Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
GimmeBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
75,273 edits
m Bot updating FAR archive links
Marskell (talk | contribs)
22,422 edits
kp two
Line 36: Line 36:
__ToC__
__ToC__
==Kept status==
==Kept status==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Introduction to general relativity}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Palazzo Pitti/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Palazzo Pitti/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive4}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive4}}

Revision as of 10:42, 24 September 2008

Pages are moved to sub-archives based on their nomination date, not closure date.

See the Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/archive for nominations under the previous FARC process.

Archives

Kept status

Introduction to general relativity

previous FAR (10:42, 24 September 2008)

Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve

previous FAR (10:42, 24 September 2008)

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

The article was kept by User:Marskell 10:25, 21 September 2008 [1].

Palazzo Pitti

Notified: WikiProject Italy, WikiProject Architecture, Giano_II

previous FAR (17:21, 13 January 2008)

Extremely short on references. A topic like this is likely to be researched and many claims are made, yet very rarely referenced. There are quite a few references to books here so excuse my inability to check their verifiability or relevance to particular statements. However, here are a few visible examples:

  • "Though impressive, the original palazzo would have been no rival to the Florentine Medici residences in terms of either size or content. Whoever the architect of the Palazzo Pitti was, he was moving against the contemporary flow of fashion. The rusticated stonework gives the palazzo a severe and powerful atmosphere, reinforced by the three times repeated series of seven arch-headed apertures, reminiscent of a Roman aqueduct. The Roman-style architecture appealed to the Florentine love of the new style all'antica." No sources. It appears that only the final part of the testing is referenced. yet sources are needed to back up the other many claims.
  • "Work stopped after Pitti suffered financial reverses following the death of Cosimo de' Medici in 1464. Luca Pitti died in 1472 with the building unfinished." Source of his death at this particular date?
Done. Ceoil sláinte 12:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Austrian tenancy was briefly interrupted by Napoleon, who used the palazzo during his period of control over Italy." Specific source also needed.
Done. Ceoil sláinte 12:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They contain a collection of Medici portraits, many of them by the artist Giusto Sustermans. In contrast to the great salons containing the Palatine collection, some of these rooms are much smaller and more intimate, and, while still grand and gilded, more suited to day to day living requirements. Period furnishings include four-poster beds and other necessary furnishings not found elsewhere in the palazzo. The Kings of Italy last used the Palazzo Pitti in the 1920s. By that time it had already been converted to a museum, but a suite of rooms (now the Gallery of Modern Art) was reserved for them when visiting Florence officially." Source?
Done. Ceoil sláinte 12:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It goes on and on. It's useless to list examples, they are blatantly obvious. There are numerous paragraphs which go into fine detail but are not sourced at all! How can the verifiability of this article be possibly considered with so few sources? This needs extensive amounts of more references! Surprisingly enough, this article has already passed a FAR for the exact same reason. I wouldn't really agree with the article being kept as it seems that a lot of users pointed out numerous issues which didn't seem to be completely resolved. It was really only the last two comments from the previous review that supported keeping the article, and one of them was from SandyGeorgia. I think this was a little lenient (or a lot!). Despite any opinions, more refereces are desperately needed for this article! Domiy (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Domiy, you currently have Absinthe and Scotland national football team at FAR: please withdrawn this FAR until one of them closes. See WP:FAR instructions, thanks. (And by the way, you misrepresented my position on the previous FAR.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The FAR page states no particular allowed number of article reviews by any user. Not from what the main page says at least. I have nominated all my previous and still ongoing FAR's solely due to my rights as a Wikipedian. To avoiding use an extremely nerdy cliche, I will more so say that I have nominated them because they deserve to be. Scotland was in desperate need of image copyright checks which it beneficially received, as well as some others issues. And any half blinded cyclops will be able to tell you that Absinthe doesn't even reach GA status, hence most certainly not FA. Also, please note, if you follow or observe the FAR's carefully, you will notice I have cracked down on specific things which my article failed for. I'm not making up new rules as I go along, I'm just trying to make sure articles are treated equally. Domiy (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather clear in the first sentence of the WP:FAR instructions: Nominators typically 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. Have you helped restore any of the three articles you have running at FAR, or any others? Please discuss at WT:FAR rather than further filling up this page, and please refrain from multiple nominations; also, please be aware of WP:POINT when stating that you are nominating other article because yours didn't pass fAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two things Sandy: first of all, its funny that you should mention point of view in an accusation that I am cracking down on other articles because my nomination failed. While that may be the case, its still blatantly obvious that both articles I cracked down on so far (before this one) were/are in desperate need of fixups. Scotland national team was using copyrighted images, had some bad instances of POV, and even had some issues with the sources (dead links, reliability etc). Absinthe is still in need of all the points I mentioned on the nomination page. The article has decreased very badly in quality and most likely wouldn't even pass GA at its current state. And secondly: yes, I have helped fix up these FARC. I have raised numerous discussions and issues which have helped the active pages regain FA status (again with the exception of Absinthe as the removal candidate page is inactive). Palazzo Pitti is no different. It requires additional sources and language fixups to reach FA standards again. And I won't take anything lightly until it gets these (unless it becomes de-featured). Domiy (talk) 03:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The utter rubbish written above (no, not you, Sandy - above you) is one of the reasons I no longer write FAs, if one has to cite well known historical facts and every indisputable fact then one may as well pack up writing and just leave every page as "You will find the following books mention the subject of this page" While it is quite apparent that the nominator has a complete lack of knowledge of basic European history, that is still no excuse for every easily checked fact to be cited. We have to credit the reader with basic education, or every page would be patronising to read. Giano (talk) 06:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. It looks like a clean, reasonably well cited article. It underwent a FAR few months ago, there are no big changes since then. I suggest to speedy close this FAR. There are much more important articles waiting for upgrades.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 08:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no. This is one of the statements which can just as easily lead to the conclusion that Wikipedia is a ridiculous website. Read some further guidelines. For example, WP states you need to explain technical jargon relating to your article. This is just one of many instances withinin WP which states that you cannnot assume knowledge of the reader. If we were to start making assumptions, then that would mean I can just make the assumption that a larger portion of people in the world already know what the WP articles are about. So, in technicality terms, WP should immediately cease to exist due to it serving no purpose. Doesn't work this way. I'm sorry. The FA criteria clearly states that sources must be included where necessary. Have you forgotten the use of WP? RESEARCH! This is a website mainly used for research! There can be many instances where somebody has to submit a paper based on a subject they know really little about. Don't mock this. I will tell you, as a student myself, this happens very frequently in life. Furthermore, interested readers may want to use WP to increase their knowledge on a particular subject. If your going to assume that sources aren't needed regularly because the majority of people should/would already know the historical facts, then you aren't a very satisfying editor. Think of the article users!

So basically, your argument is nowhere near sufficient. At times, one can claim that references aren't needed because the statement is very basic and well known. An example of such a statement is 'the grass is green', or 'the sun is hot'. But to assume that the majority of readers already know specific historical facts based on very old subjects is not sufficient at all! Sorry, this is a clear cop-out. Follow the FA rules! I can just as easily call you an unreliable liar when you state something without a reference. For the second time, consider this statement --"By that time it had already been converted to a museum, but a suite of rooms (now the Gallery of Modern Art) was reserved for them when visiting Florence officially." Do you honestly believe that researchers can assume this statement as 'true' even though it has not a single source to it? Sorry, you can't make such an assumption. Thats not what WP is about.

Ignoring the risk of another blast from Sandy, I will once again direct you to this article. Notice how many statements are not referenced once, but twice, and even three times! Mind you as well, they are some basic facts. The large amount of references in that article as solely due to advice given from Peer reviews and FAC's. I tried to bring up the cop-out argument as well. And you must admit, it is much more stronger in my case. I was asked to provide references to the fact that a national football team have fan songs. Sheesh, what a waste of time that was...yet I did it anyway. It goes on. I have provided references for the most simple of statements. You wont find many unreferenced statements in that article because I don't make assumptions - I actually follow WP's objectives and guidelines. So once again, I'm truly sorry, but if you don't have verifiable sources to back up the fact that certain buildings were refurbished in particular ways, styles, formats etc, then you have what WP calls original research. Certainly not FA quality. I'm really still trying to get over the laughable assumption you made on the majority of people already knowing about such extreme history. In case you haven't noticed, history articles are one of the most common read ones for a reason. Its because people need to read them to gain information on them. Domiy (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If someone were to add inline cites for statements like the four identified by Domiy, I wouldn't remove them, but I also don't see any need to add them. Those statements don't look controversial to me, and they could be verified from the references at the bottom of the page. The last FAR ended 8 months ago. Not much changed since then. Gimmetrow 13:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One statement - "Many items in the collection were gifts to the Florentine rulers from other European sovereigns" -. Enough said one should think. If you think that such a statement is unlikely to be challenged, then you need a really thorough period of refreshment and modernness. I have little to no knowledge at all about history, yet I still came upon this article because I have a related assessment task due in a few weeks on design history. Therefore, I have crossed WP off my research list for now because the users on here are really being unfair and not giving me the expected correct information. Let me get this straight, if you dont provide references to more than 3 or 4 statements, no matter how basic they are, in university assessment papers, then you will have to re-do it; no questions asked. Yet here you are saying its ok to not provide sources to some very old and specific facts about historical buildings and events because you think most users should know this information already. If somebody is knowledged enough to already know some of the unreferenced statements, then they have no business being on the page in the first place because they should then also know the rest of the article; so their purpose on WP is pointless. Domiy (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A WP article is not in the same genre as a university research paper. If your university policy requires that any fact or idea which is not your own must be cited with an inline citation, then you do that. Although a WP article can be written like that, it's not (at present) required to be written like that. Writers may work from lists of sources they provide at the end of the article, and non-controversial statements which are covered in multiple sources don't require inline citations. That doesn't assume those facts are common knowledge - it assumes the facts are commonly found in the reputable sources given, and a reader can find them if desired. If you're writing a university paper you shouldn't be using WP directly anyway. Use it indirectly: the lists of sources and external links are often well filtered and can usually be employed as a bibliography to find citable sources for your research papers. Gimmetrow 15:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Gimmetrow! Your much more specific and productive comments make a lot more sense than the users who are assuming that most readers should already know some very challenged history fact (from readers who have little knowledge about the subject I mean). Concerning my university paper, its not much of a problem. I'm not using WP directly, although I do use it very commonly because its easy to access and you can often find some very good info here. Don't think about me personally, think about the next reader who comes along in search of historical facts on Palazzo Pitti. I'm pretty certain that they would be disjointed to find so many unreferenced statements; especially on a Featured Article! Remember the meaning of FA, which is to exemplify WP's best work. I can find numerous articles within 10 minutes which are not only much better referenced than this, but also much better written. Now I'm not going to get into that, I feel I have made my points of FAC comments being biased; its no secret, everybody really knows it. This is nor the tome or the place for such, so I will steer back to the main discussion. I understand how some articles may work in the way you said Gimmetrow. Sometimes the later statements within the article are backed up the primary sources given earlier. However, if this is the case, be sure to reference it anyway! There are 21 notes/references on this article page. So how is the user supposed to know which reference supports whatever statement? As I said, if the references can be found in the already cited books, then create a template and use the same sources again for the unreferenced statements. Otherwise, there can be easy challenged grounds of controversially stated information known as originality research or even pure speculation. Here is another statement ---"Florence receives over five million visitors each year, and for many of these the Palazzo Pitti is an essential stop. Thus the palazzo still impresses visitors with the splendours of Florence, the purpose for which it was originally built." This needs a statistical reference. How do we know Florence receives so many tourists each year? How do we know so many of them stop at the Palazzo Pitti? Sources! Domiy (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are some other external factors to consider about citations. Articles which get a lot of edits often need more citations so other editors can easily check new edits. Certain topics are popular with blogs or TV-show hosts who (innocently or not) may help spread incorrect information. This article doesn't involve one of those topics. It doesn't change very fast. The article was viewed 4003 times in August 2008. The diff from the last FAR [2] for Palazzo Pitti, spanning over 8 months, includes only 24 edits. Those edits include 2 bits of vandalism and 2 reversions, 4 interwiki bot edits and 2 other bot edits. Giano wrote most of the article and is able to keep up with any changes. The text flows well without much change in style or diction. Readers can consult the references at the end at their leisure. Unlike some other articles which get a lot of edits, this one just doesn't seem to have a pressing need for inline citations, although presumably nobody would object if someone felt like adding them.
Compare that to another article I work on. In August it received at least 4000 views each day and over 200 edits including some 30 bits of vandalism and reversions. Someone has to check whether all those edits are sneaky vandalism or legitimate typo fixes. Inline citations make it easy for other editors, who may not know the entire article, to check edits for sneaky vandalism. Citations do tend to break up the writing, but I'm willing to accept that so others can help prevent the article being filled with nonsense. Gimmetrow 01:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question about "The rusticated stonework gives the palazzo a severe and powerful atmosphere"—if I were to write a sentence claiming "[this thing] gives [article subject] a severe and powerful atmosphere" in my usual choice of article fare, I'd have people slapping an {{Or}} tag on that. What's the difference here? I realize this sounds like I'm trying to push a point, but this is a serious question. Pagrashtak 14:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That phrase looks like an opinion, so perhaps it should be cited. I mentioned that in the last FAR. But does it need to be? It looks like a consensus view - almost a formula. Compare: "The Mona Lisa has an enigmatic smile". It seems unnecessary to add a citation for a non-controversial statement routinely found in sources. Gimmetrow 14:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments by Domiy - I just noticed a fair bit of POV in this article as well. It seems that some statements are being very praising and described without a neutral point of view. Furthermore, these POV statements are not referenced so it is clear that they do not come from any well known and verifiable sources; but rather from the admiring WP editors. Examples:
    • "Compared to many of Italy's great palazzi the exterior of the Palazzo Pitti at first glance pales: the palazzo does not have the overpowering and commanding presence of Caserta or the citadel features of the Royal Palace of Turin, nor the elegance of the Naples Royal Palace or Rome's papal, later royal, palace, the Quirinal, both with facades by Domenico Fontana. The Palazzo Pitti's architectural merit is in its great severity and simplicity. One continual architectural theme used throughout four centuries has produced massive but impressive elevations and façades which belie the long evolution and history of the structure. The architecture commands attention by virtue of size, strength and the reflection of the sun on the glass and stone, coupled with the repetitive, almost monotonous theme. Ornament and elegance of design take second place to the vast and solid mass of rusticated stonework relieved solely by the arcade-like frequency of the arched window embrasures. As with many Italian palazzi one has to enter the building in order to truly appreciate its architecture." ---- The first and last statements in particular are blatant POV. There are a few other instances as well. I think a brief copyedit could do the trick. Domiy (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not POV, it is obvious fact. If you copyedit any of that - I shall revert you. Giano (talk) 06:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Every single source used will attribute to these claims. Its common place. Its saying Mona Lisa has two eyes in the middle of her head, and a nose[citation needed], and a mouth. Ceoil sláinte 12:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the way this article sounds; its more like saying Monalisa has two beautiful eyes and a well shaped nose, with a mouth that has made every other woman in the world jealous. And in case you didn't notice, that is clear POV.
Few would argue Lisa's eyes are 'beautiful', but I suppose thats why we have to pander to the few like you. Ceoil sláinte 22:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oohh, I'm really scared. (The truth is I'm terrified. When someone reverts my edits I feel as if I am not good enough, and that I should just quit at life). Please don't make wikithreats (new word of the day!). You need to clearly recognise the meaning of POV in order to make a comment on it. No matter how great something is, an encyclopedia is not supposed to proclaim such. We all know how delicious chocolate is, but if the article states "chocolate is amongst the best-tasting solids developed within the last 10 centuries and it's extremely sweet taste is an amazing treasure of life which truly exemplifies its awesome taste" - then instances of POV come in. Consider this example. Chocolate actually is, to about 98% of people on earth, the best-tasting wrapper food available. Yes, it is nice and sweet and it just puts a smile on your face because its taste is just so darn great. However, as per WP:POV, we are not here to make assumptions. We musn't leave out the remaining 2% of people who don't like chocolate. Also, WP is NOT a descriptive or appraisal page, like a forum or anything. It's an encyclopedia. In other words, the palazzi may be great and have true beauty, but unless it is part of a verifiable quote, you cannot describe it as such in an encyclopedia. I can go on with examples all day. Within the last two years, Croatia's national football team have beaten England, Germany and Italy at least once; these are 3 top footballing nations. However, the article page cannot proclaim that "Croatia have been an amazingly succesful side from 2006 as they have dominated their respective fixtures against England, Germany and Italy. No other nation has come close to reaching their rapid rise in football power". While this may be true, and even backed up with references, its clear POV, just like some statements in this palazzi article. If you fail to comply with these guidelines, then I will ensure that the article goes through a lot more of these reviews for removal as they clearly don't follow WP's guidelines, which is an obvious aspect of the criteria. Domiy (talk) 08:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr. Can you summarise that outburst please. You lost me at "Oohh, I'm really". Ceoil sláinte 10:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous. Your claim that "they do not come from any well known and verifiable sources; but rather from the admiring WP editors." has absolutely no basis in fact - in my sourcing of Mountfort, very few praising statements couldn't be cited, and I suspect that I just didn't have access to the sources for the exceptions. Your chocolate analogy is absurd (and I doubt it's actually true), and I see nothing wrong with the description of the Croatia team's recent success. Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then you really, REALLY, need to have a read of the guidelines. Once again, I direct you to WP:POV. You need to realise, for the second time, no matter how great something is, an encyclopedia article cannot use such language to describe it. Thats not what Wikipedia is about. Go to a fan forum and post such praising information there, perhaps it will be accepted. But not here, especially when we are considering this is a Featured Article. Observe the statements. It says that one has to actually enter the palazzi to see its true features. This may be POV. Some people may actually like the outside of the palazzi, perhaps to look at its unique design from afar. An encylopedia ecists to deliver all related information and then to let the reader decide for themselves. Including assumptive language like this is absurd, you can keep it in there, but please note that its popularity will decrease as it most likely will no longer be a Featured Article, and rightfully so if the editors can't see the blatant POV and need for citations. Domiy (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hypocritical to the extreme that you would tell me to reread the guideline. Maybe you should take a look at the first sentence of the first section of the NPOV guideline, which reads "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives" (emphasis mine). Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and the fact that you describe the palazzi in such ways in a conflicted perspective as it does not sound neutral. Perhaps it does to the admiring editors, but to the everyday reader it certainly doesn't. Therefore, it is a conflicted perspective which must be dealt with. Many sources, even the most reliable and verifiable, will always present a one sided point of view. BBC News, SkySports, People's Daily, The Observer and even some books are guilty of such. The entire purpose of these news articles and books are in a lot of cases to entice the reader to ensure the success. So its clearly obvious that they will use praising language to enhance the quality of the writing and attract others. Additionally, many news stories and books are derived from the personal opinions of the author and not the actual corporation/domain as a whole. So even if you find a good source which praises the qualities of the palazzo, you need to be very careful in the way you word it. It can be included as a quote or even descriptive perspective (provided that you acknowledge who's perspective it is). But for an encyclopedia to create its own perspective and make such assumptions without a neutral point of view is madness at its worst, and certainly not something we can call WP's best work. Domiy (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you understand the meaning of the word "conflicted"? Are there any sources claiming that the Croatia team had a mediocre or average recent record, or highlighting its losses? Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ceoil for finding a ref to the obvious. Regarding you Domiy, I note your statement: "If you fail to comply with these guidelines, then I will ensure that the article goes through a lot more of these reviews for removal" - If that is you attitude, then, I wish you joy of it, many people here have chosen to make a career, which could have been better spent, of challenging me. You see I could not give two cents if this page is a FA or not, it is the integrity and information of the page that is important to me. You may remove its FA status, you will not remove it's information and integrity. That I have not provided you with the information to pass an exam, is your problem. However, I am not going to waste my time referencing facts that students should know before they begin to truly study a subject. I am normally very willing to help students interested in such subjects. In future, if you need help with exams you will find the great thing about Wikipedia, is you can normally see who wrote what, and email if necessary the author for further information - and you may find that most people will try to help you. Giano (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome Giano; it took me about 30 seconds to find that. There are bits and pieces to cite yet, but this is a strong artice; I dont see any danger of demotion at all. Domiy has raised issues, they are being addressed; Domiy dont post again until they are addressed. ie breathing space pls, dude. Ceoil sláinte 20:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • WP:TLDR, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:POINT. I'm unwatching this FAR because Domiy has several times referred to listing articles at FAR because an article he nominated didn't pass FAC (along with accusing FAC reviewers of bias); besides the WP:POINT factor and that some of his FAR statements don't reflect an understanding of policy, that his multiple FARs remain listed in breach of FAR instructions and that he is WP:SOAPBOXing on the FAR pages is an unproductive timesink. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close please. We should all go home now. Ceoil sláinte 23:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Come Sandy, don't be so negative. Remember one of the golden rules on Wikipedia: Assume Good Faith! Your accusing me of nominating removals due to the fact that my nomination failed. As I said before, this may be the case, but certainly nobody can argue that my nominations were worthwhile and productive, and above all necessary. Need I remind you that Scotland team page went through many issues as it was using copyrighted images and had terrible language (as agreed by others)? I should think not. I will wait until the others close before I nominate anymore, but be assured there will be more to come. The amount of Featured Articles which are extremely bad quality is absurd. It has been identified that the sole reason for this is because they passed nomination a very long time ago; hence my purpose is to modernize the nominations and ensure that they are treated equally as all other nominations are today. Perhaps you are shocked that I have pointed out numerous flaws in articles that you or your delegate have promoted, or perhaps you are just tired of the same work everyday. I don't know, but you really need to assume good faith. All FAR's which I nominate are productive and necessary, for whatever reason. It's funny you should mention Soapboxing when that is actually what the editors of this article are doing. They are praising the palazzo pitti as one of the greatest buildings in the world without a neutral point of view. Its almost as if they are trying to advertise it, another form of SoapBoxing. Perhaps you Sandy need to adopt a neutral POV before you make such decisions and assumptions on FA's. I don't see what running away (ie - taking this page off your watchlist) will prove or solve. Domiy (talk) 06:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I "third" the closing. Domiy, at one point I had considered a lengthy reply pointing out the problems with your arguments, but you are increasingly looking like a troll. Ah yes, "this severe and forbidding[1] building"—what an "advertisement"! (As a side note, I don't want Giano's FAs getting special treatment, I want all FAs getting better treatment. It amuses me that the cool new meme on wikipedia is to explicitly not "assume good faith" of articles. Our articles are our enemies! Paranoia everywhere! Every statement is a possible corruption of knowledge, and we must assume the reader is an idiot who can't contextualize any assertion! I've watched too many people try to condemn good articles in this forum using ridiculous argumentation.) Whiskeydog (talk) 07:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the "POV" accusation is ridiculous. The point of view is suited perfectly to an article on architecture. It does not come across as editorial at all. What would we learn about the palazzo if we didn't conclude with an analysis like "Compared to many of Italy's great palazzi the exterior of the Palazzo Pitti at first glance pales: the palazzo does not have the overpowering and commanding presence of ..... [instead] The Palazzo Pitti's architectural merit is in its great severity and simplicity." Consensus is clear: I'd be bold and close this FAR myself but I don't know what they do with the pages. Whiskeydog (talk) 08:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW ahead. Careful now.[3] Ceoil sláinte 08:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. 'Nuff said. Marskell (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was kept by User:Marskell 12:56, 19 September 2008 [4].

Barack Obama

previous FAR #1: January 2007, previous FAR #2: July 2007, previous FAR #3 (closed April 2008)
Notifications left at Scjessey, CENSEI, Die4Dixie, Ohaohashingo, Justmeherenow, Rick Block, WorkerBee74, Bobblehead, Theosis4u, Textmatters, Duuude007, Always bored, Thingg, J.delanoy, Redrumracer, Sunray, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, Erik the Red 2, Noroton, Andyvphil, Wikidemon and Meelar by Curious bystander. ‎
Tvoz already aware; I will notify (from articlestats) HailFire, Jersyko (retired), Josiah Rowe, Johnpseudo and Grsz11. Also WP Politics, ‎ WP US presidential elections, WP Illinois, WP Chicago, WP US Congress and WP Bio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not other talk page template projects? I added Chicago.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC) ‎[reply]



This article has become a piece of Barack Obama campaign literature. As User:WorkerBee74 commented on the Talk page, "What we're seeing here, in this article, is a campaign to exclude or diminish any material that would tend to wipe a smile off anyone's face at Obama campaign HQ. Even a link to Obama-Ayers controversy is forbidden." Negative material about the candidate is immediately deleted whenever it appears. This triggers a long, drawn-out battle on the Talk page.

Certain editors are homesteading on the article to prevent the introduction of any such material, or diminish it in both size and visibility: subheaders mentioning eminiently notable controversies about the candidate are routinely deleted. Even material that does not reflect negatively on the candidate, but merely indicates that it's possible he might lose, is routinely deleted. Featured Article status requires neutrality of content. This article miserably fails that test. I'm a supporter of the Barack Obama campaign, I've donated money to the campaign, I'm a volunteer for the campaign, but this is ridiculous.

Also, the content of this article is not stable. There is an ongoing presidential campaign, and the subject of this biography is locked in a very tight race. Featured Article status requires stability of content. This article fails that test. Curious bystander (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified Meelar (original nominator of the article) Curious bystander (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just done about 20 notifications, I think that's enough to get this party started. Curious bystander (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notifications have not been correctly posted to the top of this FAR, so all can see who has been notified. See a sample at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Felix the Cat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have completed notifications: if anyone sees someone I missed, pls notify with {{subst:FARMessage|Barack Obama}} ~~~~ . Curious bystander, you have not identified specific actionable issues related to WP:WIAFA that need to be addressed. Please do so. Briefly. It would be helpful if you reference, for example, crit 1a, 1b, 1c, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everything that might be critical of Obama looks like wikigaming to Wikidemon. Nothing remotely critical of the candidate can be put in the article without a World War. The Obama-Ayers controversy is not even mentioned, although it is referred to constantly by Obama's critics for at least six months now. One would think this would indicate WP:WEIGHT. Obama's close, influential relationships with Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko have been minimized almost out of existence in the article. Editors profess to see BLP violations in the slightest criticism of the God they worship. It's not a Wikipedia article. It's an Obamapedia article. Wikipedia is unable to deal with this many POV pushers. This website's inability to do other than worship one party's candidate for office makes me sick. When I attempted to get in a sentence describing two bestselling books critical of Obama (which one would think would have some WP:WEIGHT -- one was #1 on the New York Times bestseller list, the other, #5, while Obama's two books were described in an entire short section -- the alternative supported by the Obama supporters was to remove the section and replace it with a list, which was actually less informative for the readers. The focus of many of the editors is clearly to help Obama, not the readers. An encyclopedia that professes -- at least tries -- to have a neutral POV should be embarassed by this article, not proud of it. Noroton (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above personal attack is unworthy of a response - I'll just say it's anti-Obama wikigaming and is basically a fabrication from start to finish.Wikidemon (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bravo, Noroton. You've hit the nail on the head. There are people literally camping out on this article, and instantly deleting anything that resembles criticism. Curious bystander (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't meatpuppet personal attacks. The toxic incivility has been going on for months and has only been quelled by article probation and by some of the problem editors taking a break from the page until recently.Wikidemon (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Close as this is nothing more than a content dispute. Ayers is a non-issue anymore. It had no affect on the campaign, let alone what this article is about - Obama's life. Grsztalk 23:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All should note that the nominator, Curiousbystander, was just cleared of a block for edit-warring on this article, and is just trying to make a point. Grsztalk 23:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the alleged "instability" is coming mostly from the nominator. Grsztalk 23:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obama's life is this campaign, Grsz. Without this campaign, he'd be just another freshman senator with just another 250-word Wikipedia biography. Also, I notice that no one has addressed the "stability of content" problem. Curious bystander (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Close as the nominating editor is clearly abusing this process to re-ignite a content dispute. Also, several "regular" editors of the article in question were excluded from the notification process (including myself), whereas a long-vanished editor who agreed with the nominator's POV was notified - an additional abuse of process. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No way does this meet Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria if the Sarah_Palin page is representative of what should and shouldn't be included - comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral. Either the Sarah_Palin page needs some serious attention by administrators or the Obama page is nothing but a propaganda piece. Theosis4u (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our newly expanded article on Sarah Palin is a mess, and a hotbed of bad editing. But what does that have to do with Barack Obama? This is an encyclopedia, not a battleground for equal treatment of politicians.Wikidemon (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reasoning for the comparison is self-evident. If the Obama article is reflective of certain qualities that give it a rating as an excellent quality then it can serve as an example to similar articles. One should also be able to reverse that process, if one compares it against similar articles but find a large gap of content of details on controversies that are discuss and to the depth they are discussed then the article fails on the Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria for -
comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details
presents views fairly and without bias
focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail
And the submitter accused that this Featured Article status is being used to prevent content changes to maintain it's "stable" criteria. There is a point in stating that during an "election" process that something like "Feature Article" shouldn't be inferred as an argument to beat back edits. [note, I haven't research the truthfulness of the accusers claims] Theosis4u (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Procedural Close I have observed this particular article with a light hand. Typo fixes and the such. I am mostly satisfied with it. to nominate this is a waste of time, and mention of rezco and ayers is nothing more than tabloid. Even Major news sources who have reported info on them should know better than to release information that wasn't thoroughly researched, for the sake of ratings. Duuude007 (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you have a problem with all of those hundreds of high-circulation mainstream media sources that have reported on the Rezko, Wright and Ayers controversies, try a letter to the editor. We base content here on what the notable, reliable sources say. And the notable, reliable sources say that these controversies are worth talking about. Curious bystander (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close - This looks like wikigaming to me, too. The content in question has been repeatedly, consistently rejected as failing WP:BLP, because it consists not of reported facts about Obama's life from reliable sources, but of the opinions of people who attach great significance to Obama's association with Rezko and Ayers, despite every reputable news agency dismissing such significance. Let me make something clear: No one disputes the fact that Obama knew Ayers or Rezko. But only conservative bloggers and opinion writers attach any significance to those associations. As far as the reputable sources are concerned, those associations are notable only insofar as the conservative bloggers and opinion writers have made a lot of noise about them. They have distinctly not validated that noise. What we know, with absolute certainty, from reliable sources, is that Obama knew Ayers and sometimes attended the same meetings in his work. This does not add up to a biographically significant association. What we know, with absolute certainty, from reliable sources, is that Obama bought a house with a perfectly normal home-loan, and that is the limit of his business dealings with Rezko. This also does not add up to a biographically significant association. He is not being investigated for either association by any mainstream journalists or by any criminal investigators. The only people pushing this story are not reliable sources. They've certainly generated a fair amount of media coverage, notable enough for inclusion in the campaign articles. But until these can be demonstrated to be biographically significant relationships in Obama's life, the campaign articles are the only appropriate places for them. --GoodDamon 00:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Damon, you know very well that this is incorrect. Obama's business dealins with Rezko also included work done for his property management firm as an attorney, helping to obtain federal grants and loans; and of course, there's that $250,000 in campaign contributions that Rezko either gave or obtained for Obama. Rezko is now on his way to prison for campaign finance violations. This casts a dark shadow on Obama and as an Obama supporter, I am willing to acknowledge that shadow. Trying to hide it is not what Wikipedia is about. Curious bystander (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had forgotten the campaign contributions, since so much of the Rezko discussion has been over the house purchase. And that's what's actually mentioned in the Obama article at the moment, presumably since purchasing a home is a major event in most people's lives, and in this case is more notable due to Rezko's involvement, even if unrelated to Rezko's illegal activities. But we're talking about Obama's biography. Rezko's own legal troubles are his, not Obama's, and Obama hasn't been implicated in any of them. If you feel more details about Rezko need to be in the article, that's a different topic, but it appears you agree with me about Ayers. So in the context of this FAR, is it fair to say the only remaining disagreement is on how much detail the main article should go into on Tony Rezko? If so, I stand by my vote that this be speedily closed. --GoodDamon 02:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The aim of FAR is to identify problems and find ways to retain FA status if possible. I see two problems identified by the nominator: difficulties with WP:NPOV compliance, and lack of stability. A major root cause of both problems is the activity of tendentious single-purpose agenda accounts. The best way to improve the article's neutrality and stability is to assertively rein in these agenda accounts. I have some ideas on where to start with this, but will defer listing them at this juncture. MastCell Talk 00:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that if an editor has a content dispute that has not been solved after several months of advocating it, the proper dispute resolution procedure is RfC or something like that, not trying to get the article delisted as an FA. Wikidemon (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec X2) I certainly agree wit GoodDamon on a content basis. We have gone through an excruciating, thoughtful, serious, long process to arrive at a real consensus on exactly how to describe several matters that may be seen as negative for Obama, and having done so to maintain stability and all the while deal with the many dozens of vandals, sockpuppets, trolls, POV editors, etc., who are on the article every day. I was keeping a log on the article probation page of every account that was blocked or banned but at some point I gave up and just started covering the significant ones. The list is now at thirty. Watching over such an important article takes the cooperation of a number of dedicated, diligent editors and the natural tendency when someone wants to add for the nth time - n would probably be several hundred by now - that Obama is a closet Muslim, Arab, friend of unrepentant terrorists, communist, birth certificate forger, not really African-American, under investigation for this or that, and every possible variation of the N-word, is to revert and dismiss out of hand. And if they persist and revert, tell them to read the FAQ, point them to the article probation terms and their "welcome to wikipedia" greeting, and go find consensus on the talk page. A class of editors, equally persistent but somewhat more skilled in their efforts, have been bombarding the article for the past few months as well. Hence we have article probation. I can sympathize with anyone who is trying to keep peace on the Sarah Palin article. It doesn't have the mean streak of racism and vandalism like we do here but the POV edits and the number of people who want to insert random trivial disparaging material, rumors, campaign criticism, etc., is at least as bad as anything we ever had here. I doubt that article could ever reach featured status before the election but perhaps the editors there could learn from the editors here that hard work, a no-nonsense approach, refusal to tolerate incivility and edit warring, and so on, can greatly calm an article. The Obama article is a very good article. I won't offer an opinion as to whether it is truly FA level of not - it got its designation a few years ago when Wikipedia had lower standards. But this is not the place and time to review that decision, certainly not on the question of whether we do or don't adequately disparage him for his contacts with a 1960s radical bomb-thrower and a real estate fraud. Wikidemon (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Curious, all news must be WP:VERIFIABLE. This is doubly so important on a WP:BLP article. Please read WP:PROVEIT for more information. Simply put, if a report is proven misleading, even from the most upstanding news source, they lose credibility, and sometimes employees. Inputting these same tabloid statements into the Obama article would effectively reduce the quality rating of the article. But hey, thats your argument, only in the reverse. Ironic. Duuude007 (talk) 01:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<Moved to talk page>. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural question I would like to know how it was decided (and by whom) which editors would be notified of this action. As the editor with the second highest number of edits on the article, last one being just 2 weeks ago, I am curious why I wasn't pinged. I don't suppose it could be because of positions I have taken regarding the editing of the article in the past, now, could it? Were other prolific contributors to this article similarly not pinged? Closing admins, please take note. Tvoz/talk 01:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was not informed. I would like to have been. However, it is mentioned on the article's talk page, so I'm not sure it's a big deal. --GoodDamon 02:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think it is a big deal, because not everyone reads talk pages all the time - especially this one, which has so often been inundated with repeated POV attempts at adding content that has been rejected, that editors take breaks from it. If a legitimate FAR were actually underway, the editors who know the most about the article,and have worked to keep it as an FA a long as it has been so, ought to be pinged so they can weigh in. Easy enough to do so, by looking at the page stats or at the previous FARs, etc., yet the pinging was selective. Tvoz/talk 02:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural answers: I am just catching up here, Tvoz. So to answer four procedural issues I see already:
1) Notifications should be posted back to the top of this page, as in the sample at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Felix the Cat. If some are missing, I will complete the rest, but first I need to see what has been done. The instructions for notifications are at the top of WP:FAR; they should include all WikiProjects listed on the article talk page, all top contributors per article stats, and in a case like this, probably all recent talk page participants. Since FARs run for a very long time, and are carefully deliberative, if someone was left out early on, it will make no difference in the long run.
2) Raul654, Marskell or Joelr31 decide whether to close FARs (see the instructions at the top of WP:FAR). They/we had several discussions after the last Obama FAR was closed; clamoring for this FAR to be closed is less likely to be helpful than calmly addressing the issues.
3) I see Barneca has gotten involved (thank you), and the page has already grown excessively long. Mastcell has explained the purpose of FAR, which is to identify issues and hopefully resolve them. Because FAR is intentionally deliberative, bickering is not going to help and is not going to make a difference in the long-term outcome. If participants want to bicker, they should take it to talk here or the article talk page: this page is for evaluating the content wrt WP:WIAFA, and off-topic or personal attacks should be moved to the talk page here.
4) FAR and FAC pages are not sub-sectioned; I suggest that participants keep their comments on topic, and focus on specifically addressing why the article does or does not meet WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sandy - perhaps not a problem in the long run, but notification is an issue in the short run, I believe, and may speak to motivation at work here. FAR is not supposed to be wielded as a weapon in content disputes, or at least that's the way I see it. Tvoz/talk 03:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you probably know, it won't be; FAR is a deliberative process, and is not dispute resolution, for just such reasons. If deficiencies are identified, they will be carefully deliberated here. If they are not, Marksell will close the FAR. All the off-topic hollering and accusations and anything else not related to WP:WIAFA will not affect the process; it will only unnecessarily fill up the page. Those who want to argue if so-and-so is a staffer or not, or picks his or her nose, or whatever, can do so, but in the final analysis, the question here will be if the article conforms with WP:WIAFA. Those arguing to keep the FAR open need to briefly, without the bickering, identify specific deficiencies wrt WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, having been through numerous FARs on this and other articles, I know that you will keep the process itself on point, and that's fine with me. Now I'm waiting to see if any legitimate issues are raised. And, I hope we can keep the "I am an Obama supporter, but..." and "this article is dominated by Obama fanboys" comments out of this discussion - the first is usually laughably untrue and the second is insulting to hardworking editors, and neither is helpful to identifying if the article actually has FA issues. Tvoz/talk 03:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible then that it needs to be closed as a community or administrative matter, or a matter of article probation, rather than a matter of FAR process. These are not issues to be resolved here. We can't let behavioral problems and process gaming spill all over the place. Wikidemon (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That has been argued before; take your concern up with Raul654. THIS page is for discussing the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Misc cleanup needs:
    • The section heading, "U.S. Senator, 2005–present" breaches WP:MOSDATE#Precise language: something like "U.S. Senator, from 2005" might work.
    • The image in "Early life and career" is causing text squeeze, see WP:MOS#Images. If not deleted, it should be moved down.
    • There are WP:ACCESSIBILITY issues in several sections: Images within sections should be below the templates at the top of sections, and maintenance template are in the wrong place. See the structure sections of ASSESSIBILITY.
    • WP:MOSNUM, ... its staff grew from 1 to 13 ... is awkward, might better be ... its staff grew from one to thirteen.
    • Ack. External jump in the text, sample: which authorized the establishment of www.USAspending.gov, a web search engine.[60] External jumps belong in External links or as citations.
    • I am uncertain this italicization is correct, see WP:ITALICS ... introduced follow-up legislation: Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act of 2008 ... I know law cases are in italics, but legislation, unsure?
    • Logical punctuation needs to be addressed per WP:PUNC, sample: ... "to avoid the impression that he endorsed the entire range of opinions expressed at that church."
    • Citations still look very clean, but I saw some unformatted citations, so a review might be in order (there are too many for me to look at all of them :-) All need publisher, author and date when available, and last accessdate on websites.
    • Inconsistency in date linking in citations should be addressed (slowly, over time, since this is a recent WP:MOS change). Some dates are delinked, others linked, example: Fornek, Scott (October 3, 2007). I don't suggest trying to do this kind of work during an election cycle :-)
  • All in all, still a very clean article, none of this is significant (except the external jump in the text, I hope there aren't others). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on this version. Suggested prose changes:
    • "Obama directed Illinois's Project Vote from April to October 1992...powers to be." This sentence is too long and complicated. I had to read it over twice.
    • "Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, being first classified as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and then as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004." Why not?: "Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and then as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004." I know he had another job at the same time, but it is unnecessary to complicate the sentence to point this out, when the other job is mentioned in the next paragraph.
    • Why aren't Senators Carper, Coburn, McCain, Feingold and Lugar, President Bush or St. Paul, Minnesota linked?
    • "In March 2007, 'Obama' was officially accepted...obamacam." Seems trivial.
    • "Further reading" is unnecessary given the plethora of references. Can "External links" be trimmed?
    • Images I would have said a signature was an original work of art, and hence copyrightable by the creator, but I could be wrong.
    • I did not find any obvious partisan statements or missing information. DrKiernan (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. If editors would like to debate further, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. It is beyond the capacity and purpose of the Featured Article Review to deal with most of the comments here.

As for stability (1e), dealing with trolls, vandals or single purpose edit warriors does not make for an unstable FA. If it did, we'd never be able to feature controversial or widely covered subjects: instability would become self-fulfilling and trolls would exploit the fact. The question is whether there is a competently written, neutral article, that neglects no major details beneath (so to speak) the warring and vandals. Here there is. I see no convincing case to leave this open.

I will copy Sandy's and DrKiernan's comments to article talk as they provide some specific clean-up concerns for people to address. Marskell (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was kept by User:Marskell 12:35, 17 September 2008 [6].

Edward VI of England

Review commentary

  • Notified Wikiprojects England, Biography, Christianity, Anglicanism, and User:DrKiernan

This article needs a lot more inline citations to verify the content of the article, which is very lightly referenced at the moment. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may try to add some. DrKiernan (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm cleaning the house out a bit prior to restoration—see the article's talk page. I have the books for this (Alford, Loach, MacCulloch, etc.) and am rolling up my sleeves. qp10qp (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm proceeding, but I am very very slow, so please be patient. qp10qp (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone verify that Image:John Dudley.jpg is a picture of a portrait in Penshurst Place? Can anyone close the deletion debate on Image:Edward VI Scrots c1550.jpg [7]? DrKiernan (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly different versions of the Dudley portrait exist. In books it is only ever in black and white. I don't think the lack of a source is important in this case, because I can't think of a circumstance in which this wouldn't be public domain. However, I could scan one from a book and source it to the book if a source is thought essential. qp10qp (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am 100% confident that the Scrots portrait will be kept. I think the delay is that Commons are negotiating a new policy, since Jimbo Wales and some other highups recently stated that old art shouldn't be deleted on the grounds proposed in that deletion discussion. As a precaution, PKM did upload a Wikipedia version, but I can't find it: perhaps someone has deleted it on grounds of duplication. qp10qp (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's Image:Edward VI William Scrots c1550.jpg. DrKiernan (talk) 07:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aha—that's the one; cheers. I've replaced the Commons version with it for the present, adding a hidden note not to change it till the deletion case has closed with a keep. For reasons I don't really understand, images like this are OK on Wikipedia, but (until recently at least) assailable on Commons.qp10qp (talk) 07:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image has just been declared a keep at Commons, and so I have swapped the versions round again. The public domain policy on old art at Commons has just been freed up, I'm glad to say. qp10qp (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and images (3). Marskell (talk) 11:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope no one votes yet. I am about a third of the way through so far, and will need three weeks to finish (am away for several days next week). qp10qp (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These issues apply to the lower parts of the article, which haven't been done yet. I am in the process of meeting the concerns, but I'm using a large number of books and it takes time. I have some more material in a good state of progress offline, which I will be adding quite soon and which should take us past half way in the article. Please be patient. qp10qp (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Qp. I'm ignoring the remove 'til we here back from you. Marskell (talk) 08:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Crossed out my remove above pending further input from Qp10qp (talk · contribs) - though the article in its current state would have severe difficulties at passing through WP:FAC. Cirt (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very much so. qp10qp (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going away from tomorrow, 1 September, until Friday or Saturday, and won't be touching a computer in the meantime. This is not a loss of interest or momentum, and I will resume promptly on return. The task is about three quarters done now: the main sections that remain to be completed are on religious reform and on the succession crisis—complex matters that will take about another week. I will also need to develop the lead and carry out an overall tidy-up and copyedit. qp10qp (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back at it, progressing well. Won't be long now—all being well, Monday 8 September should be OK for voting to start (I will have met the concerns by then, I hope, though I'll go on refining and adding details after that and will improve the lead). qp10qp (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the article is at last ready for reappraisal, in my opinion. I intend to add a small legacy section, improve the lead, deepen the references in places, and perform a copyedit. But as far as this FAR goes, I believe the article now meets FA criteria, and in particular the issues mentioned in this review. In other words, it is fully referenced, and the images have all been carefully vetted for sourcing, image descriptions, etc. Vote away, by all means. qp10qp (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done the jobs above. From here on, I may tinker, but I'm pretty much finished. qp10qp (talk) 03:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a keeper, but some things need to be fixed:
  • Inconsistent date formatting, sometimes US date formatting is used, sample ... Northumberland marched out of London with three thousand men, reaching Cambridge on 14 July; meanwhile, Mary rallied her forces at Framlingham Castle in Suffolk, gathering an army of nearly twenty thousand by July 19 ...
  • Dates are delinked in most of the text, but linked in the lead.
These two date issues have been fixed by DrKiernan. Many thanks. qp10qp (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a hidden chart in Ancestors, that won't mirror, print and violates WP:ACCESSIBILITY, needs to be unhidden.
Does anyone know how to unhide it? I can't work it out. qp10qp (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, naturally. Another superlative effort by qp. I've unlinked the dates.
    • In the lead, I've changed "to avert a Catholic succession" to "to avert a Catholic resurgence", in an attempt to avoid repetition of "succession". However, another interpretation is that the device was designed to secure Dudley's power base. So, you may wish to cast another look over that bit.
Yes, I've yet to really revise the lead. I did worry about that repetition, but I am not sure that "resurgence" is the precise word in the context, though they more broadly did want to prevent that. I think Dudley's aims coincided with those of the crown, because his power base depended on there not being a Catholic succession. I will see if I can come up with something that covers all angles. qp10qp (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've settled for: When Edward fell terminally ill in 1553, he and his Council drew up a "Devise for the Succession" in an attempt to prevent a Catholic backlash against the Protestant Reformation. qp10qp (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dudley is also referred to as "Warwick" and "Northumberland". It would be easier to follow if the prose did not switch back and forth between them, but instead used only Warwick up to a certain point and then Northumberland only after it.
I thought that was what I had done. But I have now included both his titles in the lead, to cover a potential objection. The grey area is the early part of his presidency (1549 to 1551), when he was still earl of Warwick. Since he was Warwick during part of his administration, it is tricky knowing what to call him when talking of his administration as a whole. But I have tried to apply a certain logic, anyway. qp10qp (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have removed that image and replaced it with a version I have just uploaded from a book—so the sourcing issue is now addressed. This version is murkier, but it is less problematic in that the previous one was dated 1545, whereas Dudley did not become duke of Northumberland, which he is called in the inscription, until 1551. My hunch is that the type is posthumous (the patterning in the surround certainly looks Elizabethan, even possibly Jacobean) and that this was drawn during the ascendancy of Dudley's son Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester, particularly as he is posed and dressed very similarly to some portraits of Leicester and a few other Elizabethan types. It would be nice to have a contemporary portrait of John Dudley, but none seem to exist. qp10qp (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the Council" is used throughout rather than "the council", whereas "the king" is used often but not "the King".
As you know, consistency is hard to achieve in this sort of thing. Temperamentally (and off-wiki), I am a non capitaliser in these matters, but I have had to compromise on Wikipedia. Here the difficulty is caused by "Privy Council", which I'm not sure I could get away with not capitalising: so the capital for "Council" is a corollary of that. I think it is OK to say "the king" or "the duke" when the usage is generalised rather than being attached to a name. qp10qp (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by User:Marskell 13:18, 13 September 2008 [8].

Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council

Review commentary

Contacted User:DrKiernan, Wikiprojects Spoken Wikipedia and Politics of the United Kingdom
I'll see if I can hunt up some references. Might be a little while, since I'm quite busy at the moment. Dr pda (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still working on this...slowly. Dr pda (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I will be away, without internet access, for the next week or so, but I'm still working on the referencing. Dr pda (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked Drpda for an update. Marskell (talk) 11:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still going with this, have just added another bunch of references tonight in fact. As for how long it will take me to finish, it's hard to say; depends on how easy the remaining facts are to source, and how much time I have available. I'll try to make an push this weekend and see how far I get. Help is of course always welcome :) Dr pda (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good work so far Doc. Along with the referencing, I think this needs to be checked over for prose and orthography: capitalization, italics, quotation marks, brackets. I'll try and at least help with this sort of thing. Marskell (talk) 09:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am catching up from travel, way behind, but will try to peek at the article in a few more days. Sorry I can't be more help just now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I realized reading over the lead that the last three paras really needed their own section as they were in no way a summary of the article. This means building a new lead summary. It need not be too long. Marskell (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the lead DrK. I would still like one more ref flyover from Drpda, specifically for the end of the History and the new Forms of Address section. Also, in the latter section, we have one paragraph italicizing titles and another placing them in quotations. What's proper? Marskell (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. As quotes are used more often, I have switched the italics to quotes but I don't mind either or neither. DrKiernan (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, everything's cited now, except for a couple of sentences in the History section relating to Charles I. Anyone is free to try and find a reference, or otherwise rewrite this paragraph. A couple of other refs could be improved; I couldn't find a reliable source stating that Australian Prime Ministers are no longer appointed, or that other Commonwealth Prime Ministers are (only "Commonwealth spokesmen and judges"). It would be nice to have a better ref for the Rt Hon vs PC thing for peers as well. Dr pda (talk) 11:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 36 suggests Australia severed its ties to the Council in 1986, so I think that safely covers the fact they are no longer appointed. I don't see any of these last points as deal breakers so I'll go ahead and keep this. Marskell (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by User:Marskell 12:46, 12 September 2008 [9].

Hydrochloric acid

Review commentary

Notified WikiProject Chemicals, Wimvandorst, Cacycle, Edgar181, Walkerma, Physchim62.

This article was promoted to FA status in April 2005. However, it does not meet current FA standards, namely criterion 1c (references). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific, otherwise you will only be creating WikiDrama, not helping to improve articles. Physchim62 (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the same when I saw the very brief nomination, but after looking at the article I think the nominator is right. The article is almost completely unreferenced, and there is absolutely no chance that it would pass a featured article candidacy today in its current form. --Itub (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Physchim62, I thought it was pretty self-explanatory. FA criterion 1c: "(c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;" This article is almost completely unreferenced, therefore it fails 1c. Regarding your edit summary, I keep my comments brief. I've written two lines for other FAR noms and no one else has complained. Perhaps you should take a look at WP:FAR. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking to nominate this for a review since putting it on my watchlist some months ago, but have been hesitant due to the fact that nominators are asked to provide help in improving the article. That said, the one area that should be completely referenced is the History section. I believe just by having looked over the rest of the article that it is easily verifiable (college textbooks and what not should serve) and should have inline references as per the nomination.
I would also say the prose could be spruced up, for what little there is of it. --Izno (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The prose needs tidying up. Some points don't appear to make any sense. For example, the boiling points depend on "the concentration or molarity of HCl in the acid solution. They can range from those of water at 0% HCl" Huh? Surely 0% HCl is water? DrKiernan (talk) 10:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, the article could do with some grooming. All paragraphs are properly referenced in the style of 2005 FA requirements, which indeed needs a change-over to more modern in-line refs. I'll give it some attention in the near future. Due to the vacationing, I'm actually now off-Wiki for another fortnight (having a great non-wiki time), so herewith I kindly ask the FAR processor to keep this FAR open for an extended period. Wim van Dorst (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The referencing system has been brough up to date. The 2005/FA requirement did allow for all references to be grouped in the References section. I have now moved the references into the text, updating them to in-line refs. The pointed out phrases that should be clarified, and some obvious unclarity in the lead section has been updated too. In my humble opinion, the (1c) criteria has been met in the style of today. If others recommendations remain, feel free to suggest here. Wim van Dorst (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I think the citations in #Applications, #Presence, and #Safety are very very loose. There aren't nearly enough. I'm not one to require a citation or two every sentence, but those are definitely lacking. A fact like "HCl is not a common pickling agent for stainless steel grades." — Where is that coming from? There are other examples naturally, but that is illustrative of the lack of inline citations. --Izno (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that example out: indeed, where did that come from? Apparently a new text that an unqualified editor added at a later time: I've removed it. For the rest, I will try to add some more precise references for the sections that may need substantiation. Wim van Dorst (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Remove - I agree with Nishkid64 (talk · contribs) and Izno (talk · contribs) here, there are still whole chunks of this article that lack in-line citations or are wholly unsourced. The article would not pass a WP:GA review in its present state, and certainly is not up to current standards at WP:FA and would have a rough time at WP:FAC, to say the least. Cirt (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Wim van Dorst seems to be the only one working on cleaning up the article. He was on a wikibreak when this article was nominated, but he is made good progress. I suggest giving him (or anyone else who wants to help!) a bit more time and I'm sure that the article can be rescued. I think that in most cases the "unsourced" information comes from the references at the end, and it is just a matter of finding out which reference was used for each statement and adding an inline citation. --Itub (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I asked Wim for a follow up comment. Marskell (talk) 11:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, my intention is indeed to further improve the article regarding the 1c criterion. I don't have too much spare time, so I'll ask some regular WP:Chem contributor to step in as well. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Wim van Dorst (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • The applications section could be easily referenced with the aid of an undergraduate chemistry textbook, as has been noted above. I have nevertheless changed the order of paragraphs to reflect the usage of hydrochloric acid by weight: objections to this bold action are probably best at the article talk page, as they are irrelevant to the comments raised here. The safety section needs a little bit of work on it, but the references are easily available (I haven't added them yet because I'm spending my time replying on this page). On the other hand the "presence" section, while accurate, is not easily referenceable after the first paragraph: a bit of help anyone? Physchim62 (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With help of several other editors of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals, I think we have now well taken care of the above-mentioned 1C criterion (no in-line reference). This article was one of the first FA articles of WP, and the first FA of the Wikiproject as general effort. The referencing in 2005 wasn't a major concern, and although the references were not written in-line then, it was very well-resourced and edited. I hope with this latest effort to re-do the work of three years ago, the FAR can now be closed. With special thanks to WP:Chem. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I would be satisfied with 1c if the first paragraph of #Other_applications could have the last two sentences referenced. I don't know if the reference after the first sentence supports those sentences or if the reference in the following paragraph does so.
On a more general note, it might be wise for WP Chem to go through all its older FAs and fix them up, similarly to what happened here, if such has not been done so. --Izno (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Izno. The paragraph was indeed covered by that ref (G&E). I have added the other detailed ref for this info (CEH), in such a way that it covers both paragraphs. And we'll take your recommendation for WP:Chem to note as well. Wim van Dorst (talk) 05:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I see some cleanup needs here and there, and will try to help after I catch up from travel. Can someone solve the text squeeze in the first section (see WP:MOS#Images). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Struck out my Remove above, I see some great work has gone into this article, and I assume further work is still being done so I will wait a bit to do a reassessment later. Cirt (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Keep I don't see any obvious deficiencies. Note: I am not a chemist.
    • "it was used by alchemists in the quest for the philosopher's stone, and later by European scientists including Glauber, Priestley, and Davy." To the uninitiated this sounds as though Priestley and Davy searched for the philosopher's stone. It would be better to separate the two clauses into two distinct sentences.
    • "Until the Alkali Act 1863, excess HCl was vented to the air." Should be qualified to point out that the legislation is UK-specific.
    • "It reacts with basic compounds such as calcium carbonate or copper(II) oxide to metal chlorides." I am unclear here whether it reacts with metal chlorides or forms them when mixed with carbonates and oxides.
    • "They range from those of water at 0% HCl to values for fuming hydrochloric acid at over 40% HCl" I don't really understand "0% HCl" nor how hydrochloric acid can have a crystallization point of ice at 0%, when this is not hydrochloric acid but water. The article should be on the acid not on the solvent.
    • "The use of high-quality hydrochloric acid is the regeneration of ion exchange resins." Should this be "High-quality hydrochloric acid is used in the regeneration of ion exchange resins."? DrKiernan (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by User:Marskell 13:51, 10 September 2008 [10].

Geology of the Zion and Kolob canyons area

Notified WikiProject Utah, WikiProject Geology and Mav.

Not a single inline citation. Some MoS issues, and the prose could use some copyediting. Wouldn't pass GA as it is. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was promoted to FA at a time when inline cites were not needed. I'll add them and perform a copyedit to bring this to current FA standards. --mav (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Wouldn't pass GA" is not an argument, and it sounds quite pompous. This rhetorical tone ("not a single inline citation"), adopted too often by FAR "introducers", does not exactly promote an environment in which one would want to assist the process. What a delight it would be if FAR actually required more than two cut-and-paste sentences for someone to initiate the process. Whiskeydog (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I were reviewing this article in its current state for GA, I would most certainly fail it. As such, we cannot have FAs that are of lesser quality than GAs, so that is a perfectly legitimate argument. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I was not offended by Juliancolton's comment. This article legitimately was found to be one of the best of Wikipedia back in 2004. However, standards have increased (esp in regards to inline cites) since then, prompting a need to upgrade the referencing and MoS compliance of this article. That our standards have increased is a good thing. --mav (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many inline cites added; more to come. --mav (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more cites added. I also started to expand the article using some great PD text from the NPS that was published a couple years after this article was FAd. --mav (talk) 03:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion from PD NPS text complete. I still need to do another reference pass once I find the Tufts, Leach and Zion Map sources. If I have time, I'd also like to confirm and directly use the hidden inline cites to Biek et al. 2000, which were what the PD text cited. Biek et al. 2000 is in a book I purchased after this article became FA. --mav (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note (I'll give a full list of things to do later): per MoS, don't left-align images directly under level-3 (===) section headers. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like an odd MoS guideline. Could you provide a link to the page and section? I'd rather rearrange sections vs follow that under the current arrangement. --mav (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes, from MOS:IMAGES. Not a big deal, though. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that sounds reasonable. I thought that you meant that no images were allowed to be left-aligned inside level 3 sections. I think I just fixed this particular issue and the article looks better now. --mav (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Inline cites now exist for all the listed sources. The only two things I see that are still needed are a final copyedit and maybe a final ref pass to swap some Graham inline cites with the superior Biek et al cites. What else, besides a copyedit, is needed? --mav (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lead seems a tad sparse for an article of such length. I'd say try to flesh it out to three moderately-sized paragraphs. Otherwise, I'll try to help with some copyediting. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - you are correct. I'll see about expanding the lead in the next day or two. --mav (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, article has improved significantly since initial comment by Juliancolton (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • NOTE: I haven't forgotten this. I simply have been working on another article and watching coverage of the DNC convention. I'll get back to this FAR during the upcoming long weekend. --mav (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Minor point, but I've never seen an FA with so many redlinks. Shouldn't they be discouraged?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 09:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redlinks in general aren't discouraged, though it is indeed more visually pleasing to have them eliminated. My question to Mav is if these faults and other redlinked geographical features are notable enough for their own articles, or if they can be redirected somewhere. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the formations at least are notable enough. Some of the other redlinks are not really (including the faults and minor geological features). I'll de-link some redlinks. --mav (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --mav (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added nonbreaking spaces between numerals and units of measure; prioritized US units first, and added commas in a few large numbers. I have not copyedited, as the subject matter is far beyond my comprehension at my current level of margaritization.(That should totally be a word.) Maralia (talk) 04:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've only time for a quick glance, but work remains; not ready to keep yet. Check WP:MSH re: "The", and I saw a lot of lacking hyphenation. I'll look more closely tomorrow. Also, WP:OVERLINKing and some confusing prose (look at the first paragraph of the article, after the lead. Is it "The Grand Staircase" or "Grand Staircase". First we hear of the Grand Canyon, confusing, how we got there from here. Is the hyphenation correct on the 240 million year old? A whole lot of verbiage before Grand Staircase is introduced. Why are words like mountain linked? The entire section is confusing in terms of which park is which and how they all got introduced suddenly under The Grand Staircase. I think north-south has to be north–south when it means north to south. Copyedit needed, and hyphenation issues everywhere: to form the 1,800 foott (550 m) thick Moenkopi Formation. and of the resulting 100 foot thick (30 m) Dakota Sandstone ... too many parenthetical inserts to "See" another article, should be templates at the top of sections or worked into the prose. This is just a quick pass, but I think this article needs more than just citation: it needs another prose look and smoothing out of some of the prose and copyediting glitches, and auditing for clarity for the uninitiated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The" nixed. Many hyphens fixed (I hope) but I sure could use some examples still in the article of incorrect vs correct hyphen and en/em dash usage. That's not something that was covered much at all in any of my English classes. As for overlinking; I removed most if not all redundant links but this article is about geology, thus linking once to terms such as stream, desert, lagoon and mountain are relevant to the topic and thus appropriate to link, no? Context added at start of Grand Staircase section. North-south fixed. Parenthetical (see ...) inserts taken care of. Another copyedit also done. Any help will be greatly appreciated and I'll make sure to learn from your efforts. --mav (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much better now, except you made the hyphenation issues on conversions worse :-) I left you a Tony1-suggested method (see sample edits) for avoiding those awkward constructs; just reword to work around them. There are still some more (I wasn't convinced I was wording them correctly, so I stopped); once you fix those, I think it's good to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dropped the hyphens on all of the -thicks. The MoS doesn't seem to suggest that a hyphen would be needed and it strikes me as a little weird (I'm "1.75 meters tall" not "1.75 meters-tall"). I will keep this now. Marskell (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by User:Marskell 13:51, 10 September 2008 [11].

Katamari Damacy

Review commentary

I count five sections without any sources, and the rest are desperately in need of citations (I could litter it with {{cn}}, but that seems counter-productive.) Goes into unnecessary game detail, and lacks information on development, failing comprehensiveness criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've given this a first cleanup pass - cut down story and gameplay drastically and have worked out a development section. There's still more in the sales section that can be improved and fixed. --MASEM 02:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please notify significant contributers as well as associated wikipedia projects and post these notifications at the top of this FAR (see the instructions at WP:FAR. Thanks! --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 16:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What information on development does it lack? Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that that concern is no longer as relevant, though it was with the revision I nom'd for FAR: rev1 --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More specifically, there was no development before I did a mass edit to add some. --MASEM 20:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What issues are actually outstanding here? Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure there are sections of story and gameplay needing sourcing. Reviews can be used for that, I just haven't had time. --MASEM 14:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Baloney. Both are implicitly sourced to the primary source material, i.e. the game, which is an utterly fine source for identifying its own plot and gameplay. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This generally doesn't fly anymore for FA's, at least for gameplay, which 99% of the time can be easily backed by collaborating evidence from reviews. The plot, fortunately, can also be cited as such. --MASEM 14:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am appalled that that doesn't fly. Backing with evidence from reviews, given the egregiously poor editorial and ethical practices of the video game review industry, is a miserably poor idea for something that can be straightforwardly gleaned from primary sources within our policy. This is something we ought push back on. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At worst, a review from a reliable source (meaning that some editorial oversight has been done) is better in terms of verifiability than an editor's interpretation of game mechanics or plot, when it can be done. Even sourcing the game itself or the manual is preferred over no source at all. Mind you, I agree that in most cases, plot and gameplay can stand on its own, but its clear from several recent GA/FAs that I've been through that lack of any source in gameplay and plot will be called out and questioned. --MASEM 15:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, obviously there are places where secondary sources can have a role to play. But in this specific article, I see nothing of significance in the gameplay section that seems to me to require a secondary source. That people will raise the concern seems to me beside the point - it is a needless concern that imposes undue requirements on articles, and it cannot meaningfully help improve them. It's something I think it's better to hold a firm line on. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by User:Gimmetrow 11:07, 9 September 2008 [12].

Calgary Flames

Notified Talk:Calgary Flames, Resolute, GoodDay and Djsasso

This article has an excess of non-free images, Image:Calgary_Flames_logo_1980-1994.png and Image:Calgary Flames logo.svg are in violation of minimal usage, we dont need a non-free image to describe a black outline. Multiple instances of copyrighted team uniforms, when one is only needed, or even the free Image:JaromeIginla.jpg could be used. Fasach Nua (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid drive-by noms, we generally don't allow reviews for articles that have recently been on the main page. In this case, I don't see that a full review is warranted. However, we can leave this up a few days to get feedback on the images. Fasach, I suggest you be bold and make some of the image changes yourself. Marskell (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it sure was nice for you to finally explain your complaints rather than just throw up a boilerplate message and bail. "Drive-by" is the perfect way to describe this. Personally, I think this review should be speedy closed, and the nominator given a polite suggestion that discussion of his issues on the article's talk page would be an ideal first step. As one can easily see, Fasach Nua has made absolutely no attempt at discussing any of his concerns beforehand. Resolute 14:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And, for the record, I do have plans to replace at least two of the jersey images with free equivalents once the hockey season starts, in a couple weeks. This is something that I would have happily explained had Fasach simply asked. Resolute 14:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually surprised this user would not even attempt to bring up the reasoning on Talk:Calgary Flames. He was asked by a couple editors to discuss his issues on the talk page before just throwing up a boilerplate message. I would agree that this is a drive-by nomination. Especially since too many non-free images is a very subjective issue. -Djsasso (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. May I ask, since the subject has come up, for a link to the policy discussing how many images are or are not permitted in an article? (I am sure, of course, that the editor is aware that there is a right at law for the use of sports teams logos for illustrative, non-commercial use.)  RGTraynor  15:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no set limit, use is defined by policy and aims of the foundation. Fasach Nua (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no set limit, how can you say there are too many? It's common sense that for a history of the logo of a company that there will need to be multiple non-free images at each stage of its evolution, and as such I don't see where there is a violation of trying to keep to a minimum number of them. Because the minimum number in this case would be 1 for every version of the logo. -Djsasso (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The usage of these images falls outside policy, and several images would have to be removed to meet WP:NFCC, thus reducing the number. It is not necessary to have a picture of every single logo a team has ever had to understand the concept of the team Fasach Nua (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that that section is not specifically about the team, its a history of its logo. And for that you would need one of each logo. In that respect its fully compliant with WP:NFCC. -Djsasso (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In which case you admit that your take is entirely subjective? I would like to hear the specific elements of NFCC you claim these images violate, because as it stands, this comes off as WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than any concrete complaint.  RGTraynor  19:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am closing this. What's at issue can perfectly easily be resolved on article talk. FAR is not dispute resolution. Marskell (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was kept by User:Marskell 14:19, 8 September 2008 [13].

Helicobacter pylori

Review commentary

User:AxelBoldt, Wikipedia:WikiProject Microbiology, User:TimVickers, User:GrahamColm, User:Jfdwolff notified

I am nominating this Featured Article for further review. The Pathology section is one sentence and is tagged for improvement. The writing is no longer FA quality. It is very poorly referenced. For an article on this particular bacteria, I'd expect to see twice as many references as are there. Moreover, many of the statements just aren't referenced. The external links are way overboard (I know that's a judgement call, but it reads like a link farm). Therefore, I would say this article is no longer well-written, properly sourced, or consistently structured. It needs a rewrite before it is FA quality. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree - the prose contains some odd constructions and word usages in places. Luckily this is fairly straightforward and I have started tweaking it but there is a way to go yet. It would be good to save such an article. The references need proper formatting and more definitely need adding. Also, I suspect a little more could be added on the bacterium itself.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 23:07, 1 August 2008
  • Mostly a great article, a pleasure to read. But I do have some comments, and think it merits another look.
    • Short lead.
    • I find this sentence to be confusing: H. pylori's helix shape (from which the genus name is derived) is thought to have evolved to penetrate and favor its motility in the mucus gel layer. Penetrate what?
    • from mucosal specimens from human stomachs Could this be put into plainer language?
    • The paragraph beginning Before the appreciation of the bacterium's role is unreferened.
    • is that is produced by other intestinal bacteria correct (i.e., is H. pylori considered intestinal)?
    • Some of the info under Structure is not about structure (e.g. the oxygen material).
    • The apparent contradiction brought up on the talk page about the reduced stomach acidity should be explained or addressed.

I have to go for now but I'll be back with more. delldot talk 14:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The unreferenced section had been added after the FAC, it was a repeat of info covered more in the previous section, Colonization, so I integrated it into that section.

  • More comments:
    • Under Colonization: An example of this is the Lewis b antigen. An example of what? Possibly An example of such an adhesin?

More later. delldot talk 17:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the experimental treatments in the Rx section; I think that section should discuss only established treatments. Those could be included in a Research directions section, but not by themselves. I removed the {{unbalanced}} tag, as I thought that fixed the problem. Re-tag if not. More comments:

    • Heavy reliance on primary sources. Reviews should be found to replace these where possible.
    • While some favorable evidence has been accumulated, the theory is not universally accepted -- not really clear what this refers to. Also, this paragraph flows poorly from the last one. Why am I suddenly reading about cancer? How does it relate to the rest of the section?
    • Even biopsy is dependent on the location of the biopsy. -- Choppy, awkward sentence.
    • The info on rates of infection in the West and Third World should go in an Epidemiology section, not diagnosis.
    • Define unfamiliar terms like atrophic.
    • Refs should be consistent: periods after authors' initials, capital letters in article titles, full page range (4888–4891) or abbreviated (4888–91), periods after abbreviated journal titles (Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther.) or none (Dig Dis Sci).
    • All instances of the genus & species name should be italicized.

More to follow. delldot talk 20:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More:

    • It has been proposed that H. pylori induces inflammation and locally high levels of TNF-alpha and/or interleukin 6 -- perhaps explain the difficult terms, e.g. locally high levels of the inflammatory proteins TNF-alpha and/or interleukin 6. Also, and/or is discouraged by MOS.
    • Acid reflux and esophageal cancer is a tiny subsection all by itself. I'd get rid of it, but it's referenced above with an "explained below".
    • The last paragraph under Genome studies lost me. Any chance of making it less technical or explaining difficult terms?
    • Bacterial strains that have the cagA gene are associated with an ability to cause severe ulcers doesn't make sense.
    • I would suggest a restructuring of the article, with two main parts: the first half should be about the bacterium itself (e.g. structure, genome studies) and the second part about infection. If we change Colonization to Colonization and infection, we could convert Causes of infection, Diagnosis of infection, Treatment of infection to lvl 3 headers: Causes, Diagnosis, and Treatment (the cancer section would also be a level 3 under Infection). On the other hand, this would be a massive section.
    • I'm not sure about the comprehensiveness. So 2/3 of the world is infected? In that case, what are the usual characteristics of infection?

That's it from me. delldot talk 20:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my issues:

  • Lead is too short and does not summarize the whole article.
  • Citations are done improperly, although I've fixed many of them.
  • References are lacking from a number of statements.
  • Prose is difficult to read. There are too many areas where repetition has occurred.
  • The treatment section gives too much weight to natural treatments that are far from proven to do anything positive.
  • Editors have cleaned up the see also and external links section. Those were a mess.

Hopefully more editors will get involved so more people will watch the articles. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an MOS for microbiology articles? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images: I took a quick look at them, added info tags etc. I think everything is ok, but I'd prefer someone more experienced with images take a look at

Comments It's not a bad article but it is below the current FA standard. As mentioned above, there should be more, (up-to-date) citations. There are problems with the structure; the section headed Microbiology, is in fact a discussion on pathogenesis and there is little microbiology in the article. There is a bad error of fact in the all too short lead: H. pylori does not infect more people than any other bacterium, and the reference given does not support this claim. The article needs to make clear the important differences of bacterial colonisation, asymptomatic infection, (carriage), and symptomatic infection. Many more people are infected with Staphylococcus aureus than H. pylori. There is some poor prose too, in the History section for example: The community began to come round.... And, that image of the urease structure is purely decorative. The article can be rescued, but someone needs to spend a lot of time on it. Graham Colm Talk 14:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), referencing (1c), and structure (2). Marskell (talk) 10:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per nom. Very many problems with structure and references. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Several editors (some I've not seen about these parts) have cleaned up the article. It should stay. I'm going to remove the reference tags, as soon as I complete a review of each citation. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - agree with TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs). There are still some style issues as well as referencing issues throughout that have not been addressed. Cirt (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still lacking a lot of citation, and no Signs and symptoms section (per WP:MEDMOS). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure how to respond to that. We keep running into articles like this one, and how to fit it into MEDMOS. H. pylori is a bacterium, so the article describes the bug, not the disease that results from the bug. So maybe the article on ulcers refers to H. pylori, and it would be styled according to MEDMOS. Or do we describe the disease too? I ran into this situation with Chickenpox (the disease), and Herpes/Varicella zoster the virus. Do we combine the articles? Do we separate them? Does one follow MEDMOS as the disease and the other basically an anatomical/genetic/physiological description of the disease vector. And let's not even go to something like malaria!!! So, I guess I need to ask, do we do a signs and symptoms of the disease that results from H. pylori (speculated to be ulcers), or do we have a microbiology article about the bacterium, with a section discussing how it might cause ulcers? I'm getting a headache. BTW, my idea has always been to combine the articles on the vectors for the disease and the disease. So Herpes zoster and shingles would be combined. Varicella zoster and chickenpox would be combined. In these cases the virus causes one disease, and the disease has one cause. H. pylori may cause ulcers, but I don't believe all ulcers are caused by H. pylori. Wow, this is giving me a serious migraine. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was actually going to write something similar to above this morning - it is tricky as the bug gives rise to several disease entities. OM has been busy with AD so has a good reason to have been preoccupied. Shall we give it another week? I have an idea. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There has been significant clean-up of the article. I'd say in a week or so, maybe we could discuss whether the article meets FA standards or not. I think it's "coming round"...I need to find that bit of prose and beat it to death. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have made a few edits, [14]. The prose doesn't flow very well in parts but this is difficult to achieve when describing loosely related characteristics of the species, but the article has been much improved over the past few weeks. Graham Colm Talk 16:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've given this a copyedit and done some MOS cleanup. Maralia (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by User:Marskell 10:38, 1 September 2008 [15].

Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9

Review commentary

Contains numerous vague, unattributed and unreferenced claims. Some sections are not supported by sources at all. Fails criterion 1c - verifiability. Passed FA candidacy in 2005, but today it wouldn't. --Eleassar my talk 14:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notified Nominator, User:Urhixidur, User:Noren, Wikipedia:WikiProject Solar System. --Eleassar my talk 15:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eleassar, please see the instrutions at the top of WP:FAR and sample notifications at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Trigonometric functions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects. (and note that Worldtraveller no longer edits here) -- Rick Block (talk) 03:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At least to a cursory scan, it seems to me that most the information is verifiable in the existing citations. In many cases it is not presented with the more recently popular inline citation method, however. The acceptable style of citation standard evolved during 2006- for examples, see several discussions about inline citations in the good article criteria talk page [[16]]. In 2005 it was more common (particularly in physical science articles) to reference the end of a section or of the entire article rather than inline. This was adequate for an interested reader to explore the details and thereby verify, but was more difficult for those who wanted to quickly judge verifiability without reading through all the references. It appears to me that the problem is with the format of referencing rather than a failure of criterion 1c. I added modern style inline references to the section to which Eleassar had recently added in a reference request template. Are there other sections in which there are verifiability concerns? --Noren (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing so. If I understand you correctly, some of the reliable sources that the article rests on are listed in the 'external links' section. I suggest they are referenced inline. As you said, current format makes single claims difficult to verify. --Eleassar my talk 18:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be savable, but the prose needs pulling apart. Here are random examples from one small portion of text.
    • In the lead, I saw "SL9 was in pieces ranging in size up to 2 kilometres in diameter, and is believed to have been pulled apart by Jupiter's tidal forces during a close encounter in July 1992." Why not "in pieces up to two kilometres in diameter"? "Is believed" is possible if there's no other wording: who believes? Based on the level of uncertainty, pick something like "is likely to have been" or "may have been". There's a spectrum of certainty-wordings.
    • Not actionable, but why "approximately" when a short, plain word is available: "about"?
    • Suddenly at the end of the lead we have imperial conversions, after several unconverted ones. If no one objects, it's quite OK in a science article not to clutter with conversions. All American school-kids are taught metrics nowadays, and adults who don't know probably don't want to visualise 37 miles per second.
    • Avoid repetition: "The prominent scars from the impacts could be seen on Jupiter for many months after the impact".

So, there's work to be done on the prose throughout. TONY (talk) 03:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just got back from vacation (we left on the day of the notification!). What exactly does this article need done? Urhixidur (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, footnotes. Second, improvement of the style of writing. --Eleassar my talk 15:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and prose (1a). Marskell (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be more specific as to what statements are in need of better citation? If it's the "Predictions for the collision" section, if that's what you mean by discussion of hypotheses and conjectures, the document currently cited appears to me to be a reliable source that contains all of the information in that paragraph. It's true there's just the one source, but a year wasn't enough time to generate many secondary sources on the topic of pre-impact speculation. --Noren (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certain sections are undercited; see the "Frequency of Impacts" and "Discovery" sections, where assertions like these lack sourcing:"Studies have estimated that comets probably crash into Jupiter once or twice per century, but the impact of comets the size of SL9 is much less common - probably no more often than once per millennium." ""The comet was thus a serendipitous discovery, but one that quickly overshadowed the results from their main observing program." I also see url links in citations not properly formatted with the use of the appropriate templates. ISBNs in parentheses (which is not what would be generated if Template:cite book) was used, and other similar problems. Nevertheless, all these issues could be fixed, and therefore I'll not vote yet for the article's removal.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that some work was done, I am going to hold this a little while longer. Tomorrow I will look to see if I can improve it myself. Marskell (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This actually has a decent amount of scholarly sources. Unfortunately, they need to be formatted. I'm slow with this stuff but I'll pick away. Marskell (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I started working a bit on formatting notes, but it is a damn boring job, and most of these sources seem specialized. I thus faced two problems: 1) Not sure I format the data correctly, 2) I am not sure I can find the full data of certain sources, such us some proceedings with no url. Somebody specialized on the issue should have a look.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm ... And indeed somebody should find something better for note 20. Yahoo groups?!--Yannismarou (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still willing to leave this up a while. I added a couple of refs, Yanni took care of some really boring formatting, and an anon took care of Yahoo groups. (I think the happy ghost of WorldTraveller is still with us.) Marskell (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think citations are properly formatted now. The article is definitely up to GA status; I am not sure about FA. Any content remarks about editors with specialized knowledge on the issue?--Yannismarou (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He he. I like your edit summaries. I did a few ref formattings and wanted to keel over in exhaustion.
There's still some uncited hard data, particularly at the end of 'A Jupiter-orbiting comet.' If we can get to that I think we'll be OK here. Marskell (talk) 08:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment while leaning towards support. More sources were added by Noren and anonymous. Though not a specialist, I also tried to help on the article's citing. I also did some MoS stuff. I think the article is close to current FA criteria, and I really like its prose. Nevertheless, I think that the following citing flaws should be taken care of:
  • "Studies have estimated that comets probably crash into Jupiter once or twice per century, but the impact of comets the size of SL9 is much less common—probably no more often than once per millennium." What studies?
  • "Studies have shown that the planet, by far the most massive in the solar system, can capture comets from solar orbit into Jovian orbit rather frequently" Same question.
  • "Before the impact, models of Jupiter's atmosphere had indicated that the break-up of the largest fragments would occur at atmospheric pressures of anywhere from 300 kilopascals to a few megapascals (from three to a few tens bar), and most astronomers expected that the impacts would penetrate a hypothesised water-rich layer underneath the clouds." Which models?
  • "While substantial water was detected spectroscopically, it was not as much as predicted beforehand, meaning that either the water layer thought to exist below the clouds was thinner than predicted, or that the cometary fragments did not penetrate deeply enough." Source?
  • "Impacts" is obviously undercited.
If these limited citing problems are taken care of, then IMO the article deserves its star.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reworked 'Frequency of impacts' and added a ref, which I think takes care of your first two bullets. I added fact requests for your third and fourth bullets—hopefully Noren or the anon can get to them. Yes, 'Impacts' could use more. There's some NASA timelines on-line that can be used. In any case, this has come a long way. Marskell (talk) 08:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added two NASA refs to 'Impacts.' Also there's now four citation needed requests for unsourced paragraphs. If these are done, I think 1c is met. Marskell (talk) 09:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me but sources are added all the time, and what Blnguyen and Sandy believed to be "significant referencing issues" (and they indeed were at the time—one month ago!) are now "limited referencing issues", and this should be taken into consideration in forming our judgment.--Yannismarou (talk) 07:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be very clear, this is still being held. Cirt, even in the FARC period the question remains "are people working on the article?" Blnguyen's and Sandy's comments are essentially defunct given how much progress the page has made. Marskell (talk) 08:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then at this point I am Neutral about this whole thing for now - but I would very much hope that all the unsourced portions and citation needed tags will certainly be addressed before the end of this review. Cirt (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Removed status

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

The article was removed by User:Marskell 13:25, 19 September 2008 [17].

History of Test cricket from 1884 to 1889

Review commentary

Notified: WikiProject Cricket and Jguk.

This article, promoted in March 2005, needs a radical overhaul to be considered among Wikipedia's best work today. Allow me to run down a list of problems:

  • 1a: Needs a thorough copy-edit to meet modern prose standards. Just in the lead, I see "...to describe a form of cricket when the Press used it in 1885." Why is Press capitalized? Also, 2-1 needs an en dash, and then there's this: "But, although it was only recognised as a Test nation later, after 13 years, cricket had a third Test-playing team." Redundancy at the start, and the comma usage could be reduced. Some WP:MOSNUM issues as well.
  • 1c: This is the big one. No inline citations, and the References at the bottom include generic Cricinfo and Cricket Archive links, which don't help verify this article at all. FA referencing standards have simply passed this article by in its current condition.
  • 2a: The lead is short, even stubby, and badly needs expansion.

There is some unencyclopedic language mixed in as well. One example: "Ideally, they would not have spent so much time batting..." Comes off as POV. I'd also like a photo in the lead, but there are more vital issues to take care of first. Overall, this does not compare to modern cricket FAs in my view, and would not even pass a good article nomination today. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please notify significant contributers as well as associated wikipedia projects and post these notifications at the top of this FAR (see the instructions at WP:FAR). Thanks! --Regents Park (count the magpies) 23:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To start with a minor point, the History of Cricket template at the top of the article hasn't been updated since the early days of WP:CRIC and should be deleted as it no longer reflects the project's cricket history coverage and adds no real value given our category structure.
The major point I would make is that the entire article is superfluous because the cricket project has evolved and left this sort of multi-season review far behind. The contents should be checked against the relevant tour articles and merged in to those where they are useful. The tour articles are:
Having done that, the article should be AfDed. It was a good enough article when it was written because the cricket project was in its early days then, but we have moved on.
I should add that the 1887-88 section contains serious factual errors and is very misleading. For example, the Melbourne club invited Vernon's team, not Shrewsbury's, and it was Vernon's team that sustained what Wisden calls "frankly a heavy loss". It is a complete distortion to imply that Shrewbury's team was all-pro and Vernon's was all-amateur: both teams had a mixture of amateurs and professionals. BlackJack | talk page 05:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Giants2008 (talk · contribs) and BlackJack (talk · contribs) (though not sure this article should be AfDed). The article in its present state is most certainly not up to current WP:FA standards (or WP:GA standards for that matter). Cirt (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), referencing (1c), and lead (2a). Marskell (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by User:Marskell 12:35, 17 September 2008 [18].

Pilot (House)

Review commentary

Notified: WP:TELEVISION, The Filmaker (talk · contribs)

I have nothing to do with this article, but it is really bothering me that this article remains an FA when it fails many parts, if not all of them, of the criteria. -- Jɑɱǐε Jcɑ 21:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs both additional citations and more sources, a majority of the information (including entire sections of the article) may be deemed completely original. I'm baffled as to how this managed to pass it's original FA review, an article requires more than just information alone. UniversalBread (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please notify significant contributers as well as associated wikipedia projects and post these notifications at the top of this FAR (see the instructions at WP:FAR. Thanks! --Regents Park (count the magpies) 11:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)--Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 16:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The {{unreferencedsection}} template should be removed from the Plot Section. Plots do not need references as the source is the episode itself. Everything can be verified by watching the episode. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plots technically don't need citations/references, length is a nonissue, and I see only one citation needed tag. However, we should take advantage of this and give the article a followup copy-edit; it has been a year and a half, after all. — Deckiller 05:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion, WP's "best work" on a pilot episode should say where the idea for the series came from and how the series was picked up. Although the article discusses casting, it says nothing about where the episode was produced or how much it cost. FAC nominators argued that sources didn't cover these topics. In other words: reliable sources did not provide comprehensive coverage of this particular topic. Ironically, the "one citation needed tag" shouldn't even exist; the info was cited to imdb, and during the FAC a reliable replacement link was provided, but the link was never incorporated into the article, and presumably someone in the last year and a half removed the imdb link. I expect this interpretation of the comprehensive criterion is controversial, but episode articles are not without some controversy of their own. If WP is going to hold up some episode articles as the "best work", they should show the best possible work for a comparable topic. Compare the production section of "Where No Man Has Gone Before", and that's not even a FA. If that coverage is not possible because the sources don't exist or haven't been found, then the article isn't really comprehensive yet. (GA doesn't have a "comprehensive" criterion, so this article would pass GA.) Gimmetrow 23:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting Removal! - Reference numbers 10 and 11 are deadlinks and lead to a 'page cannot be displayed' in the browser. Additionally, the article is extremely short (could include more background info on the show since it is the first episode) and lacks any form of media which are both Featured Article requirements. As much as I love this show, I cannot believe this is a Featured Article. This needs to be fixed up and improved dramatically. Images are an almost 'must' as per the criteria, same goes for sufficient sources. I support this removal/review completely. Domiy (talk) 06:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The part about the dead links is no longer an issue. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Referencing issue seems to have been addressed, but this article simply is not comprehensive enough to be of WP:FA quality to present standards in its current state. WP:GA standards for television episodes these days usually require a bit more breadth. A subsection about Themes of the episode, or Cultural references, any Controversy, more substantive Production information as mentioned above by Gimmetrow (talk · contribs), etc. Cirt (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove as per current state. I think that any article, no matter how short, can be FA if it exhausts all possible sources, however this article does not use all possible sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As David says, length is not an issue. Comprehensiveness is. Clearly people are concerned about that with this article; Gimme puts it quite well above. As no one has stepped forward to work, removing now. Marskell (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was removed by User:Marskell 12:35, 17 September 2008 [19].

Blues

Review commentary

Notified Vb, WP Music genres, WP African diaspora, WP Media, WP Chicago, WP Illinois and WP Music.
Other editors with 25 edits were also notified (Deeceevoice, TUF-KAT, Notinasnaid, Blainster, RobertG, and Cielomobile) as was the second leading talk page editor Hyacinth.

There appear to be many statements lacking citations, including two entire sections without any citations. This article seems to have been promoted when the standards for featured articles were more lax, but this article seems hardly featured-worthy with the current standards. Xnux the Echidna 16:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image problems

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and images (3). Marskell (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove, numerous opinions lacking attribution, citation tags, incomplete citations, publishers lacking, numerous MoS issues (image layout, seealso templates at ends of sections), clearly needs copyediting (notice this exact text:
    Georgia also had an early slide tradition.[37] ok (Y) :D
  • SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judging the history, I assume Vb was working as an non. There was some good improvement but this is still not there and work has ceased. (Musical articles on genres, as opposed to specific bands, are difficult and usually require a team.) Removing now. Marskell (talk) 12:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was removed by User:Marskell 13:18, 13 September 2008 [20].

Ido

Review commentary

Most of the main body is unsourced, thus against WP:WIAFA criteria #1c. D.M.N. (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please notify significant contributers as well as associated wikipedia projects and post these notifications at the top of this FAR (see the instructions at WP:FAR. Thanks! --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 16:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've informed Mithridates (talk · contribs), but I don't know whether to inform WikiProject Constructed languages as it's inactive, and whether to inform WikiProject Languages as it covers a huge scope of articles. D.M.N. (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia is probably a better judge but it wouldn't hurt popping a note on the constructed languages and/or the languages pages. The article looks dormant and there may be some Ido lovers out there. --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 18:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a rule, notify as broadly as you can, in the hopes of snaring an editor willing to work on an article. Even inactive editors may have friends who still follow their pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've informed WP:Lang and WP:CL of the FAR. D.M.N. (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence is there that Image:Ido.jpg and Image:Ido Kongreso en Desau 1922.jpg are released by the copyright holder? While it is possible that Alfred Neussner is alive today and took a photograph in 1922, it seems unlikely. DrKiernan (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 10:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing happening on the article and clearly deficient in terms of referencing. Will remove now. Marskell (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was removed by User:Marskell 13:18, 13 September 2008 [21].

Spoo

Review commentary

FAR 1 FAR 2

1c. There are 27 footnotes in the article. Let's break them down:

  • Wikipedia:No original research states: "Wikipedia articles should rely on...secondary sources. Secondary sources are accounts at least one step removed from an event," whereas "primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic or event." 17/27 of the footnotes comprise primary sources: Internet postings by the creator of Babylon 5, Dining on Babylon 5 (a book published by Warner Brothers, the company that owns Babylon 5), TV episodes, a short film, and a song. The article, therefore, fails the requirement that articles should rely on secondary sources.
I rarely comment on a FAR but I feel that this policy must be clarified. The policy uses the word "should" which is not be confused with the word "must". The FA criteria requires reliable sources. Joelito (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should and must are synonyms. "Wikipedia articles should rely on...secondary sources" appears in an official policy, and all FAs must abide by official policies. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No they aren't. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must respectfully disagree on this. Joelito (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As do I. There's a very clear difference drilled into me in High School debate team, yea these multiple decades ago. If a policy states a requirement, it must use must. In the same way, a guideline should use should. Jclemens (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So when WP:BLP says "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion", we don't really have to follow it, since it says should instead of must? Punctured Bicycle (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is the way it's written, yes. Of course, there may have been a decision made to avoid the more precise language. Reasons to do so include that the use of the word 'must' seems demanding and incompatible with a volunteer project, or that the Foundation's legal counsel felt that use of the word 'must' would create legal problems for the Foundation in the event that the policies are not followed. I have no knowledge of any such considerations, however. Rather than saying that should and must are synonymous, which they are not, it might be more on point to assert that 'should' when used in an official Wikipedia policy is normative, not optative. That seems to support your point, while still avoiding unnecessary torture of the English language. :-) (disclaimer: I write policies for a living, so my usage of words in this context may be overly precise and downright arcane) Jclemens (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That does indeed say "should" as it ought. Using "must" in that context would have the unfortunate meaning that any editor who sees such material is obliged to remove it, no matter what. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia articles should rely on...secondary sources" does not mean that "Wikipedia articles should exclude primary sources." Primary sources are legitimate sources, per WP:PSTS, the very section you're selectively quoting, and are often the best sources for a given area of coverage. You cannot use primary sources as the basis for an independent analysis of a subject (that is OR), but factual descriptions of the contents of primary sources are a vital part of our sourcing. Have you looked, for instance, at the "Plot" section of nearly every movie article on the site, including the FAs?--Father Goose (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never said "Wikipedia articles should exclude primary sources." Of course factual descriptions of the contents of primary sources are a vital part of our sourcing—when used in conjunction with ample secondary sources. That is not the case here. Movie articles, if they truly are FA quality, will draw heavily upon secondary sources. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then what you're saying is "delist, too much use of primary sources". I don't see how this in and of itself should be a reason to delist an FA. If it had no secondary sources, it would fail WP:N. (That is, depending on whether you considered "inherited notability" kosher... which is not at this time a resolved issue.)--Father Goose (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious I haven't presented this point very effectively. My point is that once you remove the 7 citations that clearly violate WP:V and WP:NOR, as explained below, you are left only with primary sources and a few highly questionable secondary sources. The problem is not too many primary sources but rather too few, or no, good secondary sources. Solid secondary sources are the flesh and blood of this encyclopedia; although primary sources are useful in some cases, for the most part we should let the historians handle them. This, I take it, is what Jimbo means when he says "this is Wikipedians obsessed with trivia trying to be historians rather than encyclopedists" in the quote below. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 21:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Verifiability states: "Self-published...personal websites...forum postings...and similar sources are largely not acceptable." 3/27 of the footnotes comprise forum postings and a personal website, none of which involve J. Michael Straczynski, creator of Babylon 5.
  • Wikipedia:No original research states: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." 4/27 of the footnotes comprise sources that attempt to support the conclusion "Straczynski was not the first person to use the word spoo - uses can be found in popular culture since the 1970s," but none of them explicitly reach this conclusion, and none of them are directly related to the subject of the article.
  • So, 24/27 of the footnotes fail the content policies that 1c is based upon. What do the remaining 3 contain?
    • A draft of an article and a tv.com biography, which attempt to support the claim "Straczynski's use of Usenet and other internet forums is well known," a fact that, while important, is not specifically about spoo.
    • A USENET FAQ, which attempts to support the claim "The question of what spoo is made it into the major Babylon 5 FAQ," an absurdly inane fact.
    • A Lurker's Guide entry, containing the statement "The price of spoo is highly volatile: near the beginning of the episode, as Mack and Bo ate lunch, Mack claimed it cost 10 credits an ounce. At the end of the episode, he said it cost 15," which somehow has been stretched into "As a widely consumed food product, like coffee or beef, spoo is a traded commodity, where the price of the product at the consumer level is dictated by the price on common exchanges. During one episode the price of a spoo sandwich is stated as ten credits an ounce; at the end of the same episode it is stated as fifteen credits. While this could be a simple mistake by Straczynski, a bit of fanon assumes that it is an intentional reference to spoo's exorbitant volatility in the market." in Wikipedia's article.
  • One final thought: "The article spoo that you mention is a very good example of a specatularly horrible use of original research. This is Wikipedians obsessed with trivia trying to be historians rather than encyclopedists. This should all be nuked from the encyclopedia with extreme prejudice, in my opinion." —Jimbo Wales, creator of Wikipedia, a year after the article was featured. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article has only minor changes since the last FAR, mostly some changes to accessdates. Sourcing was addressed in previous FARs. Nothing really has changed here, so no need for a review. Gimmetrow 20:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment diffs between the version of the article Jimbo criticized and today's iteration.
    • To me Jimbo's opinion has the same weight as that of any other editor on this encyclopedia. The community has decided that the article is worthy of inclusion on this encyclopedia. Joelito (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove this nomination now - The article has twice been FAR'd, there are no new issues whatsoever, and it was decided that the references used are allowable. Jimbo can have his opinion, but the people who actually build his encyclopedia have been very clear about where they stand on the issue. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did, I remember when they happened, and I didn't agree with the AFD or the FAR then, and I don't now. The sources are not the most optimal, but they are from the creators of the substance, and are therefore reliable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Midnight_Spoo_copy_lite.jpg might be unnecessary, but the others all seem pretty justifiable. There aren't going to be free images available of a fictional subject.--Father Goose (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's only a small portion of the non-free content criteria. Does Image:Gallery Spoo lite 2.jpg convey signification information that Image:Spoo Close Up 3 lite.jpg does not? (3a) Does it significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic? (8) Is it impossible to convey by text alone? (1) Pagrashtak 18:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have the WikiProjects/users associated with this article been notified of this FAR? I don't see a list of notifications at the top of this FAR. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My Concerns- Delist
    • Images: How do any of the images, besides those directly identifying the subject, meet WP:NFCC? Can't it be said in text Skeletor got offered Spoo?
    • WP:WAF- entire sections such as "Commodity" don't help an outside reader understand the subject, and veer into unnecessary detail
    • Sources: I have nothing against using primary sources, and have used them many times. However there needs to be a balance. Flood has 14 secondary sources. Many of Spoo's citations are more like footnotes, and several are flying in the face of WP:RS (such as current ref 23; we can't throw people at Google and just say 'it is notable, look here'.) Next to no info on creation or reception beyond fans- in other words, little to show the actual food, not the word, have relevance outside of the series.
    • Summation: Fails 1b, 1c, 3, and 4 of WP:FA?

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep listed. It is clear that this article relies on the best available sources, and that the sources available are reliable by any sane or objective measure. To declare that these sources fail to meet our criteria misses the point - this article, and I say this as a published scholar in popular culture, is well-sourced. It is we who are mistaken if we say otherwise. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well-sourced /= reliably sourced. I could make you an excellent sourced article on the Helljumpers from the Halo series. That doesn't mean it is fit for this encyclopedia. Spoo lacks secondary reliable sources for its continued inclusion. This is a minor piece of fiction which appeared, according to the article, in only eight episodes of a series and is inherently fanbait. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When you are arguing that "well-sourced" and "reliably sourced" are not synonyms, you have departed reality in favor of Wikipedia jargon-land. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Show me how forum postings meet RS, and I'll stop considering this fancruft in need of deletion, let alone demotion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Explain to me how comments by the creator and more or less sole writer of a television series aren't reliable sources. Never mind RS - if RS says that J. Michael Straczynski talking about Babylon 5 in any verifiable medium isn't a reliable source, RS is on crack. And, notably, I haven't read RS in a month or two. It's frankly irrelevant to this discussion - if it says that JMS speaking on B5 isn't a reliable source, it is transparently wrong. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Phil, the relevant quote from WP:SPS is "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." JMS is an expert on B5. JMS' work on B5 has been published in RS. Therefore, use of JMS' SPS are RS WRT B5, QED. If we're agreed on the logic, WP:B5 members can certainly source each statement therein to everyone's satisfaction. Jclemens (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about that guy as a source: it's a primary source which falls under WP:SPS as long as its verifiable. But the article has, next to no secondary sources which prove the article is notable. All I know is that the creator used the phrase once before in a show he worked for, and that fans spoofed it, and that college students used the term. That doesn't equal notable, and none of the "See Usenet posting via Google" are reliable sources and should be removed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope, given the contentiousness of notability and fictional subjects, that FAR would not become a frontier in that battle. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note, I object strenuously to the use of FAR for a problem like "too many non-free images." That's trivial to fix - go remove the images and challenge the fair use rationales. FAR is not an appropriate response to easily fixable issues. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is neither here nor there, but it was brought here for 1c concerns, not 3. Pagrashtak 18:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't speak FA jargon. What are 1c and 3? Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1c and 3 are "factually accurate" and "image" clauses of the FA criteria. Ec: "claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed..." Ergo, we need reliable sources, of which at least five are patently not. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be so kind as to specify what five? Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, only four (though there are more I'm not sure about.) Current refs 14, 16, 25, 13. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13 and 14 seem to me trivial - they're minor references for a side point, and I don't really see them as major issues. Remove them if they offend. 16 does not bother me particularly - the Usenet post is a sufficiently reliable primary source for the basic fact that the term was used. The only bothersome claim is "earliest use," since to my knowledge Google's Usenet indexing is not complete. 25 is a non-issue, being redundant with 26, but is probably worth keeping due to its link to the primary source of the song. I'd agree with removing 13 and 14 and recasting 16 slightly, but I am unable to see how these add up to de-listing. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm going about this the wrong way... explain to me what the significant secondary sources are which make this article notable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think this is an appropriate discussion given that the overall question of notability and fictional subjects is ambiguous. Delisting a FA while this is being discussed seems unwise. If nothing else, we have learned by now that we cannot effectively stem the tide of articles of this sort being created. Given that, a FA that is a genuinely good model for how to do articles of this sort seems to me a positive. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that was a great question. Starting with the secondary sources that provide notability will probably be the best way to improve the article. I've removed refs 13 and 14 based on the above. Pagrashtak 20:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think, seeing this discussion and looking at the article again, the references that do exist are very poorly done, they are much more like notes and not actual references; they say what happens in the episode they reference, instead of citing the actual episode, for example. Proper formatting and fixing this aspect will give us a much better idea of what is a reference and what is not. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if we axe that reference, the only other source that meets secondary criteria and is a reliable source (maybe) is the Babylon Park short, but that too, is just a video, and isn't a reliable source for demonstrating the notability of spoo. The main issue with this article is serious original research and synthesis is being done here. We need a source that says "Spoo, a fictional food, has a significant impact in the fan community" or something along those lines; we can't take some songs and say that they are indicative of a wider impact. For all you know, those two guys were the only ones who gave a damn about spoo. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm simply elevating notability concerns to the level due of a fictional subject FA. I would expect you, Phil, to know better about reliable sources. The OR and questionable sources are a serious issue, and I'm giving it serious thought and time. If need be, we can do an RfC to judge the reliability of all the usenet sources. But if we gutted all questionable sources and possible OR, we'd be left with very little in the way of featured material. The burden of evidence falls upon you, Phil; we have every right to be skeptical. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see the Luke Ski, Babylon Park, and JMS posts (which I am skeptical of the appropriateness of calling primary sources for Spoo) all as establishing notability. I remain broadly skeptical of the relationship between notability and fictional subjects, and I am sure you are well aware that the matter remains controversial. I find your dogmatism here unhelpful and ill-advised. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I'm saying that I don't see any of the above as establishing notability, least of all the JMS stuff (If you can explain how that is not a primary source, I'm all ears.) I think soliciting the opinions of venues such as WP:RSN is warranted, since I believe we have a fundamental difference in opinion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the person who posted the usenet information said at some point he did post the information listed, in which case it would be usable. I would look around for that. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic or event [...] published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research; original philosophical works, religious scripture, administrative documents, patents, and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs." He's a primary source; he's not taking information from primary sources and performing synthesis, then he'd be secondary. Developer commentaries, et al are all primary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 04:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll grant that they're primary on the overall work, but I'm disinclined to agree in terms of specific elements. But then, I'm inclined to look at this from a larger perspective - in covering Babylon 5, there are numerous reliable sources that provide a good deal of information about Spoo, a fair bit of it real-world. If there were no length limits on articles, it seems clear to me that Babylon 5 would rightly have a sizable section on Spoo. I think questions of its notability have to be taken in that context. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I remind those who keep defending this embarrassment that featured articles are meant to exemplify our very best work? Look at the sources. Actually look. Read them. All of them. Here's one example: Rusty0918 of the Jedi Council Forums writes "Yes, this is Spoo Space, keep going down..." in a message board post, so that means "spoo space" is a verifiably widespread term. This scholarship exemplifies our very best work? Really?

Here's another: the fan-made Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5 notes "The price of spoo is highly volatile." This has been expanded into some crackpot highschool lesson on economics in the Wikipedia article: "As a widely consumed food product, like coffee or beef, spoo is a traded commodity, where the price of the product at the consumer level is dictated by the price on common exchanges." This exemplifies our very best work? Are you kidding me?

Another: A Wikipedian found "[Deleted Spoo]" in some 1989 sci.physics post, so that apparently means it is the first recorded instance of the word on USENET; linguistic researchers are apparently out of a job. Paradigmatic cases of original research represent our very best work? You're joking, right? Punctured Bicycle (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're silly. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you haven't refuted Punctured's opinion (and mine) that there aren't "numerous reliable sources that provide a good deal of information about Spoo, a fair bit of it real-world". If there are, they should be in this article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments, nothing more, nothing less.
  1. The used sources and how they were used (as demonstrated by Punctured Bicycle above) make it extremely unlikely that this article would pass FAC if it was nominated today. Although I do not have a problem with JMS as a source (he is reliable after all), or his forum posts (his way of commenting doesn't make him less reliable), the article still violates WP:V's "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and the article is therefore not among "the best articles in wikipedia" (my emphasis, WP:FA).
  2. Unlike the times when this article was promoted to FA, there is significant acknowledgement now (see e.g. the current discussions at WP:Good topics) that some articles do not have FA-potential although they are legitimate GAs, simply because of their limited scope, which seems to be the case here.
  3. Talking from a disambiguation perspective, the section "Real-world etymology of the word" describes a totally different concept and should thus have its own article (or just a wiktionary page). Which limits the real-world info about spoo in the B5 universe even more, and it's coming dangerously close to "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (WP:V) - although I am never opposed to merging.
  4. This whole article reminds me of Jello in the Stargate universe which was picked up in several audio commentaries (acknowledgement as a running gag by the producers) and fan forums ("Jello" as the name of the reputation blocks etc., google results imply that jello stargate is over five times as popular as spoo babylon). Most people would agree that Jello (Stargate) would be a bad idea for an FA article, so how is Spoo any different? (This is probably the least convincing argument, but at least I see where people are coming from when they say that Spoo is simply not an FA-worthy topic.)
(I do realise that I am digging my own grave here since I have created similar fiction articles that are dear to me, but I accept that the future of an FA-quality wikipedia is not going to be with all the Spoo-like articles.) – sgeureka t•c 16:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 11:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Spoo. Please keep the declarations short and sweet. Marskell (talk) 11:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I shall. Marskell, you have my deepest condolences. I wouldn't do your job for all the tea in China. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose removal. Babylon Park, Luke Ski, and JMS Usenet posts all are, to me, valid sources for notability purposes. Other sources adequate. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support delist. Phil has not demonstrated per the requirements of WP:RS and WP:SPS how the above are reliable or demonstrate notability of the subject as defended. USEnet posting in particular should not be used for sourcing. Secondary issue of original research in the article in part reinforced by the use of unreliable sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. - I agree with David Fuchs (talk · contribs) - the article lacks in-line citations to secondary sources which satisfy WP:RS/WP:V - and in other locations the cited "sources" simply violate WP:OR/WP:SPS. Cirt (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is one of the most disgusting things I have seen in my time on Wikipedia. The continued raising of the bar in this debate has been utterly pathetic. Every time a response is marshalled or a change has been made to this article, suddenly the criteria demanded changes. It is pathetically obvious that this is in no way about improving the article, and that nothing will ever satisfy the de-listers. This is a pathetic, naked hit job being used to open another front in the discussion of notability on fictional articles. Never mind that this is as good and thorough an article on a fictional topic as we have on Wikipedia. Never mind that its sourcing is, in practice, impeccable and reliable by any measure. Never matter the hair-splitting and residence within the echo chamber of Wikipedia necessary to twist this article into some unreliable piece of flimflam. This article must die, clearly. Fine. Delist it. Delete it. Clearly this is going to get rammed through process without any regards to reason. Why fight it.
  • I am ashamed to be a part of this project some days. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose delist The interpretation of WP:SPS is uncompelling, and I don't see meaningful change since the last review. Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you oppose delist then you think the article exemplifies our very best work. Explain, as one example, how appealing to anonymous Internet poster Rusty0918 exemplifies our very best work. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 04:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am uncertain of the problem here. It is clear that Rusty0918's post says what it is presumed to say. Still, this is one sentence that is incidental to the article at large. If this is really your objection, I'm sure we can compromise on removing that sentence and you dropping your FAR. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are two separate issues: sourcing and notability. Nothing with regard to sourcing changed since the last FAR, and FAR isn't the venue for notability discussions. Gimmetrow 03:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you oppose delist then you think the article exemplifies our very best work. Explain, as one example, how using a Beatle Baily comic strip to substantiate a claim about a word (rather than, say, a scholarly article by a linguist) exemplifies our very best work. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 04:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • How is this an invalid use of a primary source? It is making a non-controversial and obvious claim about the usage of the word in the strip in question. Please, explain how this violates WP:RS. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Phil, the relevant policy is no original research. According to WP:OR, you must not use sources to "advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used." The Beatle Bailey comic strip does not directly and explicitly support the position advanced in the article: "The earliest known print usage was as an exclamation in a 1971 Beetle Bailey comic strip, as a play on the reverse spelling of 'oops.'" (emphasis added). The only kind of source that could support this position is an article or dictionary entry written by a professional linguist. "Firsts" are frequently controversial, and are never obvious. Of course, I am ignoring for the moment the fact that this has absolutely nothing to do with the Babylon 5 foodstuff and can just as easily be removed for being irrelevant. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove 1c. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of objections

One of the most important rules, as I understnad it, at FAC is the idea of actionable criticisms. That is, an objection to a FA nomination must be something that can be fixed. As it stands, the objections here are not actionable. When specific objections have been raised they have been, without fail, easy to fix. But beyond that the objections have amounted to "there's... stuff that's not good." This is not fair, and should not be counted. To better clarify this discussion, I would appreciate if the specific, actionable objections to this article's featured status are compiled so that actual response and editing is possible. As a gesture of good faith, perhaps the vote could be suspended for a few days while this process goes on. As it is currently a straight-up deadlock, this ought not be terribly controversial - it is not as though this is a tactic to block a vote that is currently going against the article).

I've added the three actionable objections that I am aware of - all of which are now fixed. Will others please note the specific flaws in the article so that a better idea of what needs to be fixed can be obtained? Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Beetle Bailey reference. Claim changed to be more specific and supportable by source.
  • "Spoo Space" internet forum reference. Claim removed.
  • Google search reference. Claim fine-tuned. Google is, in this case, a fine source because it is a complete Usenet index, and so can be used to make historical claims of this nature.

You need to show that the Babylon Park and Luke Ski uses of spoo are notable, or that they themselves are reliable sources for fandom (or, for example, replace the current 1st-part sources with, say, a New York Times article mentioning Luke Ski's contributions to fan music and the spoo shindig.) You need to clean up the prose, which is not brilliant ("After several years of speculation from Babylon 5 fandom, Straczynski finally offered an extensive, humorous explanation of the origins and nature of spoo. [...] After several years of cryptic answers, Straczynski finally made a post explaining what Spoo was.", et al). And then we need more content, because I'm not sure if 800-something words can qualify as an FA. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there length requirements for FAs? I was unaware of that. I also confess, I don't see the problems with those bits of prose. Explain? Ski's notability, I thought, was clear. Babylon Park seems notable: [22] is a pretty high-profile accolade for a fandom site, and its first episode was called Spoohunter, which is a significant reference. And the Luke Ski song has, effectively, a full verse on Spoo with the fade-out dialogue. Both seem non-trivial mentions, and both are clearly secondary sources of independent notability. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Luke Ski and Babylon Park are not notable, maybe someone should list those articles at AFD. Gimmetrow 18:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gimme, stop serving food on the bait-train, we're here to discuss one article not a slew of crap on the far side of the wiki. Meanwhile, I believe my main issue here is what Ski and the Park tell us. That fans really loved Spoo? First off, two fans don't equal the entire base, so the references don't help us there as they aren't indicative of any other impact. Secondly, there's no "tangible" impact mentioned. I'm talking little plush spoo-thingies, merchandise, something of that sort which most fictional items seem to have (although looking at TARDIS, it's in need of some major cleanup itself, but that also is irrelevant to the current discussion.) As to length, there has been considerable discussion at FAC and GAN to the effect that articles of such limited scope cannot become FAs (thus the auditing requirement of FTC for these articles.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is moving a bit existentially, and starting to go beyond what I think WP:N demands. In my understanding, WP:N demands multiple independent sources with non-trivial mentions of the subject. Babylon Park and Luke Ski are independent, they are two different sources, and both non-trivially mention Spoo. That satisfies all policy requirements, doesn't it? Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just throwing out concerns when I think of them, I'm not out to get you Phil. N states the preference for secondary, and in this way I think it's best we have someone say that Luke Ski/Babylon Park did the spoo-referencing works, for one thing. Now, given the current size of the article, I'm also suggesting that it might be best to merge the article into the Babylon parent article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh lordie... that kind of mergism would bloat the B5 article very, very quickly if we started targeting similarly notable things. In any case - are we at least in agreement that there's no policy issue in terms of WP:N here? Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
David, the arguments are blurring, and that's the problem. Sourcing is in relation to the topic. Some topics can be discussed entirely from peer reviewed literature, others not so much. Spoo is not a major character in Babylon 5 (as far as I can tell). It's a plot device that appeared in a few episodes. It looks to me like the tribbles of Babylon 5. I'm not sure fuzzballs contribute any more to "tribble" significance than spoo keyrings, but if you think so, the Babylon 5 cookbooks may be relevant. As for the GA/FA thing, GA was originally for short articles, but it quickly began reviewing very long articles, and FA has promoted a few very short articles. Short articles can run into problems with the comprehensive criterion, but the issue isn't simply length, it's whether the article covers aspects of the topic expected of comparable topics. Gimmetrow 19:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil, my WP:N concerns haven't entirely been allayed, but I think we should try and avoid the repetitiveness of you and me beating our heads on opposite sides of the same wall and try and inject some fresher blood into this discussion. Perhaps some of the FAC wigs (Ealdgyth, if she's willing) might be able to help move this in a more constructive direction? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In light of Phil's comments, I have removed all questionable sources and their corresponding statements, edited out trite detail, rewrote entire sections, restructured the article, and copyedited for stylistic consistency. I've tried as hard as I can to make the article as good as possible given the subject. And yet it still isn't featured quality. It fails WP:V and WP:RS, which both say the same thing very clearly: articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The article is not based on third-party sources. It is based on first-party sources: recollections from the show's creator, TV episodes, songs, and film shorts. Similarly, it fails WP:OR: for example, no reliable, third-party, published source notes that spoo is referenced in the film short or song; these are true, but "unpublished facts."

There has been talk of merging above. I actually think that if this was boiled down some more it could be a decent entry in an article like Babylon 5 universe. It seems common practice to merge minor fictional elements into one main article, rather than have individual articles for each. But before any merging can happen the article must be defeatured. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am utterly unimpressed by the suggestion that the remaining sources in the article are in any way problematic. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove, this is archaeology, a lovingly restored facsimile of something that was once a big deal to a few people. But the picture is so incomplete and the sources so rudimentary that it can't be anything other than original research.--Nydas(Talk) 18:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong remove and nominate for deletion at AfD. None of the sources cited meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable, secondary sources and how this managed to reach featured article status despite such a serious shortcoming is completely beyond me. The date on which it appeared on the home page -- April Fools Day 2006 -- says it all. 91.109.218.176 (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close I can't bring myself to say "Keep" but, historically, articles are only removed if their deficiencies are obvious. In this case, the argument seems to be a very subtle one, and one on which people disagree. Consequently, on the basis of precedent, the article would perhaps be kept. DrKiernan (talk) 07:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove The article is gravely lacking in out-of-universe context. Stripped of the in-universe material the article is little more than a stub and fails to establish the notability of the subject. The lack of sufficient secondary sources is also worrying. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. The fact that this article has appeared on the Main Page sends me a clear message that Wikipedia has vastly improved. But, that's not to say it's perfect; this article in no way meets the FA criteria, and should be removed. NSR77 TC 21:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. First off, I am going to remove this because it's more than two to one in that direction. But I would be remiss if I did not comment on the above trainwreck. While I tend toward deletionism myself and have long had concerns about pop cult sourcing (including with Phil on ATT) I have also sympathized with inclusionists: they have so often been treated as a kind of abhorrent Wiki sect concerned only with Pokemon and sci-fi. I've seen that with this article. Attitudes toward it have often bordered on the vindictive and I don't quite understand why. The Wikipedia house will not come tumbling down because of our Spoo article, notwithstanding Jimbo's comment on it. So the star goes. And let's just leave the damn thing in peace after that. Marskell (talk) 13:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was removed by User:Marskell 14:19, 8 September 2008 [23].

Bank of China (Hong Kong)

Review commentary

Notified WP Companies, WP Business, ‎ WP China, WP Hong Kong and Juntung.

Lacking inline citations, outdated (most as of dates are dated), and MoS cleanup needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. This article needs major work. There was another major restructuring of the bank in 2005 or possibly 2006 that is not mentioned at all. --Patrick (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At current condition, it won't even meet the criteria for GA. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Needs more work, i agree with OhanaUnited --Itemirus (talk) 08:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with OhanaUnited (talk · contribs), this article certainly does not meet WP:GA standards at this point in time, let alone WP:FA. Cirt (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and MoS (2). Marskell (talk) 08:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by User:Marskell 10:57, 5 September 2008 [24].

Sesame Street

Review commentary

This was raised per concerns on IRC. Looking over the article, I notice very many problems which definitely make it far below FA class, especially given how much stricter FA has gotten since this was passed in '06:

  • Plenty of red links
  • "Funding" and "Characters" sections are almost entirely unsourced
  • {{Fact}} template in "Live characters" and "rumors and urban legends"
  • "Regional variations" also unsourced

Overall, I think these make it clear that this is no longer FA-class. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree, this is no longer an FA class article. The vast majority of it is unsourced, with only a spattering of references in each section. The lead doesn't summarize the article well. The article doesn't follow the Television MoS well (sections out of order and all over the place), nor the Wikipedia MoS, with basic errors in heading names, organization, the infobox, etc. The characters and cast sections are very disorganized and messy looking. The list in regional variations seems unnecessary when it already has an entirely separate list, much less two. The "Rumors and urban legends" seems entirely unnecessary. Relevant content should be merged to other sections. The criticsm section shows a lack of neutrality as it is not part of an overall reception section, and the only other reception info given is a much briefer ratings section. Its awards are relegated to a see also without so much as a lead, and no corresponding positive reviews are given at all. The reference section includes unsourced commentary. For the actual references, I saw at least to references to the Muppet wiki and one to a personal Tripod website! Quite a few others are missing basic information and refer to log in only articles on EBSCOhost. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree to delist Delist - many unsourced facts and prose is kind of below FA standards. miranda 01:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Several issues in the article:
First paragraph in "Overview" needs to be better worded for prose flow.
Paragraph one and paragraph two are unsourced.
History of the show - one cite for the section. One external link.
"Rumors and Urban Legends" - OR?
"Featured Films" - unreferenced
If delisted, this article needs a B rating. miranda 20:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images Are there too many fair-use images, especially considering that there are a couple of free ones in the article? DrKiernan (talk) 09:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and prose (1a). Marskell (talk) 08:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by User:Marskell 10:38, 1 September 2008 [25].

Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs

Review commentary

Notifications to Rad Racer and WP Drug Policy

A 2005 promotion, this article badly needs a tuneup. Inline URL citations need to be formatted, it is lacking citations, it has a long list under references that may have grown to an external link farm, listy prose, external jumps in the text, and MoS cleanup is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second all of the above. I was about to nominate this for FAR as well when I came across this article. --Allstar86 (talk) 08:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image problems

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are formatting and MoS (2), referencing (1c), and images (3). Marskell (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by User:Marskell 10:38, 1 September 2008 [26].

Ammolite

Review commentary

Notified WP Alberta, Gemology and Jewelry, Hadal and Rmhermen‎.

I am not a gem person but I do know an article that contains few referenced citations when I see one (fails 1c). There are turely no notes or citations with the exception of noting it as the official rock of Lethbridge, Alberta.

Promoted in 2005, does not look like it had been reviewed since. Could likely stay FA if citation work was done but it does not appear that there are any active editors on the article (only a couple edits conducted in the last year) Labattblueboy (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images Image:Ammolite mining.jpg, Image:Ammolite mining2.jpg and Image:Ammolite jewellery.jpg should have OTRS tickets, or more definite evidence that Korite International has released them under GFDL. (Though, they probably did because it's a free advert for them.) DrKiernan (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and images (3). Marskell (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by User:Marskell 10:38, 1 September 2008 [27].

W. Mark Felt

Review commentary

Have Notified:

factually accurate Article needs a lot of work to keep up with current historical thinking. Specifically, Ed Gray and John Dean have both argued that Mark Felt could not possibly have been the only person to be Deep Throat, Gray even names another person that must have contributed to the Deep Throat we see in All The President's Men. For a summary of what I'm talking about, you can see the "composite character theory" section on the Deep Throat page. For details, you can look here[28] and here[29].

In this light, we see that much of this article depends on the idea the Felt = Deep Throat. At the very least, the sections on how Felt and Woodward stayed in contact need to be re-worked to recognize at least the possibility that when Woodward writes in All the Preseident's Men about how he contacted Deep Throat, he is not necessarily talking about Felt. And I think a new section should be added to talk about how Felt may not necessarily be the only Deep Throat out there. (Morethan3words (talk) 04:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Alright, so the main issues here are factual accuracy (FA criterion 1c) and comprehensiveness (FA criterion 1b), correct? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, yes, thanks, that's correct. (Morethan3words (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
This might also need overhauled per 2C. I think we should avoid using ibid in case paragraphs get moved. Not all the references appear to have actually been used (though they would be useful for future researchers). I don't know what the citation guidelines actually say and am basing this on my instincts... Does someone knowledgeable about this know what all actually ought to be fixed? --JayHenry (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was reviewing a different PedanticallySpeaking FAR, and stumbled across this on his talk page. This is an issue I know something about. Gray and Dean's arguments should be noted, but it's important to bear in mind that Dean was Nixon's lawyer and Gray his FBI director and as such they are possibly the earth's least-unbiased people on this issue, after only Nixon. Further, they had published their own theories that were contradicted by Felt and Woodward. Their points should nonetheless be noted, but Gray and Dean do not by themselves reflect the "historical thinking".
  • The article does need some updating, but it does not need overhauled. Neither doubts that Felt was an off-the-record source for Woodward and very little of the article depends on whether it was Felt or Donald Santarelli that gave a specific piece of information. (It's already acknowledged by all parties that other anonymous sources were used in the reporting.) Needs updating on a few other points as well. --JayHenry (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note in response. Of course it's worth noting who the writers are on this particular issue, but in that light it's worth noting not just who they were, but who they currently are. In Gray's case, it wasn't actually Pat Gray who discussed the Mark Felt/Deep Throat issue in his autobiography, but his son Ed who had done the research (and subsequently wrote the last chapter on the issue). And as for Dean, he has made becoming an expert on the Watergate era as a way of kind of atoning for the whole affair, and as such has been praised for his fairness, impartiaility and knowledge in his writing on the time period. Although, I think the most important thing to note on this is that, in both cases, the writers use Woodward's own records to draw their conclusions, and in Gray's case referencing Woodward's notes against the FBI investigation files. Furthermore, these conclusions are really more of an attack on Woodward, and not so much on Felt, so any perceived bias against Felt is almost beside the point.
Of course the conclusions by these two writers do not yet constitute a consensus on historical thinking regarding Felt/Deep Throat. But then, it's also worth noting that there is still more to be revealed in this regard. Woodward's publicized notes only cover 3 of the 17 conversations with Deep Throat indicated in All The President's Men, once the remaining notes are publicized, more writers will scrutinize Woodward further, and it is likely more criticisms and/or questions will come up.
What I am suggesting is not that the article be orverhauled, per se, but that the sections that refer to the conversations and information about Deep Throat provided in All The President's Men, simply be amended to refer to Woodward meeting with/talking to Deep Throat, as opposed to Felt. Furthermore some statements, perhaps in a new section, that discuss the composite character theory and its persistence beyond 2005. (Morethan3words (talk) 10:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Yeah, that sounds completely reasonable. I think we're on the same page--I just wanted to make sure of that before diving in :) I'll start chipping away at this in a couple days. Does anyone have any thoughts about what to do with that reference section? --JayHenry (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One other thought that should go under FA criterion 1b, I'm also concurrently trying to get a related biography to GA status, and one of the criticisms I've gotten recently for that article is that there is not enough on the individual's family. So I took a look at this article to see what types of things should be included, and saw that the "family" section in this article is barely a sentence long. If this is an issue that is preventing an article from reaching GA status, then I certainly think it is an issue that should be addressed here given what we have currently. (Morethan3words (talk) 04:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Image The author is missing from Image:MarkFelt.jpg. How can we be sure that it is a work of the federal government? DrKiernan (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are factual accuracy (1c) and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive&oldid=240654419"