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
Line 62: Line 62:


==Removed status==
==Removed status==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Indian Standard Time/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Battle of Smolensk (1943)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Battle of Smolensk (1943)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Canadian federal election, 1993/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Canadian federal election, 1993/archive1}}

Revision as of 00:42, 19 March 2010

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

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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 23:34, 16 March 2010 [1].

John Calvin

Notified: Example user, ... Example WikiProject, ...

I am nominating this featured article for review because...

The inclusion of the statement that John Calvin was at all influential in the development of capitalism, democracy or individualism violates the Neutrality of the article and exposes it to abuse for the following multiple reasons:

(1) He lived almost 200 years before Adam Smith, who is considered to be the "father" of modern capitlism, which is itself a bit of a misnomer, since he did not use that word at all. And in fact, the idea of "capitalism" is considered to be much more of a post-Industrial Revolution concept, coming to prominence more as a result of worldwide industrialization in the latter half of the 19th century. That is almost 300 years after the death of John Calvin.

(2) John Calvin had about as much influence on Democracy and Capitalism as Martin Luther, John Knox, John Wesley, and Henry VIII. My point is that he was no more influential than thousands of other religious reformers of the 16th century. Why would he be given such credit where others are not?

(3) There is not even a citation to footnote this assertion that "some historians" make this claim.

(4) There is no opportunity for others, such as myself, to dispute the validity of that claim, or to posit how he may have even been opposed to "Individualism" in a political context. Remember, he was a theologican, not a politician. Yet, this sentence describes an economic and political theory, not a religious one.

(5) There is a current impetus in the United States among some political groups to overly politicize the education process, to rewrite American history, to emphasize that the USA was founded as a "Christian" nation. Texas State Board of Education has already required the removal of Thomas Jefferson from World History standards and required the inclusion of John Calvin, specifically, in his place. They are attempting to claim that John Calvin had a greater impact on the American and French Revolutions than did Thomas Jefferson. Yet, Thomas Jefferson lived DURING the time of both revolutions, whereas John Calvin lived 250 years prior. It would be akin to saying that Brigham Young was more influential on the defeat of the Soviet Union than was Ronald Reagan. The absurdity of this revisionist history then becomes more tolerable when a respected site such as Wikipedia makes a similar assertion (sans the Thomas Jefferson deemphasis). It then lends credence to the agenda pursued by the Texas SBOE to diminish the role of separation of church and state, the impact of Deists, and the role of Enlightenment Thinkers and instead substitute them with religious figures of prior centuries.

(6) John Calvin supported the idea of Predestination. This is not consistent with a view of a meritocracy, where one can improve their station in life. According to Calvin, one was resigned to the preordained destiny of the Supreme Being. This is what Calvin was known for. To put an unsubstantiated claim about his alleged impact on democracy, capitalism and individualism into the INTRODUCTORY text of this entry is itself being dishonest about the man's own impact on history. If even one historian makes this assertion, another sentence should be included to state that "Although, the vast majority of political and religious historians do not share this view." That way, people can at least not be misled by Wikipedia into believing the matter is settled. Oghmatist (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I would like to request a speedy removal of this FAR for the following reasons:
  1. The nominator is taking issue with only single clause in a rather long article. This minor issue should be discussed on the article talk page. In fact, it is already being discussed.
  2. The nominator has not indicated which FA criteria are violated. Hence it is impossible to take any action involving the criteria.
--RelHistBuff (talk) 08:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with FAR removal; FAR is not dispute resolution, and a FAR should not be started over one sentence, particularly without having first raised it on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:07, 16 March 2010 (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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 23:34, 16 March 2010 [2].

Barack Obama

Notified: Meelar, Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics

This article was made a FA 5 years ago when the standards were more lax. It doesn’t meet the standards anymore and needs work.

The prose is not engaging nor of a professional standard. I see that there have been attempts to cut out verbose language but this results in edit wars and no improvement in prose. Attempts to remove repetitive phrases, which is routinely done in other articles, has been unsuccessful. Maybe a FA review will encourage prose improvement instead of resistance to improvement.

The article is not comprehensive. There are major issues that are not covered and minor issues that are covered. Attempts to prioritize issues, which would result in all the major issues covered, just results in edit wars with the loudest side resistant to any article improvement. I see that this was suggested in the talk page but no action taken.

Another suggestion was made, yet an editor said it was suggested a long time. With no improvement, it looks like the article has been lax to fix problems. For example,

I'm actually pretty neutral about whether it should be there or not. It seems the old 12-member wording was there forever, until someone placed a [citation needed] tag on it, so that might mean a long-standing consensus of relevance. Or long-standing apathy. I think some indication of the type of firm he chose adds to the article, and my main goal here was to maintain existing content while adding verifiability. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Shows that there is neglect of article after 4 years.

It is well researched in part but poorly researched in other parts. His Illinois Senate career is described as “bi-partisan” but this sounds like campaign literature. A well researched effort could describe his tenure in a neutral fashion. There are also other un-referenced sections and some references are not reliable sources, according to the WP:Reliable Sources Noticeboard comments.

It is not neutral. There are edit wars even for neutral issues with more editors supporting edits that are favorable to the article’s subject.

It is not stable because it is constantly under edit wars. Many are not civil, both editors advocating edits favorable to Obama and negative to Obama.

There is material that is unrelated to Obama’s biography. Some of it is about U.S. history but there already exists an article about the United States.

Lead skips around chronologically.

Sentences like “He returned in August 2006 in a visit to his father's birthplace, a village near Kisumu in rural western Kenya” serve no purpose, at least in the context they are presented. Again, technical requirements fulfilled (reference) but lousy prose.

Some facts are have no citation. The sentence might have a citation but some facts within the sentence are unverified.

Some phrases are redundant, like unanimous bipartisan. Is there unanimous non-bipartisanship? No, only if it is a one party state.

Outdated facts, such as $787 billion stimulus package (it is in the mid $800 billions). Factual errors like this shouldn’t remain uncorrected in this article which has so many editors contributing. Part of the problem is that some editors are extremely resistant to article improvement and tag-team revertion has been suggested to happen. There is a lack of constructive discussion or something that results in bad writing.

Questionable inclusion of sentences like “Various economists have credited the stimulus package with helping to create economic growth.” When various economists have faulted the stimulus package. There doesn’t have to be a debate about the stimulus package but unobjective, one sided reporting does the article a disservice.

Many sentences are tacked on. “On September 24, 2009, Obama became the first sitting U.S. President to preside over a meeting of the United Nations Security Council.” has little to do with the topic of the section, foreign policy. A good summary of Obama’s foreign policy is lacking.

Some paragraphs are a collection of poorly related sentences. One paragraph is simply two sentences stating “Obama is frequently referred to as an exceptional orator. During his pre-inauguration transition period and continuing into his presidency, Obama has delivered a series of weekly Internet video addresses.” This is simply bad prose because the second sentence has little to do with the first sentence. There are many ideas to expand on the orator. His use of the teleprompter. Other politicians’ gaffes when they tried to say that he’s a good orator (like Biden saying he’s articular and good looking or Reid saying he doesn’t talk with a Negro dialect). Or op-ed pieces saying he is a good speaker but lack’s memorable phrases like JFK. One can dislike one or two suggestions but the current paragraph is simply bad prose.

Some text is miscategorized, like an award (Nobel Prize) put in an image section.

In short, part of the article is good. But there are too many areas of poor prose and sloppiness. Was it needed is a professional writer who can work without editors with strong opinions stepping in and challenging every change. Some other presidential articles don’t have the traffic as this one so really good writers can work on it. Unfortunately, this article is not very good, just a hodgepodge of sentences linked together. When I look at the article, I see 10% written in an anti-Obama fashion, 40% written in a pro-Obama fashion, 25% written including undue weight details, and some important missing facts. I do not intend to keep criticizing the article, just ask that people improve the article so that it is to FA standards. It will be very hard because even some minor statements have resulted in huge fights, just look at the talk page. I am not going to be drawn into such fight. Maybe those who have edited the article should step back for 60 days and there be a call for new editors to fix this to FA first. I don't know any other way to fix the article without having a huge fight. A UT professor (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Despite the "explanation" on the user page, a new user 2 minutes into existence is here calling for a featured article review? Sorry, but this isn't passing the smell test, as we have seen this type of "I'm new here" approach by socks many, many, many times in the past on this article. Tarc (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so I have added my name and your name to a checkuser request. This is a common tactic. When you have nothing logical to say, accuse someone of being a sock. The netural and better way would be to think of ways to improve the article, like those listed above. A UT professor (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But your argument is still wrong; the article has had six reviews since it was promoted. I suggest you read them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is obviously edit warring. This means that one requirement is not satisfied. There are many suggestions in the archives of that article and some logical ones are shouted down. I do realize that you, SandyGeorgia, have the power to call any article a FA. However, it is a shame that it is in the current state. Some new editors who are truly netural could vastly improve it. I will recuse myself from that task. Just because it had six reviews doesn't mean that every improvement or shortcoming has been discussed. A UT professor (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just pointing out that you don't appear to have read the previous FARs, and it would be helpful if you would redact and shorten your nominating statement, since the article clearly has been reviewed multiple times since it passed FAC five years ago. See WP:TLDR and focus on what issues you want addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The necessity of reverting vandals, socks, and other assorted WP:NPOV violators does not automatically destabilize a featured article. There is no altercation going on in the Obama article on the scale of, say Climatic Research Unit hacking incident; that is what is meant by "unstable". Tarc (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The most constructive response would be to try to improve it, not make accusations about others.A UT professor (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Main points: edit warring even for the most innoculous of suggestions - no is the usual response; poor choice of inclusion topics (major topics omitted, minor/undue weight stuff included; some references are flawed and unreliable (just a few, like Who's Who), miscategorized stuff (like the Nobel Prize under image), biased phrasing (like taking Obama's side in calling him professor rather than a neutral side of just saying he is Senior Lecturer, which is quite an honor); some wrong facts (like wrong numbers, close, but not correct); not very good prose (look at time honored presidents, like Jefferson and Washington); use of weasel words like "bipartisan" (just proves the editor can read a reference but selection of the word must under rigorous review to insure neutrality - in this article, just some carefully selected references are pieced together, which is not good prose). There is certainly enough interest and enough editors to do it right, so we should. This is NOT an anti-Obama rant - I voted for the man, but not this article. I already see there is fighting and I will not fight anymore. If you want grade inflation, let it be. Give this the title of "Best of the best FA"? That's like telling poorly performing students "have self esteem, hold your head high, you are the best." Let's work together for article improvement. A UT professor (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This summary is just a summary. How about putting things in chronological order (one of the suggestions in the long version, above). The constructive editor says "let's do it". The edit warrior keeps arguing. When the history of the U.S. is written, you don't write about the Vietnam War, then the War of 1812, then the construction of the Panama Canal, then Watergate, in that order. A UT professor (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're off on the wrong foot, and you're going to have a month or three of a stalled FAR. Stop typing, read the old FAR, read some other FARs on the page, understand the criteria, and then please try to re-write the long mess above to something organized and digestible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Avi's #6 is the best written one. There were several opposes to FA. Some of the people opposed to improvement are biased editors. The faults of the article are many. Even though the nomination is long, someone who really wants improvement just has to go down the list and improve each point. I do not intend to fight so I think the conclusion will be that the edit warriors will insist on their FA and they will retain it. This is really too bad. A UT professor (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the comments in this thread come close to justifying a FAR. The article itself, though obviously not perfect, is in pretty good shape, better than most featured articles. I suggest a speedy close. Eubulides (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Close this FAR ASAP. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 01:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:04, 9 March 2010 [3].

Colley Cibber

Review commentary

Notified: Geogre, Bishonen WikiProject Biography, Wikiproject Theatre

I am nominating this featured article for review because of its lack of in-line citations: Life has only one reference (about his father), Autobiography has only one (for a quote), Cibber as actor has no references, etc. There are many more books in References than are cited in-line. Additionally, weasels are used quite prominently: "colourful", "distinctive British tradition of chatty, meandering, anecdotal memoirs". Most images need sources (I think) and ALT text. Mm40 (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nomination. I think all the adjectives should be removed, they are all sort of descriptive. Adjectives are unecessary and just make the page too long and hard to read. I would like to see more big pictures and less text, then I could just sort of look at them and guess what it's all about, like I do when I read my comics. Any facts that are worth keeping could be summarised in a neat info-box for anyone, like a teacher or somebody, interested because there won't be many people interested in a dead guy. Who was this guy anyway, he's been dead for so long, it's gruesome so there won't be references to find becuase his kids will all be dead too. - it's not like he's cool or his stuffs on TV, DVD or made into a computer game. Giano  08:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll see if I can fix the referencing at least over the next few days - I've formatted the ref lists and started converting to Harvnb, although annoyingly this is the first time I've found out that Harvnb has been deliberately broken. Oh well. - Bilby (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with maximum prejudice - no disinfobox at all, unlike many far more important articles (such as A. E. J. Collins‎). And imagine, someone refusing to force their article on to the Procrustean bed of footnotes (which remain optional), but using instead elegant Harvard citations. And using adjectives like "colourful"? O tempora o mores! More seriously, either we have Cibber's dates of birth and death wrong (11 June 1671 - 12 November 1757) or the ODNB does (6 November 1671 - 12 December 1757) or we both do (11 December, perhaps?). And is Virtue Rewarded the subtitle of his play Love's Last Shift, or is it The Fool in Fashion?[4] But anyway, per my prediction, who will be the first to launch a torpedo towards Ormulum or Jonathan Wild? Don't be shy. -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 11:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You want to delete a Featured article? Cirt (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm sure there is a word for it. Delete - remove, expunge, erase, efface, cancel, wipe out, excise, eradicate, obliterate. Surely we can't keep featured articles by a notoriously "abusive sockpuppet", can we? Particularly if they don't have the requisite density of footnotes, or have too many adjectives. -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem isn't so much the use of Harvard in-line cites rather than footnotes, although the footnotes tend to be preferred, but that the citations are incorrect, often with full author name, no year and no page. - Bilby (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "footnotes [are] preferred"? Who, one might ask, is passively expressing this preference? Notwithstanding, I have added some footnotes to the ODNB.
  • I would note that significant portions of this article are cited inline: there is a covering footnote ("Except where otherwise indicated, all details of Cibber's private life, as well as all role information, performance dates, and quotations from contemporary reviews come from "Cibber, Colley" in the authoritative Highfill et al., Biographical Dictionary of Actors, and have where relevant been double-checked against the calendar The London Stage.") and many quotes, etc, state the source specifically inline (e.g. in the lead, 'frequent criticism for his "miserable mutilation" (Robert Lowe) of "hapless Shakespeare, and crucify'd Molière" (Alexander Pope).'; or in the section on The Careless Husband, "As late as 1929, the well-known critic F. W. Bateson described the play's psychology as "mature", "plausible", "subtle", "natural", and "affecting".") No doubt these can be converted to footnotes, if desired, but the current formulation is more elegant.
  • Anyway, enough from this "sarcastic joke account". (Ad hominem for free these days. Better a sarcastic joke than [ ... ] ) -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just commenting on what I've seen before, and I would love to be wrong as I prefer - and originally wanted to do - inline refs in articles. But I've seen a number of editors get upset over inline refs, as they argued heatedly that they were distracting to the reader. My guess, and it is only a guess, is that (some) people like me are willing to accept footnotes, even if we don't like them as much as inline, and others hate inline, so the result has been to use footnotes. But if I'm wrong on this, or if we're simply happy to use inline anyway, then I will joyfully help use them. Other comments re citations are below. - Bilby (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interminable response. Hi, people. I'm the main author of the article. I'm sorry people are aggravated by the referencing system I used. It's not wrong, though, and does not require being "converted over" to the "ref" system or to any kind of templates.The reason I kept it simple and non-technical is that it's a lot easier for users to add stuff if they don't have to f around with citation templates (I find them pretty unmanagable myself, and they must be a lot worse for newish users). It's not the case that footnotes "tend to be preferred"; please see SandyGeorgia's recent explanation at WT:FAC of the referencing required of a Featured article:

Recently, specific citation style requests are appearing at FAC: neither WP:WIAFA nor WP:CITE require or prescribe a specific citation style, so I hope reviewers and nominators alike will understand 2(c) of WIAFA.
It's not necessary for nominators to jump through hoops to write citations in a style preferred by an individual reviewer: it is necessary for the citation style to be consistent and for all relevant information to be provided."[5]

Read the whole, if you will. I ask the editors who are undertaking, above, with sighs, to convert the referencing in various ways, to refrain. You obviously don't want to do it, but think it's needed; I don't want you to do it, either, and will argue that it's not needed.

I'll go through those claims which I take issue with from the top and work downwards. First Mm40:

  • ""Life" has only one reference (about his father), "Autobiography" has only one (for a quote), "Cibber as actor" has no references, etc." No, you misunderstand the system, and don't seem to have read the footnotes themselves. "Life" has only one footnote; that's not the same as having only one reference. The one footnote explains: "Except where otherwise indicated, all details of Cibber's private life, as well as all role information, performance dates, and quotations from contemporary reviews come from "Cibber, Colley" in the authoritative Highfill et al., Biographical Dictionary of Actors, and have where relevant been double-checked against the calendar The London Stage. In other words, the footnote isn't merely "about his father", but is many references, as Ottava Rima points out (I think; he's not necessarily referring specifically to that one), and covers all the information in "Life" (as well as lots of information in the rest of the article). Merely counting the little superscript figures in the text won't tell you what information the footnotes cover.
  • "Autobiography" has two specific references, namely (see Barker) and footnote 2 (for a quote, as you say). The rest of the information in "Autobiography" is covered by footnote 1, the one you say is about his father.
  • "Cibber as Actor" is again mostly covered by footnote 1, but there are also quotations in it: from Cibber's Autobiography and from the Biographical Dictionary of actors. Shouldn't they have footnotes of their own, then? That's a matter of taste; I preferred to do without, since the text combined with the list of references at the bottom of the page, contains all information that a footnote would.

Etc.

  • There are many more books in References than are cited in-line.*

Do you mean that there are many more books in References than have footnotes (superscript numbers) inline? There's nothing wrong with that, you know. All the books in References are cited—as in used, mentioned, supplying information to the text—inline.

Bilby, I'm sorry my references annoyed you. I don't understand your objection that "the citations are incorrect, often with full author name, no year and no page." (Do you mean without full author name..?) I merely identify the work in the text, in parenthesis, like, say "(Barker)", and give full bibliographical information in an alphabetical list at the end, as I expect you've noticed. This is one of the standard systems in my research field; if the "Harvard system" requires years given in the "short notes" at all times, then this is not precisely the Harvard system, though very close. Anyway, it's academic and consistent. Are you discussing supposed shortcomings of the "short notes" in the text (which indeed don't have any full names or years, and aren't supposed to), or in the list of references which supplement them, which I believe have full names, years, and pages (except that web versions don't always have any pagination)? The entire list may not be perfect—I'll check later—since some books have been added later by other people—for instance, one unpublished one, which is always a bit of a nightmare to refer to. But I certainly disagree that "the citations are incorrect".

One more point before I'm out of time: alt text. Are we insisting on going through all old FACs, such as this one, and adding alt text? In that case, perhaps somebody would do it? I just don't have the time, and it would be a lot more useful, frankly, than messing with my purportedly annoying and incorrect references (which I have tried to show are all right as they are).

OMG, I hope that wasn't as boring to read as it's been to write. I'll have to come back another time and reply to some other points.

I remind everybody that, as Sandy also points out, CITE is a guideline that states that established citation style should not be changed without consensus. If somebody nevertheless insists on changing my references to, for example, footnote templates, go ahead, but I hope you'll be watching the article and fixing any mistakes which arise when new users try to adapt to that rebarbative system. Bishonen | talk 19:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Personally, I prefer traditional Harvard inline to footnotes, if only on the grounds that I could never publish with citations in footnotes in my field and inline cites work well in print, so I have a lot of experience using the style. Thus generally I like the (Smith 2009, p12) approach. (I also don't mind MLA, but I have less experience with it). If it is ok for Harvard or MLA to be used on a FAC then I'm happy. The main limitations with Harvard inline (only useful for an educated audience, gets long with multiple cites, and doesn't work well where the author is unknown) are not really applicable for academic audiences, but may come into play with Wikipedia generally.
At the moment, though, the article uses a mixture - footnotes with Harvard inline, footnotes with full citations (only one left, though), inline in Harvard (occasionally), and inline that isn't Harvard or MLA in two styles (full author name or author's family name). I presume this is the effect of multiple authors. The last - inline that isn't Harvard or MLA - is what you refer to with (Alexander Pope) and (Barker). While I can understand a desire to leave out the year, (which happens using the MLA author-title-page format, or the occasional MLA author-page) we end up without page numbers, and generally this isn't a typical academic style. (As an aside, the year becomes valuable if the one author is cited for multiple works, but that hasn't happened here yet). At this stage my focus is to see it get a consistent referencing system, but I'm happy with anything that's acceptable here.
On an unrelated note, this is one of the few featured articles on Wikipedia that I genuinely enjoyed reading because of the writing style. I generally enjoy the content of featured articles, but this time I liked both. :) - Bilby (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot to mention: my concern about incorrect citations was the lack of page numbers. I'm not aware of an academic format that leaves them out, although I guess technically they're just present to make verification easier - having the author is sufficient to avoid other problems. I prefer years to be included, simply because I prefer Harvard, but year isn't essential. Normally as part of making the citations consistent (to whatever format we want) I'd dig up the sources and add the page numbers where required. - Bilby (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image check OK. Perhaps they could be arranged prettier so that text isn't sandwiched between Foppington and Garrick? DrKiernan (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit of ALT text too. Perhaps someone can review it before I do some more. -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found it both amusing and accurate, which is an ideal combination. DrKiernan (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. I have done the other ones, but was lacking inspiration. -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the account Disinfoboxman (talk · contribs) still on this page, when it said above its intention is that it wants to delete this article? Cirt (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There were typos in the formatting. Corrected now. DrKiernan (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the alt text looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, NPOV (weasel words). Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 00:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So... has this article been moved to the FARC section, and is about to be defeatured, because of Disinfoboxman's and Giano's joke votes...? It looked to me like people were fixing the citations (insofar as there was ever anything wrong with them). Oh well. Bishonen | talk 00:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • WP:WIAFA: Criterion 1c requires "high-quality reliable sources in a references section": Yes? What? Those are high-quality reliable sources in a references section. What's supposed to be wrong with them? Bishonen | talk 11:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
This is an excellent article, and it would be a great pity to see it defeatured. Can we have a clear list, from the nominator of this FAR, of the things that need to be done? I glazed over when I read the technical stuff above about the citations, but I'm sure they can be fixed. Tony (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, the article is better now. My biggest issue at this point is possible original research. Reference two says "all details of Cibber's private life, as well as all role information, performance dates, and quotations from contemporary reviews", but there is information with no inline cite that isn't his private life, role info, etc. The second sentence of Autobiography is an example. The rest, I believe, is fine-tuning. For example, here's some issues in As an actor:
  • Which two theatre companies merged into a monopoly? They're not named
  • "He had still after five years" sounds a bit awkward; I suggest "After five years he had still"
  • "The Relapse" should be italicized at the end of the fourth paragraph.
  • "Papal Tyranny in the Reign of King John" has a stray apostrophe, I believe.
  • The three right-aligned images cause a large whitespace at the end of the section.
Well, it's not sacred or untouchable. If you see something like a title that needs italicising, or an apostrophe on the loose, might it perhaps be simpler to fix it than to list it? Things like whitespace are a problem, though; I think it varies according to which browser you view the page in. I can't fix the one you mention, because it looks good in my browser (SeaMonkey). Or is the {{clear}} template perhaps newly introduced, so that it now looks good for everybody? Bishonen | talk 19:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Mix of citation styles between inline Harvard and cite-ref. Choose one and make article consistent. Looks like there are still a few too many weasel words (great, best, etc) but I think this is not such a huge issue since we are sourcing from critics. Other than that, I think this article is close to being kept. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 02:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DelistHold Given the graciousness of Bish's response below I will try to find time to rethink this. DrKiernan (talk) 08:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC) The switch between citation styles is certainly distracting and weakens the article, but I'm afraid I just don't like the prose. The lead should state the years he was Poet Laureate. The third sentence says "plays for performance by his own company"; why not the less cumbersome "plays for his own company"? The lead is for the most important points; there shouldn't be a need for parenthetical statements. It's bad practice to use phrases in the lead which require clicking on a blue link to understand what they mean. The word "ridiculed" is repeated twice. Words like "mutating" are charged with deeper meaning, usually negative, while the alternative "changing" is not. In the first paragraph of the first section, we have "more insecure"; surely "less secure" is easier? "death in 1734, the, and..." should read "death in 1734, she...", but no-one's noticed because the sentence construction is awkward. These are just some examples from the start of the article, but the rest of it has similar problems of redundancy and awkward phrasing. The text is peppered with weasel words, which wouldn't be a problem if they were attributed, but it is a problem when their provenance is unclear. Of course, yes, I could have worked on the article, but as this is an unfamiliar subject matter for me, I'm not keen on making prose changes without first reading up on the topic, and I'm not interested in trying to work on an article when faced with obvious hostility. I also appreciate that there is plenty of material in my comments for the jokers to work with (Oooh, look, I've repeated the word "awkward", and there must be mileage in "ridiculed" and "unfamiliar subject matter for me"), but I'm just the messenger. The article doesn't meet the current FA standard. Of course, you can argue that the standard is intellectually bankrupt and treats the contributions of experts on the same level as popular culture dross, but it is the currently applied standard and, in my opinion, this article doesn't meet it. DrKiernan (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the prose is that bad, I don't think the article should be kept, so that's fine. I don't have any WP:OWN issues with this old piece, or any of my old work. However, about the two different kinds of citations, which are mentioned by several people: that's not a problem in my academic field, but since it appears to be one on Wikipedia, I've been meaning to change them. RL gets in the way, though. Confession: I always have a lot of trouble getting up any enthusiasm for working on articles I wrote long ago. I was hoping somebody would be interested enough to fix the citations the way they want them, but I certainly can't blame people for not wanting to do a job I don't much feel like doing myself.
    • If the "obvious hostility" refers to me, I'm sorry you think so, and I don't understand it. I've tried to respond to comments in a complaisant way. Bishonen | talk 09:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • I've gone through the rest. What a nasty, gossipy, two-faced, double-dealing ... The article is a really good read, and is nicely humorous in a few places. Well done. (One edit-summary query to check, please.) Tony (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the section "Other plays", there's a reference "Abel, p. 242". Do we know who Abel is? DrKiernan (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abel..? So there is. No idea. None of the American stuff was added by me. I thought I'd mostly checked it out, but this is obviously something I missed. It looks like the editor didn't altogether grasp the "short notes, full references" system. Bishonen | talk 15:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment, leaning toward keep Keep - Image copyright looks good, all images have alt text, although I'm not sure how useful it is to blind readers to name colors. Inline referencing is much improved, but some of those have jump links to the ==References== sections while most do not. Please pick a style and make it consistent. The original issue of listing many more references than are cited in-line is still a problem. I suggest creating a ==Further reading== section and move things as needed. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 14:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment has been addressed. Let's close this sucker as a save! --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 02:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree with Mav (talk · contribs). Indeed, I see much improvement with the in-line referencing - editors are to be commended for that. However, Mav is right that it would be a good idea and a further improvement to have consistency in the in-line referencing. Cirt (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the Harvard templates, and removed some of the sources from the references section. DrKiernan (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it might be useful to have a few more cites in the "King of Dunces" section and to name examples of contemporaries for the sentence "Some contemporaries regarded it as moving and amusing, others as a sentimental tear-jerker..." However, at this stage, I'd be inclined to keep it as it meets all the other criteria and these sections/sentences reflect the sources I have read. I also note that the FARC has been open for three months with no delists (apart from my own, which is struck). DrKiernan (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We're all done here, no? Reads fine. Personally I'd like a little more Popeian abuse quoted. Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2010 (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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 23:46, 1 March 2010 [6].

Flag of India

Review commentary

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology, Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics, User talk:Nichalp.

FA from 2005, 1c issues throughout. Could use an image review of the 22 images used in the article. Some entirely too-short subsections and even one-sentence subsections and one-sentence paragraphs and short paragraphs. Cirt (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I just fixed the dab links, and added some alt, but came to the point where some flags in the article just didn't make sense. There are some significant changes in content (unsourced/undue) since the FA, mostly over the past year that need some closer inspection. Will get some kind of a look-in over the next couple of days. -SpacemanSpiff 05:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text done; thanks. Thanks for starting on the alt text. It doesn't have to be quite that long. I tried to improve it, based on WP:ALT#Brevity, WP:ALT#Context, and WP:ALT#Text. I hope this helps save you some work when writing the other alt text that's needed. Eubulides (talk) 06:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it will. I've only written alt for one featured bit before, and in that brevity didn't appear to be a concern :) -SpacemanSpiff 06:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just now came back and checked the alt text. After a couple of tweaks to templates (1 2) it looks fine. Thanks for writing it. Eubulides (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The article is in need of a significant overhaul and isn't exactly of the "fix some issues and it'll get there" variety. A couple of us are attempting to make some significant changes, also discussed at Talk:Flag of India, so I'd request a week's time before the article is evaluated by reviewers. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 18:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If work is ongoing, then it stays open, sometimes for ages like Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cane toad/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lake Burley Griffin/archive1, which were all effectively done anew YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 23:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, quality of research, comprehensiveness (incomplete sections). Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 23:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cirt, that is not a valid delist declaration. Work has been ongoing on this article, and the FARC period lasts at least two weeks. What are your reasons for a Delist, so the editors working on the article can try to improve the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of the FA criteria concerns stated in this subsection by YellowMonkey (talk · contribs). I am, of course, always happy to revisit when the article is improved to a satisfactory level of quality. Cirt (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is still an invalid and non-specific declaration. When moving from FAR to FARC, the delegate mentions concerns that have been raised during the FAR. That doesn't mean they are still valid, or that an autoDelist should be entered without identifying current issues when work is ongoing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you're aware, the search for decent quality sources took a lot longer than I expected. I've listed out six sources (on the article talk page) that should pass muster (let me know if you think any of them are not good). As far as the comprehensiveness and quality of research aspects, I just split out a lot of content that didn't belong in the article and we're just starting the rewrite, so these two issues will take a few days to address. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 23:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History section looks excellent. Incredible job by SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 04:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Keep as a FA. Seems overly bureaucratic, specifying thread count, etc. But that is the government's problem, not the article's problem. Suggest finding a reference to the manufacturing process section where it states that 40 million flags made per year. After that is done, keep it as a FA. JB50000 (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Inline cites throughout article and quality of references looks good. AFAICT, looks comprehensive as well. Copyright on all images except for File:Sarnath Lion Capital of Ashoka.jpg looks good. I question the non-free rationale used since the photo is of an object that still exists and could potentially be photographed. If this image is replaced or removed, I will change my vote to just 'keep'. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 02:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've searched all over for a free image and haven't been able to find any. If the non-free rationale is shaky, then I can remove the image in favor of adding one in when we get a free image. —SpacemanSpiff 04:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I see some good improvements. Cirt (talk) 06:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A few quick notes:
    • Sourcing: the main sources used in the article are quite good and really the best available (I had checked sometime back). I am less gung-ho about some of the news sources used for some peripheral statements, some of which I find dubious.
    • Writing: fine overall, although it can use a third-party copyedit; in particular, the language can get a bit colloquial in the History section (which also perhaps overuses passive voice), and the Protocol section, perhaps unavoidably, can read like bureaucratese.
    • Comprehensiveness The history and symbolism section are particularly informative and well-balanced. The manufacturing and protocol sections get into the weeds a bit, but given that this is a short article I can accept that the additional details are okay to retain.
    • Images: Well illustrated and no licensing issues (other that the Sarnath capitol image pointed above)
    • Misc:
      • The Reference section needs an update since I don't think it reflects the current version of the article (and some refs. have incomplete information). Also some of the links are dead.
      • The article should mention that the flag is rectangular (!) and top-to-side edge length ratio. The latter is only ascertainable from a table; not sure what that table means anyway (what are flag sizes 1,2,..., 9?)
      • The infobox needs to be fixed to reflect that the flag was based on a design by Pingali Venkayya, and not designed by him per se.
Most of these issues should be easy to fix, and I'd be happy to support a keep at FARC even if the copyediting is to be undertaken later. Abecedare (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly fixed by SS and myself - BTW, could you please clarify what you mean by an 'update' to the Reference section? Does the page cache have to be purged or some such? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am starting to copyedit this, so please bear with me. It's going to need a fair amount of work. Is everyone satisfied it's been fact-checked sufficiently? I ask because I found the text description of the Calcutta flag to be different from the accompanying image. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hadn't noticed the anomaly earlier, the flag image was carried over from an earlier version, but the text is new and the source I have says:
"The flag - red, green and yellow - bore on its red band eight white lotuses symbolizing the eight British Indian provinces; on the yellow band it carried a sun and a crescent moon to symbolize Hindus and Muslims; in the middle was the slogan 'Bande Mataram' in Devanagri (a Hindi script derived from Sanskrit)."
  • Agreed. We'll need to check the text too because I reversed the colors in the description to match our image. If that wasn't correct, we'll need to switch it back. I don't have access to the source. --Andy Walsh (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Queries - I've gone through the whole thing now. I was left with a few matters I couldn't resolve. Maybe someone can help?
  • "The Swaraj flag designed in 1921 by Pingali Venkayya, an agriculturist from Machilipatnam, was proposed as the flag the Congress by Gandhi." I cannot sort this sentence—words seem to be missing.
  • The article uses the term "khadi" irregularly. In the lead, "khadi"; in History, "Khadi-cotton"; in Manufacturing process, "khadi cloth". What's proper?
  • "The BIS then checks for the colours and only then can the flag be sold." Unclear.. checks for the colours, or checks the colours? What are they checking for?
  • "Officers of Flag-rank of the army, navy and air force." Since these are linked and referring to the actual Indian Army, Navy, and Air Force, should they be capitalized?
--Andy Walsh (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've split the opening statement to two sentences, I think it has better flow now, feel free to modify it or let me know if there's something missing.
  • Khadi-cotton and Khadi-silk are used to specify the type of fabric. "Khadi cloth", purely because it's difficult for a lay-reader to figure out what Khadi is (it's wikilinked in the lead, so I didn't add the cloth bit there)
  • I capitalized Army/Navy/Air Force
  • Let me know if you have any other questions/comments. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's looking much better now. It still could use some more wrenching on the prose, but it's nothing I would delist over. Thanks to SpacemanSpiff and everyone who put in so much hard work to save this. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2010 (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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 23:46, 1 March 2010 [7].

Darjeeling

Review commentary

Notified: Dwaipayanc, WikiProject India

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has multiple issues. There is a severe lack of sourcing for a start. I question the reliability of sources such as Darjnet and Zubin. The article is similar in length to Gangtok but much worse in standard. I'm sure there are a few cases of bad prose too. Also see the discussion that led to this FAR. Spiderone 08:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

done SBC-YPR (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding all that alt text. What you've added is almost all good. However, the alt text for File:India West Bengal locator map.svg is "Map of India showing location of West Bengal", which isn't helpful to the typical reader who may know where India is but not where West Bengal is; can you please improve that? (Please see WP:ALT#Maps for guidance.) Also, three one of the files still lack alt text: File:Darjeeling.jpg, File:West Bengal locator map.svg, File:Darjeeling.ogg; can you please fix that? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 00:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added alt text for File:Darjeeling.jpg. File:Darjeeling.ogg is an audio file and does not require alt text. As to the other two, they are not directly linked from the infobox, and I'm still not very clear as to how to write alt text for a locator map. Could you please help out? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that. The alt text for File:Darjeeling.ogg turns out to be a template issue; I've suggested a fix at Template talk:Audio #Minor accessibility improvement so we needn't worry about it here. To specify alt text for those two maps, please use the |base_map_alt= and |inset_map_alt= parameters of {{Infobox Indian jurisdiction}}; I just now updated that template and its documentation. Eubulides (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done All images now possess alt text. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing all that. Eubulides (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll basically copy my post from the talk page: What makes these sources reliable? Most of them look rather questionable: no author credits, no proof of reputability, et cetera.
done. All the above references have been either replaced with more reliable ones or deleted altogether. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

  • Unsourced sentences in the "Economy," "Culture" and "Demographics" subesections (most which I slapped with {{fact}} tags).
  • Unqualified "and so on" in the economy section. I think that resorting to "and so on" is sloppy writing. It would be better to say "including" or "such as."
  • "Media" section is entirely unsourced.
  • "Culture" section has an undue weight on foods, mostly unsourced.
  • Plenty more I'm sure I missed.

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have either sourced or deleted most of the unsourced sentences. The prose has been copyedited and upgraded in many places. As regards media, I could find no references - must the entire section be done away with? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good work all around. If you can't source the media section, I would say delete it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

FA criteria concerns are sourcing. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 04:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: someone has been working on this article, yet we have three immediate and vague delists which don't specify one singlething about what text is lacking sources or what are consider poor sources. This is poor use of FAR, and this trend should stop. The FARC period lasts at least two weeks, and as long as editors are working on the article, reviewers who enter an early Delist should be prepared to say why, so work can continue, and should be prepared to strike the delist if issues are addressed. I don't see valid reasoning in either of the three delists above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stricken. Cirt (talk) 02:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of fixin' needed still; there are numerous MoS errors and faulty citations; I left sample edits. WP:ITALICS are only used on journals, periodicals and newspapers, not websites. Author formatting is inconsistent. Page numbers and publishers are missing and some info is outdated (I tagged one sample). In one section I read, I found a grammatical error. I fixed several WP:DASHes, but the rest should be checked. There is WP:OVERLINKing. There were WP:ACCESS and WP:MOS#Images breaches. Conversions are missing on some numbers. That's my first pass; I'll check back after more work is done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, mostly. Thanks for the sample edits - based on them, further corrections have been made, and all citations are now uniformly formatted. Outdated information has been brought up to date. Dashes, access breaches, conversions and overlinking have largely been addressed. Please comment if any further changes have to be made. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there a hanging citation at the end of the "Notes" section? Did you check the rest of the text for outdated info (I haven't read the full article)? There are still missing page nos (Lee 1971) and publishers (^ "Constitution of Gorkha Janmukti Morcha". http://www.gorkhajanmuktimorcha.org/constitution.php. Retrieved 2009-05-18.) Newspapers that are available in hard print should be in WP:ITALICS. Website should not be in italics, and accessdates are missing (^ "Darjeeling Toy Train". Theme India: Train Tourism in India. IndiaLine. http://www.indialine.com/travel/trains/darjeeling-toy-train.html.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References formatted, hanging citation and book without page number moved to Further Reading section. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the Falling Rain Map citing, and why isn't it attached to that text as a footnote? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Falling Rain Map didn't specifically cite anything, but was merely a general reference for the climate of Darjeeling. That's why it wasn't tagged with a footnote. Another editor has since removed the reference, and I'm not sure as to whether to restore it. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 14:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, in that case then, it should have been listed as "Further reading" or an "External link", but I'm not sure it's needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. In that case, would it be a good idea to restore it, out of abundant caution? This would involve reverting a previous edit. Also, are there any other outstanding issues with the article that need resolving? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Featured articles are supposed to be comprehensive, meaning that theoretically, that link shouldn't be needed-- anything useful in the link should already be covered in the article. I will look at the article in more detail as soon as I have time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I took a quick look at the article at User:YellowMonkey's suggestion and I think, while the article is well-written and formatted, there are concerns with 1b (comprehensiveness) and significant issues with 1c (sourcing) clauses of the FA criterion.
  • Sourcing issues:
    • Most of the article is sourced to news reports, and government/non-government websites. While news reports may be acceptable for recent (say post 2000) developments, and government websites for basic statistical (eg, census data) and organizational information (eg, about civic administration and infrastructure), the article over-relies on such sources in almost all sections.
    • Why is Urban Management in Darjeeling Himalaya a reliable, let alone authoritative, source ? It seems to be a web article published on an online forum, and IMO should be used only as wikipedia articles are supposed to be used - to understand the background, and to locate better sources and information; not as a source itself. (By the way, the reference doesn't support the statement: "...Darjeeling was ruled intermittently by the kingdoms of Bengal, Nepal and Sikkim")
    • The Further Reading section lists several books, but only 1 of them seems to have been used a reference.
  • Comprehensiveness issues:
    • No map of the town (with or without the surroundings) ?
    • How big is the town (area) ? Any information on the GDP; contribution of tea industry and tourism ? Languages spoken ? Local flora and fauna (if notable) ?
    • The article tells us that Darjeeling is famous for the Darjeeling Himalayan Railway, but never explains what is special about the railway.
    • The article says, "Darjeeling is regarded as a centre of music and a niche for musicians and music admirers. Singing and playing musical instruments is a common pastime among the resident population, who take pride in the traditions and role of music in cultural life." These are quite generic statements (incidentally, not supported by the cited reference, [8]), and don't even tell the reader what kind of music is being talked about (folk, religious, Hindi film, Western ? )
    • The article says that Darjeeling is a "popular filming destination". Then it specifically lists a song from Aradhana that was filmed there; why ? If there is something special about the filming of this song (did it start a trend of filming in Darjeeling ?), the article should say so; else it should not single out 1 of supposedly many movies that have been filmed there.
    • It would be good to have some more content on how the British, Nepali and Bengali cultures have shaped the town (assuming sources can be found). There is some mention of this in the Culture and Education sections, but I wonder if someone has looked at it at more depth.
  • Miscellaneous (these are not determinative concerns at FAR; I just happened to spot them)
    • Use {{Harvnb}} instead of {{Harv}} for references that don't appear within the body of the text.
    • Why is "The region is relatively new in geological terms and unstable in nature, suffering from a host of environmental problems.[2] Environmental degradation, including denudation of the surrounding hills has adversely affected Darjeeling's appeal as a tourist destination." in the Demographics section ?
    • "Darjeeling town comes under the jurisdiction of the district police ..." Surely not (unless we are talking about a police state!). Rephrase to clarify that policing in Darjeeling ...
    • Gorkha leads to a disambiguation page.
    • "... only location in eastern India that witnesses high footfalls of foreign tourists." Not familiar with the underlined term in this context. By the way, the sentence is a direct quote from the source and should either be paraphrased, or be in quotes. (also keep in mind the 1c concerns and consider if this is the best available source on tourism in Darjeeling)
I can help with accessing journal articles if you need particular references; per this brief discussion at INB, there are surely better sources available than the ones currently used in the article. I have not commented on writing and formatting issues, since these are very minor in the article, and are not worth bothering with until sourcng and content issues are resolved. Let me know if you need me to explain or expand on any particular comments. Abecedare (talk) 05:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replies and some queries, in response to each point above:
  • Sourcing issues:
    • Most of the information sourced from websites consists of post-2000 info and basic data. Could you please point out specific instances of over-reliance on these sources?
    • Agreed, will replace it with a better source over the weekend.
    • There were separate sections earlier for References and Further Reading, but since the former contained only one book it was merged with the latter. Should they be split again?
  • Comprehensiveness issues:
    • Is a map essential? None of Ahmedabad, Belgrade, Canberra or Washington, D.C., to cite a few FAs, has a map of the city: like the present article, they all contain locator maps in the infobox.
    • The municipal area is mentioned under Civic Administration as well as in the infobox. GDP information doesn't see to be available, will keep looking though. The significance of tea and tourism is generically mentioned; if GDP figures are found they will be incorporated. Languages spoken are mentioned in the Demographics section, while flora and fauna recieve a brief mention in the Geography section.
    • The significance of the DHR is that it is a UNESCO World Heritage site, and only the second railway line in the world to receive the recognition. The first is mentioned in the lead, and the second in the Transport section.
    • Work in progress, will be clarified.
    • Done.
    • Sources are being searched for. There is also a mention of this in the History section.
  • Miscellaneous
    • Done.
    • The first statement is not really relevant and has been deleted. The second statement, and the one now before it, refer to the detrimental effects of population growth on the environent and the town in general, and are therefore located in the Demographics section.
    • Done.
    • Done.
    • Done.
Also, the search for sources is still in progress, and I should be able to finalise a list by this weekend, after which I'll contact you for a quick review of the sources before beginning substantive edits to the article. In the meantime, please clarify the queries above. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 13:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the responses SBC. here are brief replies to the main points:
Sourcing
  • Here are some examples of news, government, or generic website sources used in the article that should be replaced by more authoritative sources (the quoted citation number corresponds to this version of the article): 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14c, ... In contrast the use of 15, 22, 23, 24 is fine in my opinion, while 18, 21 can be argued either way. The problem with relying on non-authoritative sources is that even though the individual facts may be verifiable, the article is likely to miss out on important details and context, and may get due weight wrong.
  • The issue is not with the merging or splitting of References and Further Reading sections. I was simply pointing out that better sources on the subject of the article do exist, but have not been used.
Comprehensiveness'
  • I think a map is highly desirable for completeness, and ideally for a hilly place like Darjeeling, the article should have a topographic map. But I am going to defer to other reviewers opinion on this point.
  • You are right that the area and languages are indeed mentioned in the article (sorry, I missed them somehow!). The article includes some mention of the flora (though the sentences are unsourced), but are there any facts about the fauna that is worth mentioning ? (The writings of naturalist Brian Houghton Hodgson, or books on him, may be a useful source).
  • DHR is not notable because it received a World Heritage site listing; it received the listing because it is notable, and the reader should be told what makes it distinctive enough to belong to that category.
Let me know if you want me to expand upon any of the above or previous comments. I am not certain of the FAR protocols, but I guess, it would be better to have any detailed discussion on the article talk page. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - FAR concerns have been addressed to my satisfaction. I don't think that the remaining issues described above are serious enough to warrant de-listing. A map especially is not needed since few other city FAs have or need them. -- mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has been thoroughly revised while at FARC, and the sourcing standards especially have been improved. While there are a few further improvements I would suggest (expanding the lede a bit for example; also not a big fan of the subsections in the History section; the Further reading section can be trimmed; and one or more maps added) - as it stands, I think, the article is worthy of being an FA. Kudos to SBC-YPR for the work he put in and the other editors who chipped in. Abecedare (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note THere is one "clarification needed" tag that needs to be addressed. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have gone ahead and removed the {{clarify}} tag, that I had added and that SBC-YPR had commented upon on the article talkpage. I checked the source (Dasgupta 1999) and the article reflects what it says. I must admit that the source description is a bit translucent to me but my interpretation is that at the time of Indian independence there were fears that a segment of the population in and around Darjeeling would not accept Indian nationality and would demand that the region join Nepal, but eventually the Gorkhas opted to ask for greater autonomy instead. Anyway, under the circumstances, it is perhaps best to use the source language ("Nepali nationality") instead of attempting our own "clarification". Abecedare (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that everything's fixed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep. I've been through the prose and it seems to be acceptable quality. It suffers from overlinking, and I've delinked quite a few common terms and other bothersome items. My only remaining concern is the image captioned "The GNLF flag", which seems oddly placed since you don't even mention the GNLF until much later in the article. This could be fixed by moving the flag to the Civic administration section or mentioning the GNLF at the end of the History section. At any rate, we shouldn't force the reader to scroll way down to discover the meaning. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Moved the image under "Civic administration". GNLF was mentioned in the last paragraph of "History" already, I wikilinked it.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, looks good. I think it is ready. --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2010 (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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:42, 19 March 2010 [9].

Indian Standard Time

Review commentary

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Time, Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics, User talk:Nichalp, User talk:Ambuj.Saxena, User talk:Fowler&fowler.

FA from 2006, with a few 1c issues. Concerns about comprehensiveness of the article. Both the History and Time Zones subsections could be expanded upon significantly. Cirt (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the referencing is a bit worrisome. A few examples:
  1. "Taking a day to be 24 hours, the smallest time unit, prāṇa, or one respiratory cycle, equals 4 seconds, a value consistent with the normal breathing frequency of 15 breaths/min used in modern medical research." The only cited source for this statement is a journal article about sinus arrhythmia which mentions in passing a human breathing rate of 15 breaths per minute. The source states nothing about the unit prāṇa or any correspondence with Indian units of time measurement. Wouldn't it be more central to this Wikipedia article to cite a source for the duration of the prāṇa? And for the supplementary matter of the duration of a normal breathing cycle, wouldn't a medical textbook or a study of normal breathing cycles be preferable to a study of arrhythmias?
  2. "The Surya Siddhanta also described a method of converting local time to the standard time of Ujjain." Possibly okay, but Jstor returns a 404 error and the source is 150 years old.
  3. "Despite these early advances, standard time was not widely used outside astronomy." Uncited? See next item.
  4. "For most of India's history, ruling kingdoms kept their own local time, typically using the Hindu calendar in both lunar and solar units." Possibly okay, but multiple attempts at verification all gave timeout errors at the source side.
  5. "For example, the Jantar Mantar observatory built by Maharaja Sawai Jai Singh in Jaipur in 1733 contains large sundials, up to 90 ft (27 m) high, which were used to accurately determine the local time." Uncited; at end of paragraph where no later citation might apply.
  6. "British India did not officially adopt the standard time zones until 1905, when the meridian passing east of Allahabad at 82.5° E longitude was picked as the central meridian for India, corresponding to a single time zone for the country. This came into force on 1 January 1906, and also applied to Sri Lanka (then Ceylon). However, Calcutta time was officially maintained as a separate time zone until 1948." Two problems: the cited source is a fan club (reliability = ??) and a substantial part of the unquoted paragraph is nearly an exact cut and paste from the source: British India did not adopt the standard time zones, however, until 1905 when the meridian passing through Allahabad at 82.5 degrees east longitude was picked as the central meridian for India, corresponding to a single time zone for the country at 5 hours and 30 minutes in advance of GMT. This went into force on January 1, 1906. (Also for Sri Lanka, then Ceylon.) However, Calcutta time was officially maintained as a separate time zone until 1948.[10] Shouldn't this either be disallowed per WP:RS or handled with quotation marks and ellipses?
  7. "In 1925, time synchronisation began to be relayed through omnibus telephone systems and control circuits to organisations that needed to know the precise time. This continued until the 1940s, when time signals began to be broadcast using the radio by the government". Same fansite source and an inaccurate paraphrase. The source does not assert definitely that time synchronization began "in 1925"; it states "around 1925".
  8. "After independence in 1947, the Indian government established IST as the official time for the whole country, although Kolkata and Mumbai retained their own local time for a few more years." Same fansite reference, contradicted by source. British India did not adopt the standard time zones, however, until 1905 when the meridian passing through Allahabad at 82.5 degrees east longitude was picked as the central meridian for India, corresponding to a single time zone for the country at 5 hours and 30 minutes in advance of GMT. This went into force on January 1, 1906. (Also for Sri Lanka, then Ceylon.) However, Calcutta time was officially maintained as a separate time zone until 1948. Bombay time was maintained, but only informally (although used for some local railway purposes too), until about 1955.[11]
  9. "The Central observatory was moved from Chennai to a location near Mirzapur, so that it would be as close to UTC +5:30 as possible." Uncited; at end of paragraph where no later citation might apply.
It isn't often that a random sampling of four successive paragraphs from a featured article turns up so little that is actually verifiable to reliable sources. Durova412 20:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it is! Several of Durova's points are easily verified as the article being in fault. There is no evidence, for example, that the prana (literally, a human breath or the breath of life) was ever used as a unit of time in India: there is however, much bovine excrement written about early Indian metrology. The article fails quickly on one very important point: what time did the railways keep under the British Raj? That is a fact which can be shown by contemporary sources that are still in existence, and yet the article hardly even addresses the question. Physchim62 (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The map needs alt text; please see WP:ALT#Maps. I checked just one fact, and found it wanting: "DST was used briefly during the Sino–Indian War of 1962 and the Indo–Pakistani Wars of 1965 and 1971". This cites "India Time Zones"., a website that (as far as I can make out) stole it from another website that borrowed this information from Wikipedia. Eubulides (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in my view after a brief look this article is probably B class. There is no information on railway time in India for example. And I don't think the lead satisfies WP:LEAD -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS Certainly the WP:GACR will need to be checked to make sure this article meets those criteria. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would the article need to meet the good article criteria? What it needs to meet to be kept at FA are the featured article criteria. Dana boomer (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because to be a featured article the article also has to meet every previous set of criteria including the Good Article criteria. Obviously if it fails the good article criteria its not going to meet the featured article criteria, and I think its pretty likely this article fails the Good Article criteria. I think it probably fails 2 and 3a (as there is no coverage of railway time) and possibly some of the Manual of Style criteria. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criterion of concern are lead, citations, depth of research, comprehensiveness. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:43, 5 March 2010 (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 Raul654 00:09, 15 March 2010 [12].

Battle of Smolensk (1943)

Review commentary

Notified: WikiProjects and nominator/author.

The article lacks references in many places. Secondly, it needs to be checked for possible pro-USSR bias. The "liberate/liberation" is used everywhere to describe the Soviet victory, and maybe the sources are systematically responsible for this. More than half the citations are from a Mr Istomin who wrote the official USSR military's version of events of WWII "Operations of Soviet Armed Forces in the Great Patriotic War: 1941-1945" and others are from the USSR's military Journal from the height of the Cold War. Given this, I would question whether these sources could possibly be RS, or whether they should just be classified as a primary source. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Delist

Lots of uncited paragraphs, nothing on force ratios. I'm not too worried about the Soviets sources being RS or primary sources, as they simply don't meet the definition of the latter and are likely biased in terms of NPOV. But cross-checked against Western sources like Glantz's Forgotten Battles, Ziemke, Erickson, etc. they should be usable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments' I agree with YellowMoney's comments in the nomination. In addition, I'd add:
    • The number of red links is excessive - it would appear that this article was edited by Mrg3105 (talk · contribs)
    • While most of Wikipedia's coverage of the Eastern Front is overly reliant on German sources and gives too much weight to the German side of the story, this article has the opposite problem and there's very little on the German experiences in the battle Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist

  • Comments
  • Sources/NPOV: the article has serious point of view issues. Yes, most of WP's coverage of the Eastern Front relies on German sources, this one relies too much on Russian sources. There are no evident German sources in this. There should be a campaign box, and the titles of the battles probably should not be "Liberation" of whatever, but Battle of whatever. I don't have as much problem with the redlinks, but possibly they are "red" because they are not linked to the proper article; this would take some time to fix.
  • Prose: it isn't particularly well written, certainly not to the standard the FA has become, although it may have been sufficient then.
  • Citations have ibid, which is a no-no for current standards
Do we have a project task force that can tackle this whole eastern front thing? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criterion of concern are POV, citations, images YellowMonkey (Southern Stars photo poll) 06:08, 11 February 2010 (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 Raul654 00:09, 15 March 2010 [13].

Canadian federal election, 1993

Review commentary

Notified: WikiProjects and author

This article lacks citations in many sections, particuarly in attribution reasons and motives for actions by voters and politicians. Secondly some of these describe BLP politicians, often describing their actions negatively YellowMonkey (Southern Stars photo poll) 06:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

FARC commentary

Featured article criterion of concern are citations and images YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:26, 25 February 2010 (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 Raul654 00:09, 15 March 2010 [14].

Søren Kierkegaard

Review commentary

Notified: Poor Yorick, WikiProject Psychology, WikiProject Denmark, WikiProject Christianity, WikiProject Philosophy

I am nominating this featured article for review because it no longer meets the FA criteria. It has been three long years, and while FA has evolved, the article has not. The main issue is 2c), as parts of the article are entirely unreferenced, and most parts lack some referencing. Other issues include the lead not being too short, and even finishing off with a one-sentence paragraph (2a). The images lack alt-text, at one point the images sandwich the text and all the portraits have the eyes looking out of the article (they are wrongly aligned). Why there needs to be two shots of the same grave, I do not know, particularly when the one is of rather bad composition. The texts consist of eleven (unless i counted wrong) rather long quotes in two styles, most that add nothing to the understanding of the article, or merely seem to function as either decoration or an attempt to "educate" the reader through excessive use of primary sources. For instance the section "Kierkegaard and Christianity" consists almost entirely of a bulleted list of prose and quotes. There is a lot of overlinking, for instance Denmark is suddenly linked in the middle of the article, and Danish State Church is linked several times, even when they are very close. Concerning specific points in the text, I don't quite understand why I would confuse the two Schlegels. There is also incorrect use of italics in the "Kierkegaard and Christianity" section. The article seems to have an excessive number of external links, of varying quality. The four see-also links should be weaved into the article text, to provide context. The biography should be put in a table, and ref. 47 is incorrectly formatted. In the bibliography section, "P. Houe and Gordon D. Marino ed." is linked. Arsenikk (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 47 (Kierkegaard's Reception in Japan) Corrected
Merged one-sentence paragraph into larger paragraph
Bibliography "P. Houe and Gordon D. Marino ed." unlinked, made consistent
Pruned external links to 7, corrected links
See also links integrated into article
Added alt-text to images, except in infobox which already has a caption for alt images
removed duplicate image of grave
reduced number of quotation boxes and re-integrated into main text
expanded lead

Aside from referencing 2c and SK and Christianity part, which I will get to later, are there any other comments on the article? Poor Yorick (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Debulletized SK and Christianity.
Added references

-- Poor Yorick (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Please arrange the images so that the people look into the article. Just three comments on the images:

Issues addressed, Details filed in for images. Poor Yorick (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, nice to see that there is enthusiasm to get the article up to standards, and that action was quickly taken to counter the comments. There are still many paragraphs and sentences without references, and these need to be filled in. I have gone slightly more viciously through the article and have some more comments:

  • The article says "Danish National Church", but the article refers to it as both the "Church of Denmark", the "Danish People's Church" and the "Danish State Church". Normally such institutions (particularly in Scandinavia) have an official translation of their name into English, and we should stick to it. Also, this institution is wikilinked several times.
-Will link to Danish National Church
-Done. Poor Yorick (talk) 06:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have though that "Western Philosophers" (in the infobox) was not a proper noun and therefore should not be capitalized.
  • Under "early life", the article first talks about his father (in relation to his mother), but does not mention his father's name until the end of the paragraph.
  • Describing someone as a "fiercely intelligent man" sounds very subjective and I would like to have seen multiple sources support such a claim.
-It's the phrase used by Garff, but will look for other references that support the meaning of that claim
  • Ref 13 should be after the comma.
  • The sentence "Though five of his seven children died before he did, both Søren and his brother Peter Christian Kierkegaard, seven years his elder who later became bishop in Aalborg, outlived him." needs to be split up—there is too much to digest and it needs to be read twice to be understood.
  • I do not see the encyclopedic value of the quote about his father.
- One quote each for two of SK's most important influences, his father's death and the love for his ex-fiancee.
  • The article uses two different styles of blockquote—please stick to only one.
  • Copenhagen is suddenly linked in the section on Regine Olsen.
  • "Governor" in the way used here is not capitalized.
  • "On the Concept of Irony with Continual Reference to Socrates" is overlinked, as is "Johan Frederik Schlegel".
  • "Kierkegaard-Olsen relationship" should use an endash instead of a hyphen.
  • The quote about Regine seems a bit off topic. It seems unencyclopedic to use quotes in the life section.
- One quote each for two of SK's most important influences, his father and ex-fiancee.
  • I do not understand the capitalization in "The Rational is the Real and the Real is the Rational".
  • The image of Regine and the caricature should both be aligned to the right, so the faces and eyes look into the page.
  • In "On 22 December 1845, a young author of Kierkegaard's generation who studied at the University of Copenhagen at the same time as Kierkegaard", there should be a comma before "who".
-Rearranged noun location
  • I don't know if "ire" is a common enough term to be used on Wikipedia.
-It's still a valid English word
Perfectly good word in my opinion. I think it should stay. (Ice Explorer (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • In "In all, Kierkegaard wrote two small pieces in response to Møller", the "in all" should be redundant.
  • Are really the two responses worthy of an article? If they are, I would suggest creating at least a stub on them.
-Will do
  • The sentence "In a journal entry made on March 9, 1846, Kierkegaard makes a long, detailed explanation of his attack on Møller and The Corsair, and also explains that this attack made him rethink his strategy of indirect communication." should be in past tense, like the rest of the prose.
  • The sentence "It is important to realise that by Christendom Kierkegaard meant not Christianity itself, but rather the church and the applied religion of his society." need an extra comma. However, another issue is that it is not considered appropriate for us to say what is important and not, so try to use a more neutral phrase or just stating the fact.
  • The sentence "At Kierkegaard's funeral, his nephew Henrik Lund caused a disturbance by protesting that Kierkegaard was being buried by the official church, which he would never have approved, had he been alive, as he had broken from and denounced it." is a bit too long.

I've looked through the lead and "life", but lack of time at the moment forces me to return with feedback of the rest of the article later. Arsenikk (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the specific list, Arsenikk. I've addressed about half of these, leaving the more substantive editorial decisions and the ones I was unsure of for Poor Yorick.  Skomorokh  20:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will look into some more. Poor Yorick (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Red links

I created an article for Adolph Peter Adler and I'll work on some of the other red links. (Ice Explorer (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Template:Infobox philosopher does not have alt text parameters, so we cannot add ALT for File:Kierkegaard.jpg and File:Kierkegaard sig.png. Corrected ALT-Text for the rest of the images. Poor Yorick (talk) 06:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding alt text. Template:Infobox philosopher does have alt text parameters now: I just added |signature_alt=, and it already had an (undocumented) |image_alt=, so you can add alt text for its two images now. The alt text for the other images is mostly good, but I'll comment on the problems I found:
  • For File:Manuscript philosophical fragments.png the alt text says "Philosophical Fragments" but the image says something else. Please transcribe what the image actually says ("Philosophiske Smuler ..."), rather than translating it into English; this is as per WP:ALT#Text and WP:ALT#Verifiability. (The translation is already in the caption anyway.) The alt text also says "No. 12" but the actual text is "Nr. 12 a"; please transcribe the original. I suggest transcribing the entire title rather than just some of it, and to spell out the mispelling and the correction.
  • For File:Søren Kierkegaard i Corsaren.jpg please remove the the word "Kierkegaard" from the alt text, as per WP:ALT#Verifiability and WP:ALT#Repetition.
  • For the alt text "Excerpt of three paragraphs of The Sickness Unto Death; written in Kierkegaard's handwriting." please keep the "three paragraphs" and "written" and "handwriting" but remove everything else, and replace it with a description of what's in the image (the removed stuff cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the image, as per WP:ALT#Verifiability).
  • Similarly, for File:Kierkegaard olavius.jpg please remove the phrases "Kierkegaard" (3 occurrences) and "by Christian Olavius", as per WP:ALT#Verifiability.
  • "Title Page" should be "Title page".
  • "Enten-Eller" should be "Enten – Eller" (spaced endash; I guess that's an endash, right?)
  • "SOREN KIERKEGAARD" should be "SØREN KIERKEGAARD" (two instances)
  • "the Danish National Church" should be removed as per WP:ALT#Verifiability.
Please let me strike my own comments after you've fixed the problem. And thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 06:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Poor Yorick (talk) 08:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I struck the above comments. Almost done. Now for the recently-added text:
  • The alt text for the lead image should say a bit about what Kierkegaard looked like, in particular that hair that rises straight up about 8 cm, and also that he's a young man, the high forehead, and the triangular face. It should also say it's just a head-and-shoulders portrait. Please see WP:ALT#Portraits for guidance.
  • "of Kierkegaard by Niels Christian Kierkegaard" needs to be removed, as per WP:ALT#Verifiability.
  • You can remove "Kierkegaard's signature, which reads:". Or at least please remove the initial "Kierkegaard's" there, as it's redundant.
  • "A Building" should be "A building", and "A Statue" "A statue".
Eubulides (talk) 09:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the first point, I'm just using the template from Mary Bartelme in WP:ALT Portraits for the first image; probably shouldn't be estimating using precise measurements like 8 cm. Otherwise, Done. Poor Yorick (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What? we can't just say that his hair looks like Syndrome's? Anyway, thanks for doing all that; it looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criterion concerns are referencing, lead, MOS. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing, Lead, and MOS addressed in specific points made above. Please list additional items if any below. If there are no additional items, please close FARC. Poor Yorick (talk) 03:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: there is far too much uncited text still. As but one example (there are many) of text that needs citing,
  • Kierkegaard's vision of the world was that it was composed of an endless variety of subjective alternate realities, forcing one to jump and proclaim one's choice of a direct and immediately accessible reality, rather than conflationary versions commonly tethered.

There are also citation cleanup needs, which can be worked on once the article is fully cited. Also, incorrect use of WP:ITALICS throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would like assistance in determining which paragraphs need specific reference and are contentious sentences, otherwise as per WP:REF, we would be following General Reference, simplying "adding the citation at the end." Poor Yorick (talk) 09:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is using author-date APA style referencing, it would help to know exactly which paragraphs do not conform to APA style. Poor Yorick (talk) 09:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's using inline footnotes/citations not parenthetical ones. I was asking why they just go to a book without specifiying which of hte possibly hundreds of pages it is. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In APA style inline referencing, you only need the author and date, not the page number, except when using direct quotations, which are already done in references such as #17, #43, and #44. I see #8 and #32 doesn't have any page numbers, I will fix those ones. Poor Yorick (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been brought up to current Featured article criteria since its nomination in December by Arsenikk.

  • 1c has been addressed: statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, including contentious material about living persons, and for all direct quotations have been referenced and cited. This article is not about a living person and the biographies of Kierkegaard already support significant amounts of the material, as per WP:REF#General reference. The article is not subject to ongoing edit wars regarding challenged statements as per 1e.
  • 2a has been addressed: a single sentence paragraph for the lead has been expanded
  • 2c has been addressed: the article uses citations, footnotes and references in author-date APA style.
  • 3 has been addressed: images now have alt-text tags. Copyright status for all images have been confirmed to be Public Domain or other acceptable licenses in the US and countries which use the life of the author + 50 years or less.

Cheers, Poor Yorick (talk) 06:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per verifiability concernsComments

  • The referencing style is still erratic. Some split references are used that give "Author Year: Page" in the notes and complete information in the references section. Others give full information in both notes and references, but they are in different formats. Others give full information in the notes with nothing in the references. And still others give full information in the references section but nothing in the notes section. They need to be standardized to use one format (I personally perfer the first, with short refs in the notes and full refs in the references, but it's up to you). Books that are not used for in-line citations should be moved to a "further reading" section.
I'll look into that ---Reformatted and standarized to (Author, Date), Done
  • Although I believe you are correct that true APA style referencing doesn't use page numbers, for an FA-status article on Wikipedia you need them. At least a page range (or sometimes a chapter, if it's short) is needed, so that readers know where to go in a book; this is especially true if it's a long book.
WP:FA? does not list the requirement that author-page must be used, not author-date as in APA style. APA is still an acceptable citation style as per WP:CITE. In APA style, page numbers are needed only for direct quotations.
APA style does not necessarily say that it is always author-date. Per WP:CITE, the same page you quote, "You should identify any part of a source that you quote, paraphrase or cite; in the case of a book, specify the page number(s)." and "comprising only the surname of the author(s) and the year of publication, and possibly page numbers (APA style)...Using author-date parenthetical references, the inline citation usually looks like: (Author 2006:28) or (Author 2006, p. 28)."
In that same page: "There are a number of citation styles. They all include the same information but vary in punctuation and the order of the author's name, publication date, title, and page numbers. Any of these styles is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as each article is internally consistent." I've just now made the article internally consistent in APA style, as per WP:FA? "In parenthetical citations, a short version of the citation is added in parentheses just after the point it is supporting, comprising only the surname of the author(s) and the year of publication, and possibly page numbers (APA style)" Page numbers are only needed in direct quotations. (APA Style#citation)
As for the first comment, yes, they vary in the order of these things, not whether or not they are included (and, please read "they all include the same information"). As for the second, please don't link to the wiki page about APA style to make your case, as citing mainspace wiki pages shows nothing. Instead, link to a internal Wikipedia guideline/policy that says APA style referencing doesn't have to include page numbers. Dana boomer (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing: "Under the author-date referencing system, a book is cited in the text in parentheses, after the section, sentence, or paragraph for which the book was used as a source, using the surname of the author and the year of publication only, with the parentheses closing before the period, as in (Author 2005). A complete citation is then placed at the end of the text in an alphabetized list of "References"."
Wikipedia:CITE: "Two forms of parenthetical referencing may also be used in Wikipedia: author-date referencing (APA style, Harvard style, or Chicago style); and author-title or author-page referencing (MLA style or Chicago style)." We are using author-date referencing (APA).
Wikipedia:Inline citation: "Harvard reference (also known as Parenthetical referencing), is the simplest way to cite sources not online. Such citations usually appear following punctuation. Various formats are seen, e.g. (author, date), author (date):page, etc. Such citations are often superscripted." This article is using the format example used in the former, NOT the latter.
Wikipedia:Inline_citation/examples#Simple parenthetical referencing: "(Smith 2000), or (Smith 2000), or (Smith 2000)" are acceptable.
Wikipedia:CITE: "You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected." The article had no referencing style before 2006 (November 2005: [15])! I brought the article to FA status in 2006 using APA style, not MLA style. I'm so tired of having to keep reiterating this point regarding APA! Poor Yorick (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dana, if the Featured article criteria says we must use MLA, I will use it, but as long as we're free to use any citation as long as they are consistent, I will use APA. Poor Yorick (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The featured article criteria does not specify a reference formatting, as I'm sure you know. However, as I wasn't sure what the correct answer was on this, I asked a couple of the sourcing/MOS gurus from FAC, to see what their thoughts were. User:Ealdgyth said that "Everything needs page numbers, unless it's a journal article/pamplet.", while User:SandyGeorgia said "there are cases where we don't use page numbers, for example when citing journals in medical articles, but we generally do need them", but said she would stop by the review in the next few days to look more closely. Dana boomer (talk) 02:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The general rule is that page numbers are needed if the source is too long to expect a reader to scan through the whole thing to verify a claim that is supported by just a part of the work. "Long" is a relative term here, of course, but the usual rule is that journal articles and book chapters are "short", whereas journals and books themselves are "long". This isn't a matter of policy, but it is a good guideline; see, for example Wikipedia:Citing sources #Identifying parts of a source. Eubulides (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input Dana and Eubuildes. As soon as Featured Article Criteria lists page numbers as a requirment for an article to be Featured, I'll make sure to add those page numbers in. Besides that, is there anything else with the article? Poor Yorick (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes ref #35 (Lowrie, Walter) a reliable reference? Also, Lowrie is not the author. They used his work, but I don't think he actually wrote the page.
Corrected Lowrie ref with source from his actual book. Lowrie is reliable as he was one of the first scholars on Kierkegaard. That webpage was not.
  • What makes ref #53 (Søren Kierkegaard's Journal Commentary) a reliable reference? The author admits on his "about us" page that he is an amateur who is mainly self-taught. Same for #27, 66.
D. Anthony Storm is a tertiary source, as Mr. Storm uses secondary sources as well. He is not a fork of Wikipedia or based on any forks of wiki related sites. As per WP:Reliable: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources." Mr. Storm is used three times only in this article and thus does not constitute the bulk of the article.
It doesn't matter whether he constitutes the bulk of the article if he's not reliable, which as an amateur, I don't believe he is. Tertiary sources cannot be included in a FA just because they are supposedly based on secondary information, just as primary sources cannot be included in an article without a mention that they are indeed primary sources (i.e. "Edith said xyz(primary reference)" in an article about Edith Roosevelt). To prove that Mr. Storm is a reliable source, you must show that he is an expert in his field, having been published in peer-reviewed journals, acting as a professor in the subject, having been mentioned as an expert by major news organizations, etc.
If there are reliable source replacements I'll look for them. ---Done
  • What makes ref #67 (Georg Brandes) a reliable reference?
Mr. Brandes is a well respected Danish scholar and one of the first scholars on Kierkegaard. The site is an acceptable tertiary source summarizing his life.
I'm not doubting that Brandes is a respected scholar. However, what makes the site a reliable reference on Brandes? What fact checking do they do? Who writes the articles? What expertise does the author have in writing articles/writing about Brandes?
If there are reliable source replacements I'll look for them. ---Done
  • Not necessary, but have you considered splitting the informational notes out from the referential notes? This may make both easier to read and navigate, but it's up to you.
I'll look into that --- Now that references are cleaner and standardized, informational and referential notes are easier to make out.
  • I've added several fact tags, each accompanied by a hidden comment that explains my rationale.
Referenced those facts.
  • There is still unneeded italicization in the article, for example "most trusted confidant" in the Journals section.
Got it, let me know of other unneeded italicization.
I think this is done, but Sandy is the MOS person, so I'll leave this out until she gives the all clear, especially considering she was the one that raised the concern in the first place.
  • I'm going to try to find some other philosphy/psychology type people to comment on this. I'm not a content expert, so I'm hoping to get someone in who really knows the subject to be able to pick out any problems that I don't find. I haven't done a check of the prose yet, so once the above are taken care of, that will still need to be done.
There are people checking prose and factual info such as Skomorokh and Laser Brain (Andy)
I see. I have already dropped a note to Skomorokh asking him to comment here. However, if they are not major contributors to the article, you may want to ask them to comment here when their concerns have been addressed. Without keep votes, the article will stay in limbo for quite some time. By asking content, prose and sourcing experts to comment here (neutrally, of course, to avoid any appearance of canvassing), the review can be closed faster and we can all go about our lives :)

Overall a nice article, and it looks like you've put a lot of work into it, but still some effort needed before it is back to FA status. Dana boomer (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is already FA status, it just needs a few minor corrections. Cheers, Poor Yorick (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More replies above. Dana boomer (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replied above. Poor Yorick (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for having taken so long to get back to this review. As I have said above, SandyGeorgia has promised to stop by in the next few days to look over the article, and I have dropped another note to Skomorokh noting his contributions to the FARC section and asking him to come back and give us his opinion on the current state of the article. Dana boomer (talk) 02:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Besides all the points raised earlier in this review, are there any new questions about this article? Poor Yorick (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay; I'll look at other things once page numbers are provided. Page nos. are given on book citations, but not on journal articles or online news sources. (See WP:CITE). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, Sandy, as per Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing: "When citing books and articles, provide page numbers where appropriate. Page numbers must be included in a citation that accompanies a specific quotation from or a paraphrase or reference to a specific passage of a book or article." The article DOES indeed use page numbers in such cases in references like #49, #84, #87, #99. But in general: "Under the author-date referencing system, a book is cited in the text in parentheses, after the section, sentence, or paragraph for which the book was used as a source, using the surname of the author and the year of publication only". The article referential notes do include the surname of the author and the year of publication only. WP:CITE allows usage of this referencing system: "Two forms of parenthetical referencing may also be used in Wikipedia: author-date referencing (APA style, Harvard style, or Chicago style); and author-title or author-page referencing (MLA style or Chicago style)." (emphasis added) Poor Yorick (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have no one opining that this FA should be Kept, four editors asking for page numbers, and for some reason, they aren't being provided. This looks to be an invitation for someone to cite tag the article for specific places where full citation is needed (which is not usually done at FAR). I'm unclear what the issue is here: do you not have the sources ? Why are you wikilawyering a citation system, when providing the page numbers is easier and quicker, and four editors have asked for them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is using APA style, and it was promoted to FA using this style. As long as APA is allowed, I will use this style. If FA says APA is not allowed, I will use MLA Poor Yorick (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What the article was promoted as isn't what is under discussion here; on older FAs, specific citation wasn't expected or required. You have an enormous list of books in the references (are all of those really used in the citations? If not, they should be moved to "Further reading"), but you won't provide page nos, so you're essentially saying that anyone who wants to verify the article has to read the enormous list of books given in References. WP:V; readers need to be able to verify content. Do you not have access to the books? If you can't verify this article, neither can we, and neither can our readers-- and more importantly, if you don't have access to the books, how can we be assured content is represented accurately? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All references are used, as the notes refer to those specific books. I realize WP:V says it must be verified, that what I used back in 2006. The books are all indexed, as this is a scholarly subject, so readers do not need to scan the entire book. In addition, much of these books can be verified using Google Books if readers need to verify. The point is Wikipedia Policy allows APA citation styles to be used, I have referenced the books used in this article, and where needed by APA, page numbers are provided as I have mentioned earlier. Poor Yorick (talk) 05:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Four different editors have disagreed with your wikilawyered approach. The choices now are 1) provide the page nos, 2) others tag the article where page nos are needed, or 3) reviewers enter Delist declarations because the article does not meet WP:V, verifiability. The choice is yours. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will take option 2. Long live APA. Poor Yorick (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2010 (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 Raul654 00:09, 15 March 2010 [16].

Music of Minnesota

Review commentary

Notified: Listed Wikiprojects. Author long inactive.

Article has large passages that are compeltely unsourced. Many of the sources used, such as Myspace, and other ad hoc sites are far from RS. There is an undue weight on very modern music. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 02:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Research Quality related issues

http://204.169.52.42/history/ is not a secondary source published by a RS. Its tertiary linkspam.
SELF: "History of the Minnesota Opera". Minnesota Opera. Retrieved February 9 2006.
Unsigned Tertiary: Levy, Mark; Carl Rahkonen and Ain Haas. "Scandinavian and Baltic Music". Garland Encyclopedia of World Music, Volume Two. New York and London: Garland Publishin
Dead: "History". First Avenue. Retrieved January 5 2006.
Dead: "Pulse of the Twin Cities". Pulse of the Twin Cities. Retrieved February 9 2006.
Deliberately unreliable publisher, take the work to RS/N: Blush, Steven (2001). American Hardcore: A Tribal History. Feral House. ISBN 0-92291-571-7
Primary/SELF: "School of Music". University of Minnesota. Retrieved January 30 2006.
SELF: "About the Minnesota Orchestra". Minnesota Orchestra. Retrieved February 8 2006.

Citation Quality related issues

Grossly and completely unacceptable footnotes. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have gone and tagged everything I saw unfit. I snipped "As well, prominent serious composers resident in the state include Libby Larsen, Stephen Paulus, and Timothy Mahr" from the intro because they're mentioned nowhere else in the article, and cut out a bunch of crud while slapping {{fact}} and other maintenance tags left and right. This is the most tagging I've done in my life. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This amount of tagging is troubling; it's not necessary to deface an article to achieve the aims of FAR. A good practice is to tag a bit, and then tag more depending on whether someone works on the article. Also, please keep in the mind that the level of scholarship required for an article depends on the topic; in an article of this nature, we might expect less than scholarly sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First of all, wow. That has to be one of the most annoying, unnecessary tag-bombings I have ever seen. It would have been much easier to put a note here or on the talk page that stated "Please check the red links for notability", and just put the citation needed tags after groups of sentences that needed referencing, rather than after every single sentence. I do agree that the article is very short on citations, has questionable sources (Ref #14, Anderson Jr., G.R, is a blog), needs referencing formatting, and need work on the prose and deciding whether all of the included information is relevant to the article. The external links section could use a cleaning, and the lead could stand to be expanded. Also, File:Slug-Atmosphere-20030727.jpg (the image of Atmosphere), needs a description. Dana boomer (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also redundant tagging; it's not necessary to tag the top of a section as well as individual items within the section-- one or the other. And then the top of the article as well. I do think this is the most defacement I've ever seen of an article at FAR, and don't find it helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went back and removed all the {{Off-topic?}} tags and a couple other redundant tags. I think that most of the other maintenance tags should stand. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When there are a lot of problems, it isn't usually necessary to tag everywhere, as highlighting tools are usually to point out the abnormal, but if unsourced parts are the norm...Still I think in Louisville, Kentucky, one of the topic custodians asked for everything to be tagged to remind him, and about 80% of the article was tagged YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 03:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This one definitely needs every tag I put on it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, TPH, for removing a large portion of the tags. Between the ones still left and the comments on this page, interested editors should be able to get a good feel for what needs to be done on the article. If someone pops up during the review phase to work on the article, we can always add more tags after the ones already there have been taken care of. Dana boomer (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The fair-use rationales for the audio clips are far too weak. They bear little relevance to Minnesota, and not enough in my opinion to merit inclusion. These groups are not influenced by Minnesota or strongly connected to Minnesota in the public mind. They draw their influences from other sources. Simiarly, the article as a whole appears to be a miscellaneous collection of Minnesota-related snippets rather than an encyclopedic treatment of a defined topic. DrKiernan (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, copyright. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 02:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. In 24 hours we went to today from yesterday. Sorry to come in so late. Think we'll make it? -SusanLesch (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you've made a great start on improving the article. When interest is shown in improving the article, the FARC can, and will, be held open as long as necessary. The process is more about improving articles to current standards rather than delisting them. Dana boomer (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's great news! I am in Minneapolis for a couple weeks and have access to the public library if need be. Thanks very much. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see work is underway now, and good progress is being made. I've done a bit of MoS and citation cleanup. I've encountered several claims about bands, etc. sourced to themselves; care must be taken that claims are cited to independent reliable sources, and this will need review. Why was this section deleted? Byron is listed in citations but not in references. Curious about choice of musical genre and those that are missing: no opera, musical theatre, etc? For example, UMinn's BFA in musical theatre is not mentioned in the education section, and the word "Guthrie" doesn't appear anywhere in the article (!! Live at the Guthrie concert series), so more work will be needed on comprehensiveness. Also, attention to notability is needed: any group, organization, festival, etc mentioned here should only be here if it meets Wiki notability, but there is an absence of redlinks in the article. Anything notable should be redlinked, anything not notable shouldn't be included. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, thanks a lot for your help. I think most of the bands are cited to Billboard or City Pages or to a book now. I made some drastic cuts to the venues lists and the list of festivals (most seem to be defunct) and cut the section on electronic/dance music (none of them were cited). Byron fixed. To answer your question, "popular music" didn't seem like a type of music, so the text of that section moved to rock. I don't see musical theater in the source for UofM ("Degree programs") but would be happy to add it if it turns up. The Guthrie is mostly a theater I think, but I will add it since you found a Rosanne Cash concert. The tag used to say the article had too many red links so I took them out. I understand there are other viewpoints so can add some back if you like. Also, one of the music samples was missing a source so it is nominated for deletion. Rationale for fair use has been added to the only one left. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that info about redlinks was completely incorrect (see FAR above), and redlinks should be re-established where notability is met (see WP:RED). Here's UMinn BFA Musical Theatre: [17], although you may locate a better source. What is happening with the jazz section? Also, Guthrie has a musical concert series; is that not well known there (see link I provided above). Looking much better now! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if worth including, but ... "The Live at the Guthrie concert series has a long-standing history of providing patrons with an eclectic mix of high-caliber music and comedy appealing to a wide range of audiences. Illustrious performers such as James Taylor, Elton John, Robin Williams, Lyle Lovett and the Indigo Girls all performed at the Guthrie in the early years of their careers. More recent performers have included Al Green, Keb' Mo' and Chris Botti."[18] Might need an independent source if added. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three red links added. Jazz section added but one source is to the Peterson family itself. You know when the Guthrie and Walker were next door to each other, concerts there did matter a great deal. The promoter only lists one concert there now (Roseanne Cash). -SusanLesch (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image of Prince on top works in Firefox but I don't know about IE? -SusanLesch (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whew, thank you, Cirt. Any area that you think needs work? Some of those short or one-sentence sections have been rolled into bigger ones. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Queries (questions, not suggestions):
  1. Would Dylan make a better lead image than Prince?
    I agree Dylan is a more important artist, but not in relation to Minnesota. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm not clear on the demarcation between Blues and Rhythm and blues; can these two sections be combined into "Rhythm and blues" (and the term "R&B" needs to be defined and linked).
    Wikilinks added for both genres. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The Music in the US template in the lead is still doing something strange to formatting (large text offset): I don't know how to fix it.
    Bummer. In what browser? -SusanLesch (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    IE8; if no one knows how to fix it, I'll ask Gimme. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK maybe he or she can help. I don't have IE anymore. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The article needs an image and alt text review; if no one does it, I'll ping some people.
    I expect you'll have to ping someone. I added alt text for everything here. -SusanLesch (talk)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. I took a quick look at the alt text.

  • Three images still lack alt text (please see the "alt text" button at upper right of this review page); can you please fix them?
  • Verifiability and repetition. In general, alt text should not contain proper names or other material unless they're obvious to a non-expert (please see WP:ALT#Proper names and WP:ALT#Verifiability), should not duplicate the caption (see WP:ALT#Repetition), so could you please reword and/or remove the following phrases: "Prince", "cast members", "MacPhail building" ("MAC PHAIL SCHOOL" suffices), "MacPhail building" (duplicates caption), "First Avenue", "1st Avenue", "Prudence Johnson", "Keillor".
  • Essence. Please briefly describe what William MacPhail looks like in his image (see WP:ALT#Portraits) rather than wasting time on not-that-relevant details such as "circular" and "upper right", and please describe the modern MacPhail building rather than wasting time on the cyclist (see WP:ALT#Essence, in particular the example of how not to describe the Abbey Road building). The alt text for File:MPR-2006-12-19.jpg should briefly mention the context for the electric sign, since most of the image is devoted to that context. For File:KBR label.JPG the alt text should mention that the label and logo are circular, as that's the most striking visual aspect. Portraits should briefly state the gender and approximate age of the people being pictured; see WP:ALT#Portraits for guidance.
  • Punctuation. Please see WP:ALT#Punctuation for advice on punctuation (it should be similar to captions).

Eubulides (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should Judy Garland have a mention? Are any of the sources listed about midpage here worht exploring? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Garland added, with picture. Thanks very much for a good idea!
I don't see any important missed sources right away (and now have a list of things from Elcobbola to deal with). -SusanLesch (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: numerous criterion three issues:
    • File:Prince-crop.jpg - Appears to be a copyvio [19]
      Wow! Good work finding that! How did you ever find it? I can replace with another portrait. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      To bore you: I got lucky this was from a show in Switzerland. My computer/OS/browser/etc are German, so Google searches return German language results. This was in an article called Letzte Zuckungen der Popkultur des 20. Jahrhunderts, which gave me the AP author's name, so I could locate an English language source. Эlcobbola talk 20:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:ApolloClub.jpg - Source is a deadlink. Archive.org version does not provide a publication date. Publication and creation are not the same thing; how can we verify pre-1.1.1923 publication?
      The Minneapolis Public Library was taken over by Hennepin County, who moved the link. The MPL History of Minneapolis on "Music" is here. Applies to this one and the next one. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Link is fixed, but it doesn't address the issue of needing a publication date. Эlcobbola talk 20:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Removed. I don't know when it was published. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Not striken by me, but I agree it's resolved (removed). Эlcobbola talk 21:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:MacPhail.jpg - Source is a deadlink.
      Found again, see previous. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:The Ordway Center.jpg - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP (for self-made works, which this presumably is, this means an explicit assertion of authorship. A PD-self license is not sufficient).
      Removing this one. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:KBR label.JPG - Is a derivative work. The threshold of originality is quite low; the Kay Bank logo may be sufficiently original to be eligible for copyright protection.
      Removed.
    • File:Highspirits.jpg - WP:DUCK copyvio. A drive-by upload and only contribution from a red link. Highly doubtful this user is indeed a representative of Amos Records and/or has authorization to license on its behalf. This would need an OTRS ticket. (The High Spirits article, by the way, indicates the band's label to be Soma Records, not Amos.)
      Removed.
    • File:Orch hall.jpg - Needs a verifiable source. As per above, an explicit assertion of authorship is needed. A hitherto deleted en.wiki page is not sufficient.
      I can ask the author, who is I believe still active, to address this one.
      That would be fine; it's an easily remediable issue. Эlcobbola talk 20:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, that's one of mine. RxS (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Just a note, the explicit assertion of authorship was performed when I released it into the public domain and linked it (via the act of uploading) to my userpage. I'm not sure what deleted en.wiki page is being refered to but if it's my userpage, it's still there. If there's some other assertion I need to make let me know but it appears to me that the act of licensing it as I did should be fine for these purposes. RxS (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      The image was deleted from en.wiki - log. The image is now a Commons shine through. Because of a poorly-written transfer script, it now credits you as the uploader, which isn't necessarily the same as being its author. You are indeed the author, so all that's needed is a verbiage change to make that clear. It's not an issue of the license you chose, but making clear that you are authorized to chose such a license (we want that clarity because of the common issue people have of believing derivative works are theirs to license as they chose). Эlcobbola talk 13:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Эlcobbola, I edited the image page in the commons to say that RxS is the author. He or she doesn't have a commons account. Seems to me that should be fine? -SusanLesch (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Prince-How Come U Don't Call Me Anymore.ogg - NFCC#10C requires a "specific" rationale and WP:FURG, incorporated therein by reference, requires a "detailed" rationale. Current rationale is ambiguous and does not articulate the contribution to the reader's understanding. That notwithstanding, I'm very hard pressed to believe a free demonstration of Minnesota music (NFCC#1) could not be obtained.
      Removed. By the way, free music doesn't equate to what is being deleted.
      Depends on how one defines "equal" (of course Prince is unique), but, for the purposes of MN music, there are no doubt free songs that could make the same contribution to reader understanding of this particular topic (not to mention free and non-free media alike that are better suited, e.g. "The Fair" by Anne Reed - "Minnesota, Minnesota, we are south of Manitoba, east of North Dakota, ...") Эlcobbola talk 20:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't know that song, but have seen Ms. Reed. Do you have a source? -SusanLesch (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, but not a free one; I have the song on Keepers, which is a MPR Morning Show CD. It's got to be from the early 90s; I dont know whether they're still made/sold. Эlcobbola talk 21:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Here is the Reed song and a few others. Thanks for the clue. Since neither is free, I stick by what I said before, that this doesn't equate to what was deleted (a soul solo isn't the same as a folk ditty that happens to include the name of the state). Sorry. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry. Quite. A song irrelevant to Minnesota by someone who merely happens to be from the state and a song about a prominent aspect of Minnesota culture by someone who merely happens to be from the state are indeed not equal. It was brought up merely because the Prince song was a particularly injudicious choice. No need to belabor a moot point, as neither are acceptable. Эlcobbola talk 01:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Flickr - moses namkung - Atmosphere 1.jpg - Something's fishy here. The source Flickr page indicates all rights are reserved; it received a Flickr review on 24 December 2009, however, clearing the CC-by 2.0 license. Very curious that the Flickr user would have changed the license in the short period of time between now and then, especially as the image has been on Flickr since August. All other images in the Flickr user's photostream reserve all rights. MBot has been known to make mistakes. Эlcobbola talk 17:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is weird at all. People change their Flickr licenses whenever they like. I've been in this situation myself--sent a Flickr user an email and had them change the rights on all of their photographs. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The weirdness is not that it changed, but the time frame. As is, it isn't an opposable (delistable?) issue and was included here for completeness, but article's exemplifying our best work are better off without these sorts of issues. Remedies would be to contact the Flickr user to confirm the change and file with OTRS, or find an alternative image. If the image is to stay, I wouldn't object over it, but I'd leave it unstricken for others to consider. Эlcobbola talk 20:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with an image where the author changed his license for Wikipedia. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist? Would you like to revisit that? -SusanLesch (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good, but now the quality of the image in the lead is poor-- perhaps switching the lead image to Dylan might help? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. I thought that picture of Prince was great--how many people would raise their little finger like that? But swapped for Dylan. :-) -SusanLesch (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iffy.

  • Some of the images are rather dark; many are too small.
  • Yes, I agree with you and have added only a mention of numerous artists. I decided it is better to mention than not. What I am looking for is what Sandy noted above--the input of anyone with knowlege of this subject who can say what I left out. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time passes. I have limited time available now to work on this article. I am no longer in Minneapolis (and thus can't run to the library). You can find me at Jeannette Piccard which was delisted from GA without warning. You can ping me on my talk page if you need anything. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, my eye isn't as good as yours but I went through the article top to bottom for spelling and grammar stuff, and went through all of the sources. Fixed my sloppy "p." and "pp." and put the names of papers in italics. -SusanLesch (talk) 06:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi you guys. Although it was really nice of you to keep this FARC open so I had time to cite everything, I don't think it is fair to keep this open indefinitely. A couple days ago I had every source fixed for Sandy. Now we have an IP address adding incomplete sentences and incomplete sources. I will fix everything this person added, but is it too much to ask that this FARC be closed as soon as possible? Thank you. -19:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you to IP address 173.196.66.81 for several additions. Unfortunately links to beatworld.com aren't sufficient to source the electro/dance music section. The two sources that were there are mine and repeat other parts of the article. In any case I kept your other additions, including one really weak source (West Allis High School) because Billboard itself does not maintain a list back that far (1975) past numbers 1 through 10. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yes, we have a new problem now, with an IP editing (for the third time) in ways that will jeopardize FA status. Might as well wait 'til the IP is done to see what can be cleaned up. Seems to be the same IP who made unsourced edits a while back, and since his IP address changes, not much can be done. Unless the article can be semi-protected. But we can't just close a FAR without Keep declarations (although you've done a fine job, Susan, and your efforts are appreciated!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I submit this revision for FARC. I am losing tolerance for other points of view. Including those of you who have failed to register "Keep". -SusanLesch (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is restored to what I can cite for the Electro/Dance section, and keeps the radio section. What are you waiting for? I replied to Sandy on January 25 that I went through this top to bottom. On January 28, all hell broke loose and someone had to semi-protect this. I encourage you guys to please close this FARC as soon as you are able. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Susan. First of all, let me say that I will be going through the article in just a minute to be able to give you any final comments I may have, and will change my "vote" accordingly. Part of the issue with not closing the FARC as promptly as you may wish is that YellowMonkey is the only really active FAR delegate - Joel and Marskell have been away for a while and Raul doesn't usually get involved. As YM was the one who initiated this FAR, he can't be the one to close it. That means that it will have to wait until either 1. New delegates are appointed (a brief mention of this was made on the FAR talk page today, which is the only reason I mention this) or 2. Raul or one of the inactive delegates will have to close it. This, combined with the lack of keep votes, is why the FARC hasn't been closed yet. Sometimes FARCs must hang around for a long while (see some of the articles below this one on the FAR page), before they gather a sufficient number of keeps - this article is not a lone case, so please be patient. As I said before, I should have my own set of comments up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support, pending Comprehensiveness and Source ReviewsComments

  • First of all, I'm not a music expert, and so I can't comment on comprehensiveness. I dropped a note to the Music WP, since they don't seem to have been notified of the FAR, and that note can be found here. Before being kept, this article needs a thorough review by a music expert to make sure that all of the information that needs to be included is and that the sources would all be considered "high quality" by someone in the music world. This is of course supposing that such an expert can be found and would be interested in this work.
  • The lead could use some expanding. Although it is four paragraphs long, which fits with WP:LEAD, all four paragraphs are quite short. The lead needs to be a summary of the entire article, without providing original information.
  • I would still like to see the lead expanded further. However, since it does technically meet the requirements outlined by WP:LEAD, I shall hold my peace for now :)
  • Some books use the short format in-line with more information in the References section, while others have full information in-line. This should be standardized.
  • Ref #69 (IMDB) needs to be fully formatted.
  • Ref #80 (Northern Light "Minnesota" on Billboard chart in "Top Songs from 1975" . West Allis Central High School.) should be sourced to something better than a high school reunion website.
  • I'm questioning the use of Ref #169 (YouTube). Although YouTube itself is not automatically an unreliable source, what gives the account "radiotapes" the right to post this news broadcast? Unless they have specific copyright to this broadcast, they are posting it against copyright, and this makes it unusable as a source.
  • There are several other references I'm not sure about, but I'm not the greatest at picking out unreliable references, so I have dropped a note at User:Ealdgyth's talk page, to see if she has the time to do a sourcing run-through of the article.

These are my initial comments, I will be back to add more comments on the prose after I have done a full run-through of the article. I hope that the notes I have left for various users and WikiProjects will help this article to remain a FA. Dana boomer (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Prose issues:[reply]

  • Lead, "Minneapolis, the northernmost major city on the Mississippi River," what does its location have to do with music?
  • History, "Minneapolis' most famous performers were the descendants of Norwegians Eleonora and Ethel Olson and Ernest and Clarence Iverson (Slim Jim & the Vagabond Kid)" This needs a separation to show that Eleonora etc were the descendents, not that the famous performers descended from them. When I first read it I thought "it's nice to know who the parents were, but who were the performers", until I read it again and realized what it actually meant.
  • Education section. The first paragraph and the first sentence and a half of the second paragraph are largely redundant. These could easily be combined and trimmed of repetition, allowing for tighter, more easily readable prose.
  • Education section. Do no colleges offer anything beyond a bachelors degree in music-related fields? For an example, see the University of Minnesota's website here which offers both masters and doctoral degrees in music.
  • Venues, "a few venues catering to all ages crowds," This is rather awkwardly worded, perhaps "crowds of all ages"?
  • Venues, "Defunct but historically important venues include the Pence Opera House,[46] the Coffeehouse Extempore or Extemporé,[47] the Uptown Bar,[48] and the ballrooms including the Prom Ballroom and Treasure Inn in Saint Paul and the Marigold Ballroom and the Flame Cafe[49] in Minneapolis, which featured prominent jazz, rock, country and other bands in the mid-20th century." Run-on sentence, perhaps split into two?
  • Radio, "throughout the country and indeed throughout the world". Redundant wording, "indeed" is rather POV.
  • Recording studios and record stores, "The studio had big hits from The Trashmen ("Surfin' Bird") and Dave Dudley ("Six Days on the Road"), The Underbeats, The Chancellors, The High Spirits, The Castaways ("Liar, Liar" in 1965), which helped popularize Soma Records and a distinctive Kay Bank style based on using three-track recording and echo effects." Run-on, and some issues with grammar. Perhaps split, and check the use of "and" then commas.
  • Classical, choral and opera, "orchestras to perform on the radio and to record." Worded a bit funny. I understand what it's trying to say, but it could definitely flow better.
  • This still reads a bit oddly, but I guess it's fine.
  • Classical, choral and opera, "With an early reputation as "progressive (and) 'alternative'"[98] when it merged with Saint Paul Opera in 1975, the Minnesota Opera began to include traditional works in its repertory." Flow. Needs something between alternative and when to help the transition.
  • Folk music, "Minnesota is home to many ethnic groups, but the state's folk music is best known in the areas of Swedish, Finnish and Norwegian musics because these immigrants settled in rural farming areas in communities that retained Old World social and religious patterns and the context for music performance." Run on sentence, and I'm really not sure what the end part is trying to say.
  • Folk music, "cultural identities grew blurred." I think you could drop the "grew".
  • Folk music, "Norwegians and Swedes very frequently". I think you could drop the "very", it's redundant.
  • Folk music, "As of 2007, Dylan maintained a home in Minnesota." Could this be updated?
  • I see. Well, it would be something to keep in mind in case you run across any references to it in the future.
  • Blues, "Strother, who knew each other, were". First, what does it matter that they knew each other, and second, most well-known musicians who perform the same genre in the same city know (or at least know of) each other, so this isn't anything special.
  • In the various genre sections there are a lot of short paragraphs, which make the article quite choppy. Please try to combine some of these so that the article as a whole flows better.
  • The various genre sections still read as lists of unconnected facts with no connecting narrative. IMO, simply listing various bands/singers/composers that have ties to Minnesota doesn't meet the "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" requirement that FA asks of its articles. The first two paragraphs of the Rhythm and blues section is how I would like to see the rest of the genre sections read. The prose flows from thought to thought, with no abrupt jumps, and connects between artists.

I've checked up through the Music about Minnesota section. Later this evening I will return and add my comments about the rest of the article. Dana boomer (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC) I've completed my review of the prose, and have added several more issues to the list. When these issues have been resolved, I will be able to add my conditional support, with a full support pending a review of comprehensiveness and sources. Dana boomer (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dana. Just a check in. Everything on your list has been done, except writing the lead and work on the genre sections writing. Thanks very much for taking your time. Your comments are easy to follow and they all make sense. -SusanLesch (talk) 06:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Small introductions and transitions written for the genres. I removed the citations from the lead. Probably not "engaging, even brilliant" but I hope serviceable. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick response, Susan. I have added my provisional support as promised. In the process of looking over the article again I have made a few tweaks, mainly to reference formatting and a little bit of copyediting. Please let me know if there's an issue with any of the change I made. I look forward to this article being kept, and hope that content and sourcing experts stop by soon! As a note on sourcing experts, I just dropped a note on the subject to User:Rafablu88, who I just remembered usually does all of the source checking on music FACs, so he may be dropping by as well. Dana boomer (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Dana boomer. Happy to see conditional support. Your changes look good to me. Regarding the IP addresses' request for a section on Electro/Dance, I looked at the websites of Minneapolis television channels 4, 5, 9 and 11 as well as the Minnesota Broadcasters Association (who were in the YouTube video) and didn't find anything for the search phrase "Beat Radio". I agree with Dana's comment that the newscasts are copyrighted. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the lack of response from music editors, I have dropped a further note on User talk:A Knight Who Says Ni, who appears to be one of the more active editors on the music project talk pages right now. Hopefully the direct appeal will get a music person over here to make any final comments. I have also struck the part of my vote that referred to sources, as that review has been completed. Dana boomer (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments What makes this reliable?

This one seems a commercial store used for factual info. I lean slightly reliable, but I'd like to hear what others think:

  • I'm happy with the use of IMDb and Amazon for basic, physical info, but have a few nitpicks:
  • The ISBNs in the Reflist need conformity of style and number of numbers. Pick a simple 10 number version with no dashes for all the books.
  • Are all those refs used? If not, some may need to be removed or put into Further reading.
  • If some are only used once, then they have to be placed in the footnotes instead of being in both sections for a single cite. RB88 (T) 02:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No they don't. A lot of editors (me included) like to keep things consistent and have all book reference be in the short form in the footnotes. There is nothing that rules against this in the sourcing guidelines, and this has not been brought up in the recent FACs I've had that sported this style of referencing. Dana boomer (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed the Blegen cite based on the url link, but I don't think it's right.
  • I'm confused by the Nute ref.
  • The Mayer ref had a year in location. I put it in brackets but it might need to be removed.
  • The Noran ref has the same title and publisher. Somehow, I don't think that's right.
  • Make sure all the magazine urls have a retrieval date for internal consistency. Some are missing one.

RB88 (T) 17:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentDelist My concern with this article is not the facts, or the citations (which I don't have time to check), but the quality of the writing. I'll hop in and out, making changes as I go to make it flow a little better, but right now I don't believe that its at FA standard. It'll take time to improve it all, there's a lot of text there. Parrot of Doom 23:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've had another look, and while making minor changes here and there I have come to the conclusion that this article needs a major re-write to maintain its FA status. There are just too many instances of poor wording, like "The MacPhail Center for Music offers classes on 35 different instruments and also tuition in the Suzuki method and art therapy,[15] by instructors from all over the world, to more than 7,200 students at 45 locations". I can make changes to the most obvious errors, but I don't have anywhere near enough time to do everything that this article needs. In the end, its going to have to be the article's primary contributors who sort this out. Parrot of Doom 17:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: Frankly, a very poor article. The writing is appalling and runs the gambit from being sloppy and redundant ("brought with them French chansons" - as opposed to brought with someone else?) to editorializing and OR ("Rock and roll has a surprisingly long history in the state" - surprising to whom?) Thoughts are not organized or clear (e.g. first paragraph of the history section discusses the traditional music brought by early Europeans, yet somehow ends on "Modern-day traditional dance" and is then succeeded with a paragraph returning to discussion of European settlers. Completely irrelevant Garland information finishes the section. Also appears to fail 1C; there are dozens of books related to this topic that appear not to have been considered (no "thorough and representative survey"). Here's several possible sources I found with a two minute search:
    • Sherman, John K. (1958). Music and theater in Minnesota history. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press
    • Parthun, Paul Robert (1984). Ojibwe music in Minnesota. University Microfilms
    • Björnson, Val (1969). The history of Minnesota. Lewis Historical Pub. Co. (there are at least two volumes)
    • Larson, LeRoy Wilbur (1983). Scandinavian-American folk dance music of the Norwegians in Minnesota. University of Microfilms International
    • Tourville, Tom W. (1990) Minnesota rocked!!: the 1960's : a discography & guide to the music & the people of Minnesota from the 1960's. T.W. Tourville
    • Gillis, Frank James (1958). Minnesota music in the nineteenth century. University of Minnesota Press
    • Sterling, Mick (2005). The Long Ride Home: A Life in the Minnesota Music Scene. Crotalus Publishing. ISBN 0974186058
    • Beck, Roger Lawrence. (1987) Military music at Fort Snelling, Minnesota from 1819 to 1858. University of Minnesota
    • Legg, Douglas B. (1982). Minnesota folk music and folklore in the recorded collections of the Archive of Folk Culture. Library of Congress, Archive of Folk Culture
    Have these been consulted? Have the dozens of others? Article doesn't even appear to satisfy WP:LEAD. "Venues" and "Recording studies and record stores" are important enough to have level two headers, but receive no mention in the lead. Эlcobbola talk 17:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: while I applaud the effort and massive improvements made by SusanLesch, Parrot of Doom's and Elcobbola's concerns are too significant to overlook, and this review has already run too long. Delisting, with an aim towards improving the prose and sourcing and a return to FAC, would be more in order at this stage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to your views, but I find the pile-on "delist" votes to be late. We had two "keep" votes and a conditional support before Parrot of Doom, Эlcobbola and SandyGeorgia chimed in on the last day. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was not and not aware of a time limit, let alone this being "the last day". Perhaps you would care to point out where one can find this information on {{FAR-instructions}}? Am I not reading "extensions are always granted on request, as long as the article is receiving attention" correctly? What, by the way, does time have to do with anything? Does this article meet the criteria or does it not? Am I to understand that it's acceptable to retain non-compliant articles if the timing of concerns is perceived as being inconvenient? Эlcobbola talk 23:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Эlcobbola. I understand time has run out, looking at Sandy's message on User_talk:Raul654#FARs_due_for_closing. That's what I mean by pile-on "delist" votes being "late" and on the "last day". Last time I looked was yesterday when things looked promising. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(to SusanLesch) - it isn't as though the article suffers only from poor grammar. I do my best (which isn't the best here), but I genuinely struggled to understand much of the article's content because of the way it is written. That, in my opinion, would take more time than is appropriate for a passing editor to try and solve, moreso for someone who lives on a different continent. Parrot of Doom 12:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Parrot of Doom. I apologize. I was having a bad day that day. It's very nice of you to try to help fix this article. :-) -SusanLesch (talk) 05:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist since this is like trying to cook a steak by breathing on it. Prose issues still stand; needs a lot more work per consensus. If all we're going to do is quibble about everything for more than FOUR MONTHS, then clearly this is not FA quality. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Keep now that it's finally been copy edited. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opinion is unchanged, even after the copyedit. A few random selections, and I didn't have to go searching. I don't think any explanation is required:
    • The Minnesota Orchestra was founded in 1903 as the Minneapolis Symphony Orchestra. Although it was among the first to perform on the radio and to record,[71] it initially was not known as one of the country's great orchestras. In the 1930s, Eugene Ormandy transformed it into an excellent ensemble and expanded its repertory, making it the most-recorded orchestra in the United States, and giving it an international reputation.[72][73] Other illustrious conductors included Dimitri Mitropoulos and Antal Dorati.[74]
    • Minneapolis became noted as a center for rhythm and blues (R&B) in the 1980s, when the singing star Prince rose to fame. The city had little history in African American popular music, such as R&B, until Prince debuted in 1978. He became the first architect of the Minneapolis sound, a funk, rock and disco-influenced style of R&B, and inspired a legion of subsequent performers, including the Prince-related acts The Time, Wendy & Lisa and Vanity 6.[116]
    • Minnesota is home to many ethnic groups, who bought with them the folk music of their homelands. When these immigrants settled in rural farming areas, their communities retained Old World social and religious patterns that gave a context for music performance.[5] These ethnic communities frequently settled near each other, in Minnesota and in Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, North Dakota and South Dakota, and their musical and cultural identities blurred

Parrot of Doom 21:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • SusanLesch asked me to revisit; I remain of the opinion that this article should be delisted. While the prose has improved, there are still numerous issues, for example WP:PEACOCK in the lead (Talented musicians), poor phrasing ("The studio had hits..." - the studio didn't "have" them; they were recorded therein), the bizarre Garland "paragraph" remains, etc. Prose work, additionally, does not address the aforementioned 1C concerns. 14:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Elcobbola. I fixed the specifics you mention. The 1C problem is one of perspective I think. The books that you found might be good but the material they cover is for the most part covered already by sources in use here (there is no need for another book on most of the subjects in your list). Thank you for returning to give this another look. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but if they've not even been consulted, how are we able to make the determination that information therein is entirely redundant? There's a whole book about Ojibwe music; only Dakota is discussed. There's a whole book about military music; a topic not at all discussed. There's a whole book about nineteenth century music; coverage is this century is largely non-existent (refer to the nominator's concern of bias towards modern music). I realize a lot of this may be more appropriate for a spin-off (e.g. History of music in Minnesota), but, as they apparently have not been consulted, how do we know that they don't contain relevant information about influence, etc.? A "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic" (WIAFA 1C) has simply not been conducted. Эlcobbola talk 16:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I think asking anyone to consult every book on a topic is nuts. The Métis who are part Chippewa (Ojibwe) are mentioned but Dakota history might be more pertinent to the state. John Philip Sousa's march though no more about military music is mentioned. The goal here is not to write a Ph.D. thesis, but rather to create an overview. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a diff where I requested "to consult every book on a topic". That would, of course, be nuts. The titles and contents of several books not consulted, however, suggest a gap in comprehensiveness. Эlcobbola talk 17:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I disagree. Scandinavian immigrants dominated and their nineteenth century music for example is covered in the "History" and "Folk" sections. To chose another from your list, the 1960s are, if anything, overrepresented in the sections on "Rock" and "Recording studios". -SusanLesch (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. It's ok to disagree and that's indeed why the FA director and delegates get paid the big bucks. Again, however, my concern is not about the specifics of the history (i.e. event X occurred at time Y and place Z), but that the neglected sources may contain necessary "big picture" information. Regardless, speculation of whether their material is covered in summary is nowhere near a "thorough and representative survey". Survey the literature; if there's no new material to be added, then there's no issue. But the survey needs to occur. It's one thing when articles come to FAR because they've deteriorated in style and writing quality over time; it's another when the promoted version wasn't comprehensive or thoroughly researched to begin with (I'm aware standards have changed). Эlcobbola talk 18:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm just wondering if there is any overview work or source out there from anywhere that has been found to be as comprehensive or more thorough than this article on the stated subject. In short: is there an article anywhere that is nearly as good as this one? If not, we are dealing with the best article on the subject to be found anywhere. If that's not good enough, to what standard is the article being held against? Lambanog (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2010 (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 Raul654 00:09, 15 March 2010 [20].

Sino-German cooperation (1911–1941)

Review commentary

Notified: Author and listed WikiProjects

The article lacks citations in many places. Many subjective passages such as the legacy, attribution of motives and value judgments are uncited. In one case, a 1939 work is used as a cite for Hitler's legacy when later writers have the benefit of more hindsight; other contemporary sources are used that may be now out of date, including some primary sources YellowMonkey (Southern Stars photo poll) 06:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

There's a lot of white space in the "Sino-German cooperation in the 1930s" section, which could probably be removed by alternating images and removing the two with uncertain provenance. DrKiernan (talk) 11:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Citation style is inconsistent and IMO, weird. Anotherclown (talk) 11:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there are a few issues that I see with this article. As per above, the article needs more inline citations (at least one per paragraph, if not more), also there are a couple of MOS issues, but I will try to fix those myself. On my screen there is also a lot of whitespace due to image stacking, which I feel should be fixed too. As per Anotherclown's comment, I feel that "Ibid" should not be used in citations on wiki due to the fluid nature, which might mean that the original citation might get deleted, thus leaving a lot of Ibid's but no actual name. Hence, the Ibids should be changed to a more appropriate style that allows the reader to identify the source easily. Finally, there are a lot of links in the See also section, which I think is usually frowned upon at this level. I feel that these should be incorporated into the text if possible and removed (they may already be linked in the text, if so, I feel they should be removed from the See also section). — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think I've fixed the whitespace issue. Please review and if anyone disagrees it can be changed back. Before going any further, can we get some consensus on the citation style please? What style does everyone feel is appropriate for the article? I feel that the current one is not good and needs to be changed. My preferred is short citation style in Notes (e.g. "Smith 2010, p. 1." or" Smith (2010), p. 1."), with the full bibliographic details going in the References section. What does everyone else think? — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that would be a good start. Anotherclown (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've fixed the issue with the citation style. If anyone objects, please revert. I wasn't able to verify the sources, however. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: also I feel that there are a few grammatical/tense issues in the article. I've tried to fix a few as I found them, but if someone else is keen to do some copy edit work that would be appreciated. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commments This article unfortunately no longer meets the FA criteria. My comments are:
    • Referencing is inadequate. The use of 'ibid' is totally unacceptable as there's no way of knowing whether edits made after such references were added mean that this term still refers to the preceding reference - material sourced with 'ibid' may as well be unsourced given that WP:V isn't met
    • The claim that "Before the Nazi rise to power, German policy in China had been contradictory" and after this it was better directed seems a bit dubious given that the Nazi doctrine of racial superiority meant that doing business with 'inferior' races like the Chinese was also contradictory
    • I have some serious concerns about the neutrality of the article - it appears to be pretty sympathetic to Germany and I suspect that it greatly exaggerates the importance of German assistance to China. For instance, it is claimed that "However, a series of Sino-German agreements in 1934–1936 greatly accelerated railway construction in China." but how this translated into railroad construction is never explained. The implication that advice from Germans and German-designed weapons were critical in China holding off the Japanese also seems exaggerated. In the rare instances where the article gives concrete figures for the extent of German support they're typically rather modest.
    • It is notable that the article doesn't discuss China's relations with other western countries - for instance, support from the United States was also important during this period, and grew rapidly as the Pacific War approached. This needs to be covered to provide context to the assistance received from Germany.
    • The article is littered with untranslated German terms which could be replaced with English terms with no loss of meaning - eg, what's the Denkschrift für Marschall Chiang Kai-shek, and why is 'Hitlerjugend' used instead of the more common English language term 'Hitler Youth'?
    • The discussion of German-Chinese relations after the outbreak of World War II fails to mention that the naval blockade of Germany and the Japanese capture of most of China's main ports meant that there was no longer any prospect of trade between the countries.
    • The article has too many images
    • The lead is too short
    • While the article is reasonably well written, it needs a copy edit. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criterion of concern are images, citations, neutrality, comprehensiveness, prose, MOS. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:28, 25 February 2010 (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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:04, 9 March 2010 [21].

El Al

Review commentary

Notified: Flymeoutofhere, WikiProject Airlines, WikiProject Israel

I am nominating this featured article for review because is has fallen short of the FA criteria. While there are no huge issues, there are a lot of smaller things which summed up make the article mature for a review. Some comments:

  • The lead is shorter than would be expected of an article this length. It in no way summarizes the article, for instance leaving no mention of the fleet. It also tends to overfocus on details and has a what I feel is a 'glorification' of the airline (through selective choice of content, not necessarily because what is stated is in any way untrue).
  • Two of the section titles contain 'El Al'. These should be removed. Also, the section 'today' should be renamed something more specific, such as 'operations'. (fixed)
  • There are two instances of galleries, neither which are suitable. (fixed)
  • The article needs a thorough copyedit. For instance, the first sentence of 'history' flows badly because it lacks a comma after the date. Other issues are that the aviation term for 'borrowing an aircraft' is 'lease'; most of the sentences are very short, giving a compulsory feeling of having to make too many breaks, thus eliminating the flow of the prose; spaced emdashes; using $ without specifying currency; short paragraphs; a number of smaller MOS issues;
  • The individual hijackings should be covered in the 'accidents and incidents' sections. Instead, the prose should not so much cover the incidents as the reactions and measures the airline did. (modified, so should be okay now)
  • I am uncertain if File:El Al ocean ad.png is within Wikipedia's permitted fair use policy. (okay)
After double-checking with HeWiki's resident lawyer, I have been satisfied that the image is in the public domain and changed the license accordingly. —Ynhockey (Talk) 16:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the [very short] paragraphs under '1990s and early 2000s' start with "In [date]... or on [date]...". (better)
  • The lead states very bluntly that the airline is the world's most secure. However, in the body, this is only accredited to a single source. (okay)
  • Only military geeks know what 'CAMPS' are.
  • There are some uncited claims.
  • There should be a more filling explanation of the destinations and services, and the codeshare cooperation should be written into the prose. (partially fixed)
  • Again, the fleet section should have prose discussion the fleet before the actual list. An overview of past fleet (either in the fleet or history section) should be included. (partially fixed)
  • Instead of many small sections with alienating titles (i.e. using brand names), a section such as service should be created to include the various aspects (frequent-flyer program, lounges etc.) (fixed)
  • I am unsure about this, but it would be easier to read if the incidents and accidents section was converted to a table (with date, location, aircraft and a description)
  • As 'Sun D'Or International Airlines' is mentioned in the prose, it should not be in "see also". (fixed)
  • Two links point back to the article.
  • There are eight dead links.
  • One reference is a bare link. (removed)

Arsenikk (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After spending some time copyediting the article, things seem to be getting worse. While looking through references, there seems to be more and more uncited or vague claims. Right now there are four {{citation needed}} tages, and about a dozen commented comments related to inconsistencies or lacks of the prose. At the moment, there seem to be two main issues with the article, which will both require a significant portion of work to conform to: 1) the sources are in part lacking, in part not up to standards and in part dead. A few places, the age of the sources give either dated information (typically statistics from 2006 or 2007) or claims which cannot automatically be considered true nine years later 2) the prose is not up to featured standards. While most of it fine and grammatically correct, the prose is not 'brilliant'. Several places, the prose uses an unprofessional language, it is unnecessary vague or flows badly. In addition, there are still a few MOS-non-compliances, although most of these have been straightened out. While the article is now better than when the review commenced, it is still in need of some sourcing and research, which I will not conduct myself, although I can of course be of assistance. Arsenikk (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images
Hi Arsenikk! Thank you for the interesting review. I will attempt to address the issues you have raised with time. However, please note that Nominators typically assist in the process of improvement; they may post only one nomination at a time. I request that you withdraw the nomination for the time being, and I will definitely take all of your comments into account and try to improve the article. I hope you can help! Thanks, Ynhockey (Talk) 18:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Section headers no long start with numbers. Arsenikk (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accidents and incidents

There is long-standing consensus at WP:Airlines to include a list of notable incidents and accidents in the article; see WP:AIRCRASH. Many of the listed incidents have their own article, and many of the incidents could have their own. Some incidents are notable enough to mention in the article, but not enough to have a their own article—these are by convention placed in the airline section, and, if relevant, in an airport article. While I can agree that the current list seems a bit non-professional, this is the way articles are being passed through GA, and no real alternative exists at the moment. In my opinion, including the in the history is perhaps not as good an idea as can seem, because the incidents ten to be notable independent of the chronology. Perhaps someone has some better ideas for how this can be done? Arsenikk (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criterion of concern are prose, comprehensiveness, lead, citations. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Still many citation needed tags, plus some of the entries in the "Incidents and accidents" section are unreferenced but not tagged. The "Incidents and accidents" section should be turned into prose, or even integrated completely into the History section, as much of the information is duplicated there anyways. At 55k, this article doesn't need to be duplicating large amounts of information. There are lots of short paragraphs, which make the article choppy, and the punctuation needs a comb-through. Some sandwiching of text between the images in the Early years section, which needs to be resolved. There are several dead links in the references (see the toolbox for the link checker tool) and the lead needs to be expanded. Dana boomer (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per Dana Boomer, very many dead links and sourcing issues, also agree on the "Incidents and accidents" section being an examplefarm. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist for lack of proper references and sub-standard prose. No-one is working on brining it up to proper standards. Arsenikk (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, referencing issues. Cirt (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2010 (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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 23:46, 1 March 2010 [22].

Characters of Kingdom Hearts

Review commentary

Notified: Guyinblack25, WikiProject Square Enix, WikiProject Video Games, WikiProject Disney

There are a few problems to this article, but they're still big. There are un-referenced parts in this article, mainly with the characters. Moreover, the "Other characters" section makes the article more like a list than an article. So please give me your thoughts. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Images are lacking alt text and a few of the refs dates are inconsistent (refs 34, 36, 72). Ref 13 is dead and is 34 a reliable source? It looks like a forum. CrimsonFox talk 09:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Looks like Gamer beat me to the punch on this one. I agree that this article does not meet the current FA criteria.

  • Unreliable sources:
    • Several refs (2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 32, and 38) are interviews from other publications hosted on Kingdom Hearts Ultimania, a fan site which does not meet WP:RS
    • Other refs (4, 17, 35, and 49) are the same, but from different fan sites: Kingdom Hearts Insider, KingdomHearts3.net, and Video Game Blogger.
    • The forum and image postings (34, 42, and 53) do not meet citation and sourcing guidelines.
    • Pretty sure the IMDB sources can be replaced with a listing on a reliable gaming site.
  • Excess detail.
    • Some well-meaning editors felt listing every character with bullet points would be better than concise overviews. A rewrite and trim of these sections is in order.
  • Synthesis
    • Ref 37 cites Jesse McCartney's Twitter page, which I'm not sure whether or not it meets WP:RS. Regardless, the content on the twitter post does not match the content in the article, and some bold assumptions are made. Mind you they make sense, but I think such methodology is discouraged for featured content.

I know this is not the part where we decide what to do with the article, but I know the sourcing issues—specifically the interviews on the fan sites—cannot be easily fixed. I spent months hunting down the original source information to properly cite the interviews but turned up nothing. I stumbled across a few extra tidbits here and there, but nothing that could replace the "Creation and influences" section, which depends entirely one these interviews. Without that section, the article is not comprehensive.

In short, I don't see this FAR ending in any way other than a delisting. Maybe some white knight of the Wiki will come and save the day. But I'm not holding my breath. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comments: In my opinion, this article doesn't have nearly enough information describing the characters to be a FA. The vast majority, if not the entirety, of most characters' text is nothing more than plot detail. Powers T 13:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I'm concerned about the fair use rationales for two of the images:

well it can be formatted better. especially for the main paragraphs. right now it looks like a giant paragraph instead of few smaller ones. The article just needs to be trimmed and find proper sourcing, though what guyinblack has said, there are some things that just cant be found. Unless we change consensus and make it so that forums are acceptable to a point, then the article could possibly be saved, but that's really unlikely.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criterion of concern are copyright, comprehensiveness, lack of citations and reliable sources YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 07:18, 16 February 2010 (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=350702232"