Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:30, 2 December 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.

Kept status

Barack Obama

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Damon Hill Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cincinnati, Lebanon and Northern Railway

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 15:04, 19 November 2008 [1].

Kreutz Sungrazers

Messages left at Serendipodous, Marskell, Ruslik0 (Worldtraveller is long retired), WP Solar System

This article definitely wouldn't pass FAC at this point, or GAN for that matter. I see massive issues with 1C, some minor 1A issues, and 2C. —Ceran^(Sing) 23:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has hardly changed at all in the 2+ years since the primary author lasted edited it. Shame. I have no reason to doubt the info, but I don't know if anyone will step forward for an astro article so relatively obscure. Marskell (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can easily take a stab at solving 1A and 2C, but can you be more precise about your concerns with regards to referencing (1C). Do you think the article is factually incorrect, or just lacking in sufficient references? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel the article is inaccurate because I trust the original nominator's work. But of course that's not sufficient for FA standard. This needs inline referencing. For example: "To an observer on the comet, the Sun would subtend an angle of over 80° in the sky; it would appear 27,000 times larger and brighter than when viewed from Earth, and would deliver 37 megawatts of heat to each square meter of the comet's surface." Hard data of this sort needs citations. I don't want to clutter this with flags, but I'll place some if you find it useful. Marskell (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to MGM - I just think that obviously the referencing, but the sources there are fine. —Ceran^(Sing) 19:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next week I will try to add inline citations to this article. Ruslik (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ruslik finished the first round of references. I need about a week to make sure I've done a proper copyedit. Can the end of this FAR be extended accordingly? - Mgm|^(talk) 17:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Marskell (talk) 07:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've emailed Worldtraveller asking for some clarification on the article, so I'm positive my edits won't introduce errors by changing the meaning of the sentences. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can also ask me. Ruslik (talk) 09:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images I think Image:Two Kreutz Sungrazers imaged by SOHO.jpg and Image:SOHO sungrazer with prominent tail.jpg need different licences, but I'm not sure what. They're not NASA images; they're SOHO images which is a consortium of European and American agencies. I do not believe that they are public domain, but it is permissable (indeed "encouraged") to use them for educational, non-commercial use [2]. DrKiernan (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the licences [3][4] DrKiernan (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worldtraveller responded to my email with some clarifications, I'll be editing the article this weekend (European time) and he said he might drop by too. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the last note that I wanted to add. So the only problem is minor (in my opinion) copy-edit. Ruslik (talk) 12:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done everyone. I think we can keep this now. Marskell (talk) 15:00, 19 November 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 15:04, 19 November 2008 [5].

Waterfall Gully, South Australia

Notified WP AUSTRALIA, WP CITIES, Beneaththelandslide, WP ADEL

Fails factually accurate criterion in particular, numerous statements that have not been citated. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please complete the FAR by following the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to do the notifications with {{subst:FARMessage|Waterfall Gully, South Australia}} and post them back to here as in the sample at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Felix the Cat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it became an FA without them, then it is usually fine. But per SandyGeorgia above. Timeshift (talk) 04:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is certainly in need of citations. On the plus side, it looks like the structure is ok - I'll see what I can do with it. (It is also listed for 0.7, so the work would be useful either way). - Bilby (talk) 05:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree structure is fine, just applying the very high standards of a FA! Michellecrisp (talk) 05:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This was approved when standards for FA were quite different a few years ago. Some work will be required to bring it up to current standards, but it helps that it is very well written to start with. (Note this is simply a reply to Michelle, not a review comment.) Orderinchaos 05:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already getting Playford flashbacks... Timeshift (talk) 07:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was, however, a more recent featured article which met the standards of a later time. Some of the comments in that link (re number of sources) are just lame. :P Broadly speaking anything late 2006 or later has been assessed fairly consistently on the new rules. Orderinchaos 07:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delist~~ The article is in need of a great many citations and there are numerous MoS problems: non-breaking spaces; image locations, captions, and sizes; article is littered with vague terminology when better figures or at least estimates could be found (e.g. "attracted many miners and young men from all over Australia", "Many residents are high-income earners"). Best, epicAdam^(talk) 16:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm..."In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "remove". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status". Daniel (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The remedy is simple, that citations be added. However, other editors have commented on other areas of improvement. Overall, this does not make it a FA quality article in its current state. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Delist are not declared in the review phase; the purpose of review is to identify and hopefully address issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sandy. Daniel (talk) 03:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake about the declaration, but I think my comments still stand. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 17:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've managed to correct the licenses on the incorrectly tagged images, but ideally Image:Waterfall Gully 1866.jpg and Image:Wgully 1872.jpg should have sources. DrKiernan (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both are from the National Library of Australia collection. The first is here, and the second here. While both predate 1955, and therefore are out of copyright under Australian law, I'm not sure how that fits the standard library claims of ownership. (I have a replacement for the first image from my own collection, and should be able to replace the second, if this is deemed necessary). - Bilby (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! I think that clears up any issue over images. I'll add the sources to the image pages tomorrow. DrKiernan (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to keep this side of the process informed, I've found enough sources to reference everything, and I'm slowly working down the article, extending it where the sources suggest that more weight should be given to an issue, and either referencing or rewriting claims to meet the sources. Hopefully it won't take too long to finish the process so I can start addressing any other concerns. - Bilby (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would we do without Bilby? YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Status? Marskell (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had to delay it a bit while I did some marking and got hold of one of the original sources - The First Hundred Years. I have a copy now, so the rest of the inline references will be completed over the next two days, and I can focus on any other concerns that are raised here. At this stage, though, the bulk of the difficult referencing is done, with the "protection" section the next to be completed. The other sections are more factual, and thus easier to dig up. - Bilby (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay - it proved difficult to track down all the sources I wanted, and given that this is/was (and hopefully will remain, all going well) a featured article, I wanted to be extremely careful about how they were used. At any rate, everything tagged has been referenced, reworded and referenced, or removed, as has much that wasn't tagged. Removed sections are mostly opinions or stuff that I simply couldn't source, and which didn't seem significant to the coverage. I'll add them back if I find sources in the future. I've also generally expanded the history section, both because that's the area's main claim, and to reflect the weighting given to it in the various sources. I've got a couple more old (early and pre 1900's) photos I would like to add, but I'm holding off until I can make a second trip to the site to take new photos, as they'll give me "then and now" comparisons, which should help the article (I went recently, but the photos came out with a bit too much glare). At any rate, I'm sure there are many things I still need to do, so any suggestions or comments on what to do from here would be gratefully received, and I'll do my best to act upon them asap. (This seems a good opportunity to make a better article, but I guess that's why this process exists). - Bilby (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The photos have been added now. I have some others I might try, but the new ones have the before and after effect I was hoping for. - Bilby (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics and data in image in "Residents" needs references. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'm looking into it. I'm presuming it comes from the 2001 census stats, although not having much experience working with the ABS figures I'm finding it tricky to get stats for Waterfall Gully - it isn't big enough in terms of population to warrant a separate listing, being largely a reserve, and thus they only seem to list the wider area. But I'll keep going.

Done, or so I hope. I found a source for the 2001 and 2006 data, and it matched what was already there, so I referenced accordingly, as well as taking the opportunity to update for 2006 figures. - Bilby (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do people feel this can be kept now? Marskell (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Not yet.~~

Prose: First sentence I read says: "The Mount Lofty Ranges ... was first sighted by Captain Matthew Flinders ... " There are places where the prose gets a bit snakey, would be good for Tony to have a look.
MOS: WP:MOS#Ellipses, spaces around ellipses; WP:MOS#Captions, punctuation on sentence fragments vs. full sentences; mixture of spaced endashes (correct) and spaced emdashes (incorrect), see WP:DASH, no spaced emdashes; incorrect image placement above section headings, see WP:ACCESS and WP:MOS#Images; WP:OVERLINKing (examples: olives, grapes, restaurant); underlinking or undefined terms (what are ... especially from the Mügges ... ); quotations should not be in italics (see WP:ITALICS and WP:MOS#Quotations); incorrect use of hyphens rather than endashes on number ranges ( ... younger (0-17) ... ); missing conversions ( ... and 100 metres of road ... average elevation of 234 metres above sea level ...); I didn't scan beyond there.
Citations have three different date formats: unlinked ISO, unlinked day month year, and linked.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed date format, appears to all be unlinked, ndashes and conversions attended to, rmved the italic quotes, fixed the Mugges, rmv common noun linking from the obvious words, and fixed dashes. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 02:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ellipses and picture placement too I think. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 02:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I finished up:[6] still don't know what Mügges are, a family I guess, it would be nice if it was clarified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take care of that - I think it is worth rewriting the lead, so I'll give that shot today as well (sorry disappearing for a week - end of semester panic). - Bilby (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the lead, referenced the last sections that I thought needed more support, and tried a general copyedit on the prose - I'm still a bit close to the article to be particularly effective, but hopefully I improved some of the sentence structures and the wording here and there. - Bilby (talk) 05:37, 19 November 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:Joelr31 22:17, 11 November 2008 [7].

Great Fire of London

User:Bunchofgrapes, User:David Underdown, Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fire Service, Wikipedia:WikiProject London, User:Bishonen, Wikipedia:WikiProject England notified.

I believe this article no longer meets WP:FACR 1c and 2c. Many sections and subsections such as Tuesday and Wednesday in the Development of the fire section lack many citations. The Aftermath section has several non-referenced paragraphs. Thoughts and opinions please. --Kuzwa (talk) 05:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as of this revision the sections noted as being of particular concern have footnotes (nos 32, 43, 44 and 53) which note that all material in these secitons is from the single source indicated, unless there's another footnote. Other than vandalism, the content of this article has been very stable across the period I've been watching it, which must be 18 months or more. I don't have access to the sources indicated, but if someone did it would be a relatively straightforward job to maybe give a slightly more specific page range for each paragraph. David Underdown (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close - The rationale suggests the nominator hasn't read the FAC or the article in any detail as both explain how the citations work. Slavishly adding {{cite}} at the end of every sentence isn't the mark of our best work. Yomangani ^talk 10:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close per Yomangani. Giano (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no infobox. Anyway, Bloodworth was right: a woman could have pissed it out, if only one with a prodigiously large bladder had been located in time. -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 11:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close per David Underdown and Yomangani. Moreover, this is not in any way a new discovery, see WP:Featured article candidates/Great Fire of London/archive1. There were actually opposes based on not seeing the note that says everything not specifically sourced comes from Pepys' diary, or on the mistaken idea that this is somehow improper and the article must be cluttered with hundreds of citation footnotes that all look exactly the same. They were correctly dismissed at the time, and they should be dismissed now. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note This is on its way to being closed unless the nominator can provide additional concerns. Joelito (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Closed Alright I failed to check the original FA nomination. Due to my terrible oversight this is now closed. Sorry for any inconvenience caused. --Kuzwa (talk) 20:09, 11 November 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:Joelr31 01:03, 22 November 2008 [8].

Vowel

Review commentary

Notified Phonetics and Spoken Wikipedia

This article contains very few inline citations, and we promoted way back (in Wikipedia terms) in 2004. It might also need a copyedit, but the main thing it needs is more references. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problems in article layout: 3 1-3 line subsections in "Articulation".--Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and layout (2). Marskell (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. The article would benefit from more inline citations that specifically attribute the opinions stated to identified experts. (See for example: "In many phonetic treatments, both are considered types of rounding, but some phoneticians do not believe that these are subsets.") Short sections should be merged or expanded. Minor point: it could do with a copy-edit, e.g. both "Pharyngealization" and "Pharyngealisation" are used. DrKiernan (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove 1c YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:58, 14 November 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 15:07, 19 November 2008 [9].

Mercantilism

Review commentary

Notified: WP:BUSINESS, WP:HISTORY, SimonP.

I just want to see if this article is still Featured article material. Right off the bat, I can see that the lead has more than four paragraphs, which I believe exceeds the limit, according to WP:LEAD. -- SRE.K.A~~nnoyomous~~.L.24_[c] 05:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure on other things about the article, but I personally wouldn't consider a long lead to be a reason to bring it to FAR. That can be rewritten fairly painlessly; the lead just needs to be summarized further. It probably would have been more productive to bring this issue to the article's talk page or a related WikiProject before bringing it here. Issues like referencing and such require much more time so I'd consider those to be better reasons to bring the article to FAR—that may very well be the case here. Gary King (talk) 05:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That too. :D -- SRE.K.A~~nnoyomous~~.L.24_[c] 05:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just wanted to make sure. Otherwise, it's just a waste of time for a lot of people. Gary King (talk) 05:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it definitely is an issue, its a very big article to have 24 citations and that's it, so there are a horde of statements without citation in this article that need addressing, so this should stay here, for long lead and very small number of citations. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. So that's fine. Gary King (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are lead (2a) and referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 13:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. Per the issues highlighted by Marskell (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added back a section deleted by a vandal, and a section heading to cut off the lead earlier [10]. It addresses some of the structural problems, but the citation needed tags still need clearing. Minor point: the picture of "Merchants" in Venice seems extraneous, given that Venice is not otherwise mentioned. DrKiernan (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. No active improvement since my edits a week ago [11]. DrKiernan (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove 1c YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 04:03, 14 November 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 15:07, 19 November 2008 [12].

Russian–Circassian War

Review commentary

Notified: Hurmata, Grey Fox-9589, SGGH, WP Caucasia and WP Russia

Numerous unreferenced statements are in this article. A larger range of additional sources are needed throughout as it is currently very poorly referenced. "Citation needed" tags remain present consistently throughout this article.

It is also currently being neutrally disputed, and I myself found that the language of it is rather inappropriate for FA criteria. There is also a bad use of layout. The lead is too short, and some images squash up a lot of the text. Domiy (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly didn't pass FAC with that number of problems with image layout; there are some other minor MoS issues as well, if the citation tags and other major issues can be resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support to remove this from the featured article list. The title of the war is disputed, and there's a large amount of books and academic works written about it so the article could be expanded and backed up by many more sources. Innitially the article looked pretty good because it had a lot of nice images, but that of course should not be enough to have it as a featured article. I would like to work on this article myself too once I have some books ready, and will work towards making it featured again if it loses it now. Grey Fox (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the WP:FAR instructions: declarations to delist or not are not made during the review phase. The purpose of review is to hopefully identify and address deficiencies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, as only my second major article, I was inexperienced in the writing and souce gathering processes and thus the possible issues of neutrality were not as obvious to me at the time of writing. The title issue was a problem at the time if I recall, and I think it was discussed that the article topic was one conflict in a history of hostilities covered by another article. I am unable to get a hold of many new sources, unfortunately, so any new help I give to improve this article will have to be more in the wp:mos area. Committed to improving it, though, when my regular connection returns. SGGH ^speak! 12:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now having had a good read, I certainly didn't write some of this stuff, the article appears to have had some significant changes since I last saw it, so it may take me a bit longer to work out what is going on. SGGH ^speak! 12:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove 1c not fixed. Domiy (talk) 07:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Agree with Domiy (talk · contribs). Not much has been done to address above concerns since the FAR started. Cirt (talk) 08:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image concerns Image:Russian-Circassian-War.jpg, Image:Ermoloff.jpg, and Image:Circassian Warrior.jpg do not detail original sources (by which I mean the nineteenth century artist not the web source). These are preferred so that the age of the image can be checked (I can delete the local copy if appropriate information is provided on the wikicommons versions). Image:Nicholas1.jpg has no artist information; this should be replaced with an image with more complete information. Obviously, the citation needed markers need clearing. Minor point: the external jump right at the end of the text looks a bit odd. DrKiernan (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove 1c problems have not been successfully addressed. OpenSeven (talk) 21:55, 10 November 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 15:07, 19 November 2008 [13].

Michel Foucault

Review commentary

Notified Mgekelly, Skoojal, Commodore Sloat, Panopticon, WP France, WP Biography, WP Philosophy, WP LGBT studies, and WP Sociology.

This article was nominated in February 2005; in my opinion, it no longer meets the FA criteria. Many key statements, such as the identification of his philosophy with structuralism, lack citations. The structure needs improvement as well: the sections on "changing viewpoints" and "terminology" could be expanded and merged into a larger discussion of his theories. Lesgles (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have quite a few books which rely on his Madness and Civilization and go into detail about his theory there if anyone wants to actually tackle this page. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have very limited access to the Internet at present, I might be able to devote a half an hour or so to saving this if clear consensus on what needs to be done emerges. the skomorokh 10:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c), comprehensiveness (1b), and structure (2). Marskell (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I submit that the structural issues have been addressed and respectfully request fuller elaboration on the objections to the article's referencing and comprehensiveness. Sincerely, the skomorokh 16:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. Agree with above by Lesgles, in addition many referencing issues still remain, not to mention glaring citation needed issues. Cirt (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Remove Citation needed tags need clearing. DrKiernan (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on a minute. I've cleared all the {{citation needed}} tags; the information in the article checks out. This was featured at a time when FAC referencing standards were not so demanding, so can we have a little patience and give the article a chance please? the skomorokh 16:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've done some great clean-up and referencing work, and I agree that we should see if it is still salvageable. I'm going to have a look soon to see what I think could be expanded, but in the meantime maybe people who know more about Foucault than I do could come up with some suggestions. Lesgles (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, a few suggestions:

I'd like to see more about Foucault's legacy, in other words, an expanded and referenced version of the "influences" section that was taken out.
We should work in more about criticism of Foucault, to justify the "controversial" label applied to him in the lead.
Although we shouldn't give it undue weight, I'd like to have a bit more about Foucault's relationship with Defert.
On a more superficial level, t would be nice to have a couple more images, if any can be found. Someone on the talk page mentioned wanting to have an actual photograph.

Lesgles (talk) 00:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove FA status. How this article can have Featured Article status with such a stupifying lack of citations is incredible. Sorry, but this article needs some work before it can be elevated to FA status again, in my opinion. It just doesn't meet the guidelines. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 01:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not actionable. Please tag any statements in the article you find questionable, and I'll check them out. the skomorokh 13:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How this article can have Featured Article status with such a stupifying lack of citations is incredible --> 2005 rules did not require inline citations. Neither were the then existing citation templates popular or mandatory. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove 1c YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 05:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not actionable, please specify, as above. the skomorokh 13:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Status: I just archived this and then changed my mind, considering Skomorokh's post. We're ever patient here. However, an update is needed soon from people who intend to work. Marskell (talk) 12:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the consideration, Marskell. I am prepared to work on any criterion 2, 3, 4 and 1 (a) and (c) objections. I haven't the time to add entirely new sections to the article, nor am I suffiently familiar with the subject to address weight issues. I am prepared to respond quickly to any specific objections. Regards, the skomorokh 13:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to leave this so long. Skomorokh, if you're still around the most obvious deficiency is the almost total lack of references in the Works section. How much of those summaries is unlikely to be challenged and how much is interpretation? I dunno. But that's where work would need to begin again. Marskell (talk) 12:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - On it. Looks uncontroversial so far. the skomorokh 13:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the comprehensiveness front, the article makes no mention of his being gay or of his impact on queer theory. Marskell (talk) 10:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of extra time was given to this one and I think it's time to close. Skomorokh, don't take the removal badly at all. It did improve, so your work was worthwhile. I think we probably need a content area expert to bring it back to FA. Marskell (talk) 14:58, 19 November 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:Joelr31 00:49, 11 November 2008 [14].

William Nelson Page

Review commentary

Notifications to Vaoverland, WP Trains, WP Virginia, WP Bio, WP West Virginia.

A 2004 promotion, this article needs a tuneup. The WP:LEAD is in need of some serious trimming (as long as many articles), there is an External link farm, there are one-sentence sections, citations are unformatted and lacking, image layout needs attention to comply with WP:ACCESS and WP:MOS#Images, and there is a lot of WP:MOS basic cleanup needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will begin working immediately on each of these items. Collaboration and/or constructive suggestions would be welcomed. Vaoverland (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across this while using the reflinks tool. I made some changes that I think address some of the MOS/Layout issues as well as fixing refs. Prince of Canada^{t | c} 06:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are lead (2a), MoS (2), citation formatting (2c). Marskell (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. Agree with above concerns raised by SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs), most of which have not been addressed since the WP:FAR started. Cirt (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove weight imbalance on lead, lack of references. 1c. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 05:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vaoverland, hopefully you'll find the following comments helpful:

I agree with YellowMonkey that the lead is too long. It should be a fair summary of the article, rather than an article in itself!
The table of contents is too long—it should be shrunk down by merging short sections.
There are two occurrences of "weasel words". These phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view:
- which would allegedly result
- arguably a crowning lifetime achievement
More inline citations would strengthen the article, allowing readers to directly track what information comes from which source.
There are some redundancies and imprecise quantities that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise: "some", "several", etc. Vague terms of size are often unnecessary, or introduce an appearance of ambiguity when precise numbers can give precision instead. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
There are too many external links; these should be trimmed. Also, cut the dead links.
Minor point: I would expand the following contractions to make the writing style more formal:
- Page didn't give up
- who wasn't about.
The list of books is very impressive, and it must be disheartening to be told that this is no longer FA after such a lot of work has gone into it. I would say that at present the article doesn't meet the current standard of an FA, but that does not mean that it is a bad article. In fact, I wouldn't consider myself qualified to comment directly on the content. I am merely saying that it unfortunately does not meet the present criteria, which are currently interpreted to mean that inline citations are required largely throughout. DrKiernan (talk) 17:18, 31 October 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:Joelr31 00:49, 11 November 2008 [15].

Augustan drama

Review commentary

Users notified: Geogre, NicholasTurnbull; also notified WP Theatre.

This article fails 1c and 2c of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria

Criteria 1(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;

Although there is a list of References at the bottom of the article, they are not specific to statements claimed. I do not want to add fact tags, but I can if that would be helpful, as for me some of the statements seem to be personal opinion or the opinion of a particular group, but not necessarily representative of various opinions given their due weight as in NPOV. The article can be seen as a scholarly essay representing a particular view or evaluation of the subject of the article. There are no critical or alternative views or evaluations available?

Criteria 2c: :consistent citations—where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes^[1] or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) (see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended).

Although there are a couple of inline citations (e.g. (IV 55–60), (Pasquin IV i.)), it fails the specific 2c criteria. In FAC these days, full referencing is consistently required by reviewers to allow readers to check sources for themselves for accuracy and POV. This prevents "common knowledge" of a particular point in time from being accepted as scholarly fact in later years. Further, all quotations should be specifically referenced. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I gather from some of the comments below that this article is WP:OWN and that other editors agree to protect the ownership of this article. If this is the case, my request will not be taken seriously and will be ridiculed and ignored (as seems to be the case from some of the comments below.) Still, I am surprised that a single editor can control an article, my surprise proving that I am not as cynical about Wikipedia as I thought I was. To say "I don't want to turn the article into something Geogre did not intend it to be" suggests that articles are not allowed to evolve from a single editor's point of view because of article ownership. This seems to me against the ethos of Wikipedia, but hey, I now know Wikipedia does not uphold its own values. I still have time to grow more cynical. —Mattisse (Talk) 09:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are different flavours of WP:OWN. This is one of the milder ones, in my view, but I wouldn't disagree with you that there are such issues. The problem is where does the line get drawn? If Ceoil and Ottava come up with an article acceptable to all, would that address your WP:OWN concerns? Or would it move the concerns from one person to three? Also, FA-status is sometimes used to justify reverting to an earlier version of an article. Sometimes that is fully justified, but at other times that attitude (another form of WP:OWN) can hinder progress. In either case, a permalink to the current version of the article can always be used for people wanting to refer to that. Maybe not ideal, but if I ever built up a stable of articles that I wanted to keep a permanent record of, I would take a snapshot of what they looked like at their "best" moment (i.e. the permalink - though remember that changes to templates can ruin the appearance of older versions of an article) and then allow a "different" version to evolve (keeping NPOV and article quality in mind - the article quality and balance mustn't deteriorate, even if the style of presentation might change). Carcharoth (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I can't see that either of the claims made above are accurate. Firstly, criterion 1c indicates that inline citations are only necessary "where appropriate"; following that link reveals that the requirement applies to "direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged"; I can see nothing in the article that is controversial in the slightest. No indication is given above as to which "statement claimed" is meant. The criteria 2c turns on the evaluation of appropriateness in 1c, which I do not believe has been established. The references offer both primary and secondary sources and the article is well-written, detailed and scholarly. DionysosProteus (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The topic is broad enough that it could easily be cited by a non-expert (as apposed to A Tale of a Tub, which required very specific knowledge). A couple of editors could bring this to the current standard in a week or two, if anybody is interested in helping rather than shooting. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No infobox. Also various incorrect commas, and missing dashes. -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Wetman. In addition I would like the lead to cover its effect on popular culture; I'm thinking here of the many video games, Simpsons edisodes and death metal songs that mention the legacy of Maffei tragedy. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, I rely on you for so much and thus hate to ask, but...are you up for this one? You know the game: one week or three months, FAR doesn't mind. Ya, we could just sit here shooting but it gets awful dull two years on. Marskell (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to turn the article into something Geogre did not intend it to be; so i'll sandox a cited vesrion on my user space, ask Geogre to vet, and we'll take it from there. Its likely to be a long one though Marskel; warning you up front; but I think is worth it. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if someone wants to put together a list of specific lines that should have citations, please give it to me and I will address them after discussing it with Geogre. Ceoil, I have quite a few of the books that can be relied on. I never added them before out of respect towards Geogre. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if Ottava would lend a hand, I take this on. Ceoil ^sláinte 09:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - some of the quotes are not clearly referenced:
- "Addison, damning opera's heterogeny, wrote, "Our Countrymen could not forbear laughing when they heard a Lover chanting out a Billet-doux, and even the Superscription of a Letter set to a Tune."" - this might be pinned down from the earlier sentence: "In The Spectator, both in number 18 and the 3 April 1711 number, and many places elsewhere, Joseph Addison fretted that foreign opera would drive English drama from the stage altogether.", but whether the quote in question is from one of the 1711 Spectators or one of the "many places elsewhere" is not clear.
  - Ceoil has given a ref here, but the date given is 1853, by which time both Steele and Addison were dead. So I'm still unclear as to what this is - a republication of something in or by the Spectator? Or someone (who?) quoting Steele and Addison? Carcharoth (talk) 12:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Carcharoth, I'm not familiar with the topic, and the ref was from Google books. This is why it might be better if we sandbox, and, although Ottava has more knowledge, ask for Geogre to review before we taking to mainspace. You input aswell in this would be very much appreciated. Ceoil ^sláinte 13:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is also: "John Gay wrote to Jonathan Swift on 3 February 1723, "There's nobody allow'd to say I sing but an Eunuch or an Italian Woman. Every body is grown now as great a judge of Musick as they were in your time of Poetry & folks that could not distinguish one tune from another now daily dispute over different Styles of Handel, Bononcini, and Aitillio. People have now forgot Homer, and Virgil & Caesar...." ". Here, it would be nice to be able to follow this up in (presumably) a collection of the Letters of John Gay (or of Swift). But to do that, we need to know where the quote and letter has been published.
- The "Spectator" link in the References section is broken. New link should be http://meta.montclair.edu/spectator/. Would be nice if a specific page from there was located for the Addison quote above. I initially thought it was an archive for Spectator issues, but I now see it is a single article.
That's what I spotted when checking the referencing of the quotes. Carcharoth (talk) 05:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Currently, the references in the bibliography cannot possibly cover the claims made in the article - most of the references are primary sources. Sadly, the bibliography does not even reference the most important scholarly works on Augustan drama. I see that Ottava has agreed to do some referencing for this article - that is excellent and I look forward to its improvement. Awadewit (talk) 11:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. Agree with above comments by Mattisse (talk · contribs), and also by Awadewit (talk · contribs), as related to the current state of this article with regard to current WP:FA standards. Not much has been done to address these concerns since the WP:FAR started. Cirt (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - Currently, this article does not meet 1c. Its lack of inline citations does meet the current FA practice (one's opinion of this convention is irrelevant) and its list of references does not adequately cover the material in the article, making it even harder for readers to verify the information. Awadewit (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove 1c. For example, the statement "King George I referred to himself as Augustus" caught my eye because, having written the article on George I, I fancy myself as the George I expert on-wiki. I'd never heard that before. Unfortunately, I was unable to find mention of it in the six books on early eighteenth-century English drama in which I looked. If everything in the article is commonplace, it would not be so difficult to verify it. DrKiernan (talk) 14:29, 31 October 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:Joelr31 01:27, 2 November 2008 [16].

Virtuti Militari

Review commentary

Users notified: Angr, Warren, Logologist, zscout370, Piotrus and Halibutt.

WikiProjects notified: Military history Polish task force, Military history, Numismatics, Orders, Decorations, and Medals, and Poland

previous review

References and citations: fails 1c and 2c. It was previously nominated back in November 2006 but appeared to go through no process. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean nominated for removal, or review—not deletion. Pagra shtak 15:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did. (blush) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The logs show that it was deleted, when it was on the Main Page. DrKiernan (talk) 15:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was to remove anti-Semitic vandalism revisions—a separate matter. Pagra shtak 15:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image problems

Image:Jozef Poniatowski na koniu.jpg: no source, ideally name of artist should be included

Can be replaced with commons:Image:Ksiaze Jozef.jpg --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jozef baron chlopicki.jpg: personally, if I was writing this article, I wouldn't use this image because it has no artist listed.

Color version at commons:Image:Józef Chłopicki 1.JPG states: "on anonymous portrait before 1854"

That is a different image (although similar), and looks like it has an incorrect license tag. It could replace the current image if desired, if the tag is corrected. Pagra shtak 17:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed tag on commons.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jozef Haller.jpg: tag needs updating, exact source would be preferable
Image:Jozef Pilsudski1.jpg: no information showing that the image was published prior to 1994

It was, it's a pretty famous photo... I will look for proof.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:VirMilPoland.gif: pd tag is invalid as the image contains text which is not released under the Polish Copyright Law Act 1994

If we cut the text, would this be a safe PD? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typical ridiculous assertion copyrighting PD content.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the copyright notice can be safely ignored here, but we still need to know the publication date. It looks like this might be PD in Poland but not in the US. Pagra shtak 17:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was certainly published in US after 1923. But Polish PD makes it PD worldwide, usually (I haven't seen an exception to this yet...).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Style

I've reorganized the lead section.

The layout is a mess and that is due to the images and the boxes. I don't see the need of using pictures of all kings who had a relationship with the award. I've found difficulties on how to approach this problem. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 17:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and images (3). Marskell (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. Per above concerns raised by Roger Davies (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I agree with Fayssal that the layout needs tidying up; the images and tables are too crowded together and the style of the boxes showing recipients should be consistent throughout, rather than change half way through. In addition, I still think that the image licences could be tightened up, but these are a minor points relative to the main area of concern: the lack of inline citations. Unfortunately, I do not read Polish and so would not feel comfortable tackling the process of verification myself. DrKiernan (talk) 13:50, 31 October 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:Joelr31 01:27, 2 November 2008 [17].

History of Test cricket from 1877 to 1883

Review commentary

Notified WT:CRIC, jguk, Robertson-Glasgow

Lack of citations is the main concern and I would question the article's accuracy too, although I haven't had time to check that yet. I'm not happy about the tone as the overall read puts me in mind of a magazine article. To be honest, I think that a review of this article against the WP:CRIC B-class criteria would fail and it would be rated C-class. It certainly is well short of current FA standards. Most of the work was done a few years ago and it illustrates how standards have been raised since it was promoted. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 16:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning on nominating this myself in the near-future. I see a lack of inline citations, problems with the first two images and prose and MoS flaws all over the place. For example, Genesis of Test cricket is filled with proseline: four consecutive paragraphs start with In 1852, 1859, 1861, In 1868. Not FA-level today. Also, I see a few repeat links in the lead, just to give one problem out of many. The lack of references is the biggest issue, but the rest of this needs a lot of help as well. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having, at BlackJack's bidding, skimmed through the introductory section, I think a few hitherto-unmentioned points worthy of notice:

The voyage between England and Australia was not invariably a 48-day affair. In 1882, for example, the SS Assam took 49 days to convey Murdoch's men from Melbourne to Plymouth, while Ivo's winter wag, delayed by a Sympleglades-like collision with the Glenroy, took as many as 57.
It is also untrue that the term "Test Match" did not enter the cricketing patois until 1885: Hammersley employed it in Sands & Kenny's Cricketers' Guide to denote five important matches on Stephenson's 1861/62 tour.
Whether the Ashes were presented to Bligh after he had secured them (as the article suggests) or beforehand at Sunbury (as is far more likely the case) has not yet been established.
It is also not universally agreed that the 1882/83 rubber ought to be seen as comprising only three games. A fourth (which, significantly, England lost, thereby drawing the series level) has been granted Test-Match status.

Best, Crusoe (talk) 10:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), prose (1a), MoS (2), and images (3). Marskell (talk) 11:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. I agree entirely with Marskell's summary of the concerns and I would re-emphasise my concern above about accuracy. Realistically, I cannot see anyone in WP:CRIC bothering to salvage an article of this type which the project has long since outgrown by introducing reviews of individual seasons, tours and series. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 16:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Agree with above comments by BlackJack (talk · contribs) and Giants2008 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Hasn't improved significantly since coming here. I don't consider any of my concerns addressed. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove written with a bit of an unencyclopedic tone. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 05:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove: Lack of inline citations. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:25, 28 October 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.

^ Smith 2007, p. 1.

[1] Smith 2007, p. 1.

[1]

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 ==Kept status==
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Damon Hill}}
 {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cincinnati, Lebanon and Northern Railway}}
 {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kreutz Sungrazers/archive1}}

Revision as of 17:30, 2 December 2008

Archives

Kept status

Removed status

Review commentary

FARC commentary

Review commentary

FARC commentary

Review commentary

FARC commentary

Review commentary

FARC commentary

Review commentary

FARC commentary

Review commentary

FARC commentary

Review commentary

FARC commentary

Review commentary

FARC commentary