reference list because there's 176 footnotes at the moment, but these two jumped out at me. Article titles should be in quotation marks as components of a larger work, and the larger work gets placed in italics. We also don't use all capital letters in our citations. The should look something like:

Wagret, Paul (1977). "India, Nepal". Nagel's encyclopedia-guide. Geneva: Nagel Publishers. p. 556. ISBN 978-2-8263-0023-6. OCLC 4202160

"District Pofile – Chennai". Chennai.tn.nic.in. Retrieved 7 September 2009.

A suggestion, but my personal preference is to avoid using domain names ("chennai.tn.nic.in") whenever possible since the group that owns the domain name should have their own name that can be used as the publisher. In this case, that's the district's website, so something like Chennai District should be used instead. Imzadi 1979 → 07:48, 25 February 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)
• Citations missing retrieved on dates fixed --Anbu121 (talk me) 14:40, 15 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)

Clarified by Vensatry. As per the source, "Further in the year 1990 the Government and Government aided schools and A.D. welfare schools are brought under the control of Corporation." That means that the schools in Chennai were government owned before 1990 but afterwards, they have been controlled by the Chennai corporation. So, the sentence can be modified as "Schools in Chennai are owned by the Chennai corporation or by private parties by receiving financial aid from the government." That seems to settle it. X.One ^SOS 12:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No that was just an opinion. Even I'm not clear with the statement. It will be better, if we consult some editors like Sodabottle and Ravichandar84. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments I am trying to attract the attention towards sections that really need work, rather than dwelling on semantics in Education. Demographics, Administration, and Economy need updating and improvement of data. The Administration section, for example, mentioned 155 wards of the city, while in reality the number of wards is 200 since late 2011 (I updated that). This section also needs clarification about the assembly and parliamentary constituencies (I was unable to do so being unfamiliar with the local geography). As the expansion of corporation limit is recent, the section needs careful data update. Crime data is from 2005, later data is available. The demographics need "as of" clarifications. Data on poverty, if available, would be welcome. Economy is missing appropriate mention of unorganized sector. Also, inclusion of more recent data, if available, would be great. Overall, the article needs basically data update, and prose improvement here appropriate. Certain sections (such as History) are indeed of superior quality. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Question - Which is a better format for citing the author of the work in a reference? Last and first (last=|first=) or author (author=)? X.One ^SOS 17:01, 25 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. [10]
   • 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. [11]
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. [12]

   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),[13]

• 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)

Update

The article has undergone significant edits. Thanks to all the editors involved, the article now looks more comprehensive, supported by appropriate references in proper formats, complies with MoS. So, can we please invite comments and also, if deemed appropriate, keep votes :) Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep. As far as I can tell, there are no longer any independent observors at FAR to enter declarations. So I spose we'll have to do it ourselves. I think this article has come far enough that it's no longer in delist territory. I'd feel better if an image person checked the licensing, but that doesn't seem to be happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Who are such image persons? If you can name one or two, we can request them. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Per SandyGeorgia. Disclaimer—active editor of the article. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• keep Comment (on prose and comprehensiveness grounds) I just started looking at this and will finish up in hte next day or two - congrats for the massive amount of work done so far to keep a really integral article like this at (hopefully) FA standard...I'll post any queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if the link to Renaming of cities in India is better done from "Calcutta" rather than the "or" as I think the tiny blue "or" is hard to catch, and it is an important link (?)

Kolkata differs from other Indian cities by giving disproportionate play - "disproportionate" is an odd word - makes me think of usurpers to cricket's natural place as the king of sports or something. I know what you mean though and am pondering an alternate adjective. (just wanna make sure we get the lead just right...)

Otherwise lead looking alright....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments some issues have popped up since I last reviewed this.

• {{IndicText}} has gone missing. It was previously in the article down near the bottom, but was removed. The template's instructions say to place it below the infobox.
  • Inserted back. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 06:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• I removed the leadership table information to the infobox.
• I updated the population change table to comply with MOS:ACCESS.
• File:Mchbuilding.JPG is missing author information, and without it we can't verify that the license is correct.
  • Author information updated.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• The portal links went missing, which is a shame. Editors have been trying to increase the visibility of our portal system, and one of the best ways is to link to them from the articles, normally in a "See also" section.
  • Added Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 14:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• I checked approximately the first third of the references in this version:
  • FNs 2, 20, 53, 72, 75, 76, 77, 79, 83 lack a location for the newspaper. Other papers that don't have their cities integrated into their names have locations listed.

    Locations are only listed where there is ambiguity; listing those commonly known would be tedious. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

    • Sandy, the key is consistency. Now, my personal habit has been to always list a newspaper's location if the city name is not part of the paper's name, without exception. This article is listing the location half of the time, and not listing it half of the time, with the same paper. If the editors don't want to list a location if they judge a specific paper name not to be ambiguous, then fine, but don't list it half of the time and not the other half of the time. Imzadi 1979 → 07:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
      • We will not be adding location name to papers which doesn't have any ambiguity that includes Times of India and The Hindu. However for newspapers like Statesman, Tribune, Indian Express, New Indian Express, Pioneer, The Telegraph (in this case we will use Calcutta, India instead of Kolkata as they use Calcutta) we will use location. We will have to remove the inconsistency.Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 14:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • FNs 5, 8, 24, 46, 63, 65 lack the PDF indication.
    • Added Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 06:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The article is inconsistent about listing the publication location for books; either they all should have locations or they all should not.
    • All book sources now have location of publishers.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • FN 9: what makes http://www.calcuttaweb.com/ a high-quality WP:RS?
    • Removed, replaced.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • FN 11 has "Private Limited (Pvt.Lmt)" as part of the publisher. Why do we need the abbreviation? Traditionally, aren't things like "Ltd.", "Co.", and the like omitted in citations anyway?
    • Pvt Ltd removed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • FN 12 has "OCF, UC Berkeley" as the publisher. Can you spell out what this means? (As an American, I know that the "UC Berkeley" portion stands for the "University of California at Berkeley", but not everyone will understand that.)
    • Done.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • FN 19 lists the retrieval date as "25 january 2011"; shouldn't the month be capitalized?
    • Done.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • FN 28 lacks a publisher or work name.
    • Done.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • FN 30 lacks a publisher or work name and a retrieval date.
    • Done.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • FN 49 could be better formatted using {{cite map}}.
    • Used Cite Map template.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • FNs 73, 81 have the newspaper names and locations formatted differently, and inconsistently, from the other paper citations.
    • I fixed "The Telegraph" citation (number 73 in your version). However, I did not understand what is wrong with number 81 which reads : Raja Mohan, C. (16 July 2007). "A foreign policy for the East". The Hindu (Chennai, India). Can you please tell what is missing here?--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
      • In the previous version, it was Raja Mohan, C. (16 July 2007). "A foreign policy for the East". Chennai, India: The Hindu. Retrieved 18 September 2007. The newspaper name was not in italics, which means it was in the "publisher" field, not the work or newspaper fields (the names are synonymous). Also, a publisher appears after the location, and if a work/newspaper is also indicated, the location and/or publisher appear in parentheses. Imzadi 1979 → 07:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • FN 84: what makes this a high-quality WP:RS?
    • Nothing. Removed. There are two other references for that sentence.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • FN 91 has the television network name in italics; for television, the network would be the publisher and any specific program would be in italics. Other citations to the BBC have the network name in plain text, so this one needs to be fixed for consistency.
    • Fixed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • FN 78 has inconsistent use of italics compared to other citations and a double period after the retrieval date.
    • Tried to fix. The title does not appear in italics anymore. This reference is from a fortnightly publication (Express Hospitality) from the publication house of The Indian Express. So, do you think it is looking alright now?--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• The link to OpenStreetMap does not work, and needs to be corrected.
  • It was corrected.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't support retaining this article yet until these deficiencies are corrected. Please audit the remainder of the references for inconsistent formatting, and please make sure they're all high-quality reliable sources as required by the FA criteria. I commend the work done, but we're not across the finish line yet. Imzadi 1979 → 03:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I've just looked through some of the issues you've raised, and it's a classic case of "too many cooks in the kitchen"; everone adding cites uses a different method. It will take some time to clean up the rest, and the last time I worked in here, text and sources were changing faster than I could clean them up. Before I commit more time to citation formatting, the RS have to be cleared up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Question. Thanks a lot for the examination of the article. We will address the concerns raised by you. However, I have the following questions.

So, is the location thing really so strict? Either they have to be present in all book citations, or none? And also, as Sandy has pointed out, do we really need to have location for every newspaper? Or else, we can simply remove locations that are mentioned now (in order to maintain consistency). Anyway, I will leave the decision to Sandy and you, but please inform what we will do.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Because of the number of different cooks in the broth, it is going to take me some time to continue the citation cleanup. There's a mess in here of different uses of publisher, work, and newspaper (I've never seen the newspaper parameter before). I am not going to add locations on newspapers where it is self evident (Times of India); location was added when there is ambiguity (The Telegraph-- of which there is more than one in the world). I think adding location on newspapers when it's self evident is going too far. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The File:Mchbuilding.JPG happened to be uploaded by myself, clicked on the camera of a friend years ago; how do I add author information for that? Regards. --Dwaipayan (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that the article needs to be internally consistent with how it formats its citations. It's a good thing to include the location, unless that location is part of the name of the paper. In articles I write on topics related to the US state of Michigan, The Grand Rapids Press doesn't need to have the location of Grand Rapids, Michigan, specified in the citation, while The Mining Journal published in Marquette, Michigan, would. If you're including the publication location on half of the book citations, but not the other half, it doesn't look as polished and professional.

Now, as for the RS issue, I only looked through the citations for footnotes 1–91. Footnotes 92–252 still need to be checked for consistency, and the publishers need to be double checked to make sure they're all high-quality reliable sources.

• FN 123 is cited to indiadisasters.org. Any idea who this group is? The website is no longer active, and it's hard to judge the reliability from what's archived.

• Could not establish reliability. Removed this source. Replaced with newspaper report of 2012. Removed annual fire calls data, as it was not available. --Dwaipayan (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• FN 129 is a fansite. This probably fails WP:RS on its own and needs to be replaced.

• Replaced.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• FN 135 is ilovekolkata.in. Probably also needs to be scrutinized.

• Removed. The sentence has two RS references already.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• FN 220 looks like a fansite, but the domain registration has expired.—Removed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• FN 228 could also be a fanstite. Please verify this is a RS. The same goes for FN 229.

• Removed, replaced the cricket site with ESPNCricInfo (which is a reliabvle source for cricket staistics).--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• FN 252 should also be evaluated. It might be a RS, but is it high quality?

• Hmm, it may or may not be quality, difficult to tell. I have added a reference from a general article on field hockey's history in Kokata that came out in The Telegraph (Kolkata). This article mentions the starting year of the tournament. I have not removed the bharatiyahockey.org reference though.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That's the remainder of the sources I saw that need to be checked for reliability and quality. Imzadi 1979 → 04:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Usually, most graphics now have description pages that are formatted using the {{information}} template, which has spaces for the description, source, date, author, etc. You don't need to do that, but you do need to edit the file description page to indicate that you're the author of the photo so we know who released the photo into the public domain. Imzadi 1979 → 04:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: I'll be offline until the middle of this next week because of real-life commitments. I will be unable to reply, but there are enough items detailed in only a third of the footnotes and still two thirds of the citations to be checked for formatting consistency. I'll reply to any follow up questions when I return. Imzadi 1979 → 07:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Question What do we mention as the location for newspapers that are simultaneously printed in different cities in India? The Economic Times would be an example. Do we mention Mumbai as its location (the headquarters), or, just mention India? Some newspapers, although printed in multiple locations, are primarily known to be based in one city (The Hindu in Chennai, or, The Telegraph in Kolkata) The problem is newspapers that are more pan-Indian in nature. Any ideas? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Generally the pan-Indian newspaper takes out different editions for different cities, and for such newspaper adding a location would be a problem, as the internet version may not be clear regarding the edition in which the article was published. The key would be to maintain consistency. We can use only "India" as location for newspapers which have a pan-India publication like Economic Times and are ambiguous. For TOI and the Hindu, we won't be using any location as they are not ambiguous. Please wait for few days before changing and get few more comments. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 02:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Update Locations of publishers for all book sources have now been given in the article. However, newspaper sources have not been updated, as we are not sure about the strategy (please see the above two comments by me and Amartyabag). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm neutral on this issue so long as the citations are consistently following some rule. When I last reviewed the article, it was not following any kind of rule on when newspaper publication locations were included or omitted. As a general rule, I use the location of the headquarters, not the printing facility, when including the location. In short: formulate some rule on what gets locations, what doesn't, and which location is used, and then apply it to all citations consistently. Anything less looks sloppy and it isn't our best work. Imzadi 1979 → 23:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)