Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive: Difference between revisions
→Removed status: -4 |
→Kept status: Keeping three |
||
Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
==Kept status== |
==Kept status== |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Selena/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chess/archive3}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/World Science Festival/archive1}} |
|||
==Removed status== |
==Removed status== |
Revision as of 13:31, 13 October 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
- /to June 8 2006 (previous FAR process)
- /June 2006 (5 kept, 4 removed, combined old and new process)
- /July 2006 (7 kept, 16 removed)
- /August 2006 (11 kept, 21 removed)
- /September 2006 (10 kept, 24 removed)
- /October 2006 (9 kept, 21 removed)
- /November 2006 (5 kept, 30 removed)
- /December 2006 (6 kept, 17 removed)
- /January 2007 (13 kept, 24 removed)
- /February 2007 (11 kept, 18 removed)
- /March 2007 (12 kept, 17 removed)
- /April 2007 (10 kept, 17 removed)
- /May 2007 (11 kept, 23 removed)
- /June 2007 (6 kept, 9 removed)
- /July 2007 (11 kept, 17 removed)
- /August 2007 (10 kept, 14 removed)
- /September 2007 (9 kept, 15 removed)
- /October 2007 (7 kept, 13 removed)
- /November 2007 (7 kept, 12 removed)
- /December 2007 (8 kept, 13 removed)
- /January 2008 (14 kept, 9 removed)
- /February 2008 (11 kept, 10 removed)
- /March 2008 (8 kept, 16 removed)
- /April 2008 (12 kept, 10 removed)
- /May 2008 (4 kept, 16 removed)
- /June 2008 (12 kept, 14 removed)
- /July 2008 (10 kept, 8 removed)
- /August 2008 (9 kept, 12 removed)
- /September 2008 (17 kept, 18 removed)
- /October 2008 (12 kept, 14 removed)
- /November 2008 (4 kept, 8 removed)
- /December 2008 (7 kept, 8 removed)
- /January 2009 (5 kept, 7 removed)
- /February 2009 (6 kept, 6 removed)
- /March 2009 (6 kept, 13 removed)
- /April 2009 (6 kept, 21 removed)
- /May 2009 (6 kept, 14 removed)
- /June 2009 (2 kept, 18 removed)
- /July 2009 (1 kept, 15 removed)
- /August 2009 (10 kept, 26 removed)
- /September 2009 (6 kept, 15 removed)
- /October 2009 (9 kept, 9 removed)
- /November 2009 (3 kept, 8 removed)
- /December 2009 (2 kept, 5 removed)
- /January 2010 (6 kept, 12 removed)
- /February 2010 (1 kept, 5 removed)
- /March 2010 (7 kept, 20 removed)
- /April 2010 (6 kept, 12 removed)
- /May 2010 (3 kept, 14 removed)
- /June 2010 (7 kept, 7 removed)
- /July 2010 (0 kept, 11 removed)
- /August 2010 (3 kept, 9 removed)
- /September 2010 (1 kept, 10 removed)
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 Dana boomer 13:31, 13 October 2010 [1].
Review commentary
- Notified: Secret, AJona1992, Explicit, WikiProject Mexican-Americans, WikiProject Texas, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Musicians
This is a featured article from 2006 but I don't think that it currently meets the criteria. Specifically, I think there are problems with:
- 1a) I'm not an expert on prose but it's not the usual standard required at FAC now;
- 1c) Some more inline citations are needed. One example - the fact that Jennifer Lopez playing Selena stirred up controversy, but was accepted by fans - this is not sourced. Dubious sources are used, for example a user-submitted biography at IMDb.
- 1d) Not sure about this, because I don't know much about the subject, and maybe there's nothing negative to say about her, but it does seem to have a somewhat positive slant to it
- 2c) Citation formats are inconsistent, with some bare URLs. There are several dead links in the references.
- 3) There seem to be problems with two of the images. If in fact they are ok and verified by OTRS, then presumably the non-free image used would not qualify as fair use.
--BelovedFreak 20:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes the following sources reliable?
Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- First off Q-Productions is Selena's ONLY official web site since Selena's family don't give two f's about the fans thats what we have. "Selena Forever" is a fan site that includes information from NEWSPAPERS, MAGAZINES, TV SHOWS, ETC., and theres footnotes. (AJona1992)
I'm going to revert to the last FA version before the fancruft was added, it would take away a year worth of edits, but it's worth it. Any objections? Secret account 19:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I reverted, I won't find out the damage I did until tomorrow Secret account 22:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note this issue:
- File:Selena-ComoLaFlor.ogg - 161kbps is not low resolution. This falls into WP:NFCC. JJ98 (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This file has been reduced now [2].--BelovedFreak 08:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I give up with the article, I want it to go directly to FAR unless someone is up to the challege, i wont work on it until much later in the year Secret account 22:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Secret - I just wanted to let you know that your message has been received. Articles are usually left in the FAR portion of the page for two weeks (which would make it August 31), and then if no work is happening, are moved to the FARC section for another two weeks. This should allow enough time for another editor to step up if they wish, or if you find you have more time, then you may of course step back up and the process can be extended. We are always willing to give articles a bit more time if they are being actively worked upon, as the point of this process is to improve the articles, rather than quickly delisting them. Dana boomer (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are you going to give up on this article? I mean I wouldn't mind it being a FFA because everyone is always negative about my edits to that page. It's like the article CANNOT be expanded which is stupid I can't add footnotes to it so what else is there to do? Maybe once this article is a FFA is when this article can be a featured article, Secret you really don't know that much about her I mean when I joined here the article was like a stub to me! Why onle include a basic knowledge about her? why only have less than 1,000 bytes in the lead when we all know (by my recent edits) that she has done WAY MORE? why not include her "stage" section as she is very known to wear stylist outfits? I mean I am happy that this article is going to be a FFA because its then that this article will have all the detials like Michael Jackson but every time I bring that up all I get is a revert to it. So I won't give up but I don't want this article to be a FA I'm sorry. AJona1992 (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me? "fancrut" really? maybe you should leave! That information is true just because the information was given by magazines, and tv specials doesnt mean that its false or as you say "fancrut". Good-bye hahahaha AJona1992 (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps AJona1992 could comment on the status of the images being used that are waiting for OTRS verification? As was mentioned at User talk:AJona1992, one of the images is published elsewhere on the internet, so that's a bit of a concern.--BelovedFreak 08:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I already did, you guys love deleting her images fine go and do that while I'lljust keep 'trying and tryingand trying again. Oh wow you found it on Selenaforever.com oh theres WAY more websites that used the photos as well, like I said to the previous deleter, just by searching on google.com and finding the same exact picture doesn't mean I just took it. AJona1992 (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment regarding criterion three:
- File:Selena-DreamingOfYou-wiki.ogg and File:Selena-ComoLaFlor.ogg - purposes are word for word identical. Fails NFCC#3A - pick one.
- File:Selena12.jpg and File:Selenagrammy.jpg - We have no OTRS ticket. There is an OTRS ticket for another Selena image by this uploader, but it did not provide sufficient support for the copyright claim and the corresponding image has since been deleted.
- File:Statue plaque.jpg - Derivative work, No FoP in the US.
- File:Selena09.jpg - Fails NFCC#1 if there are free images; what research has been done? Fine if there are none (and if POV nonsense -- e.g. "before her tragic death" -- is removed from the rationale). Эlcobbola talk 11:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any problem with the plaque, yes the statue is a derivative work but a plaque? Are you sure about this? Secret account 20:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I sent out the OTRS letter if you didn't get it oh well not my problem.
- "Nonesense" don't try coming at me because I don't play fair you DA. HAHAHAHA you just look stupid by saying something so retarted hahahaha. AJona1992 (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Who are you talking to now?--BelovedFreak 16:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To you (look at your last message here) and to this DA guy/girl or w.e it is. AJona1992 (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, well I don't know what a DA is, I'm not "coming at you" and I'm not sure what "retarted" thing I have said, but I think you should perhaps slow down your editing on Selena a bit and try to get to know the FA criteria a bit better, and listen to people's concerns here. Hopefully the article can be improved so that it can stay an FA, but adding text that violates copyright isn't going to do it.--BelovedFreak 18:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope I am not going to "slow down" I have done that before and look where it got me. I don't want this article to be a FA right now, there's too many rules about FA's that its stupid. I disagree in having the article 'Selena' being a FA article. Because its then when us fans who have more knowledge about her can be left alone. AJona1992 (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, well I don't know what a DA is, I'm not "coming at you" and I'm not sure what "retarted" thing I have said, but I think you should perhaps slow down your editing on Selena a bit and try to get to know the FA criteria a bit better, and listen to people's concerns here. Hopefully the article can be improved so that it can stay an FA, but adding text that violates copyright isn't going to do it.--BelovedFreak 18:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Nonesense" don't try coming at me because I don't play fair you DA. HAHAHAHA you just look stupid by saying something so retarted hahahaha. AJona1992 (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are also three red links in this article:
- Ven Conmigo Live Tour is redlinked.
- Entre a Mi Mundo Tour is redlinked.
Crossover Tour is also redlinked. JJ98 (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:RED; redlinks are not a problem if the articles meet notability, and are not a valid oppose at FAC or FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, my bad, I will remember it next time. JJ98 (Talk) 20:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the whole section, as I felt it was unnessarry I'm gathering the sources right now to rescue the article. The citations formats seemed to be fixed. Secret account 19:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a copy of a Selena biography in my nearby library. Hopefully I could get that by tuesday and rescue the article. Secret account 20:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the whole section, as I felt it was unnessarry I'm gathering the sources right now to rescue the article. The citations formats seemed to be fixed. Secret account 19:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh so its ok for you to cite sources with books but I'm not allowed? Wow that's so pathetic. I'm not allowed but yet your allowed oh wow. You guys are so lucky I'm not an admin because what BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED lolz BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED. AJona1992 (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AJona, who told you that books are not allowed to be cited as sources? Because that is patently not true. Books are often preferred as sources on many subjects - just look at many recents FAs, especially on historical subjects: they are loaded with book sources. Dana boomer (talk) 11:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I told Ajona on 20 August, "Articles often have sources that aren't on the internet (books, newspapers etc.) If you need help with that, just ask." (and then started helping him with how to cite sources on his talkpage) so I'm not sure where this is coming from.--BelovedFreak 11:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AJona, who told you that books are not allowed to be cited as sources? Because that is patently not true. Books are often preferred as sources on many subjects - just look at many recents FAs, especially on historical subjects: they are loaded with book sources. Dana boomer (talk) 11:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm already starting to source, I ordered the book in my local library hopefully it would come. Thanks Secret account 18:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes she told me about it but I add it on Death of Selena and it still didn't matter, everyone was against me doing so, so that's what I am talking about.AJona1992 (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh so its ok for you to cite sources with books but I'm not allowed? Wow that's so pathetic. I'm not allowed but yet your allowed oh wow. You guys are so lucky I'm not an admin because what BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED lolz BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED. AJona1992 (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see the book by Patoski being added anywhere in the reference. We need the full author name, title, year, isbn, publisher, pages etc. I would also suggest a timeline splitting of the article, as par with the FAs of musician articles like Michael Jackson, Madonna, Janet Jackson, Aaliyah etc. Please change wordings like "was #75" to "was number 75". "3x Platinum by" to "Three-times platinum". Otherwise a quite well kept article and I would support its keep. — Legolas (talk2me) 09:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the source, it was removed during a round of edits, will change the wording now. Secret account 00:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
- Featured article criterion of concern are prose, referencing, copyright YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per review by BelovedFreak, TPH, and Elcobbola. Above those concerns are not addressed. JJ98 (Talk) 01:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now, all concerns have been addressed. I seeing improvements to the article. JJ98 (Talk) 23:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Concerns not addressed and, by all means, spare the gracious and sophisticated respondent from the "dumbasses" (abbreviated "DA").Эlcobbola talk 01:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Fair use concerns taken care of. Secret account 03:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Concerns resolved. (Status of File:Selena memorial.jpg may be somewhat grey, but I think de minimis could be successfully argued.) Эlcobbola talk 15:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair use concerns taken care of. Secret account 03:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist.Agree with FA criteria concerns, above issues unaddressed, also issues of possible comprehensiveness, short paragraphs, poor sourcing and unsourced chunks. -- Cirt (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Could you look for the unsourced chunks? and the poor sourcing as mostly been taken care off. Secret account 03:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a few {{fact}} tags. Still seeing some ultra-short-paragraphs. -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a source to one, another one is sourced already in the lead, and the other three I'm not at my dorm room so I can't get the book until later tonight. I don't have my own laptop and right now I'm in a poker tournament so I can't leave to go to my dorm right away. Secret account 01:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And with the short paragraphs I can't really add content without going though overdetail and irrelavent stuff, I want to keep the article as simple as possible. Also combining paragraphs aren't good for the flow of the article. Secret account 01:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the sources, removed one sentence, and beefed it up a little. Secret account 23:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you look for the unsourced chunks? and the poor sourcing as mostly been taken care off. Secret account 03:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still waiting to get the book from my local library, I ordered it last week, but it haven't arrived. I'm not an expert in prose, so I need the time and the help to keep it as an FA. Secret account 16:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist no major expansion of the article, still references needed and also a major problem that this article is only written in basics and not informative for other people, this article needs major work but I am not willing to and have not been editing it since the controversy of me editing since, how Secret put it "fan crap or crub", so for that I let those people edit the article.AJona1992 (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article doesn't need a major expansion it just needs the sourcing from books and newspapers. Secret account 20:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment a FA article shouldn't be short, basic, and not informative point blank Secret as you can tell how the article looks like. Theres TONS of more information that can be added there WAY MORE but the ONLY way I can do so is if this article is delisted, all you guys have been editing is basic information on her, as we can tell I can write a very good article for example "Amor Prohibido (song)" I re-wrote that article in less than a day! But when it comes to "Selena" all I get is reverted even if I have a RS, point blank delist this article because all it has is basic information on her, I can re-write this article with all the books, magazines, newspapers, CDs, concerts and so on forth for this article that it can be as big as Michael Jackson and other well known famous entertainers. But I am not going to do so now because it will only get me a revert and me being banned from editing. AJona1992 (talk) 20:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not banning you from working in the article, you were just using unreliable sources, if you could find reliable sources, you could work on the article as free as you wish I need your help. Secret account 14:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewing the talk page, the article's history, and the disruption at the article from AJona1992, I suggest this delist be ignored, and hope that the disruption will end soon so the article can be unprotected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I want to tell you off so freaking bad but I am going to tell you this, I am the type of guy that you don't want to cross. I added sources from the magazine if you don't have the magazine then shut up and stop accusing becuz you are not doing nothing to a address the issues above, stop crying about old shit and get over it. AJona1992 (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article doesn't need a major expansion it just needs the sourcing from books and newspapers. Secret account 20:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, despite good work from Secret (and I hope you can bring the article back up to scratch in the future), as it stands this article is not FA standard.--BelovedFreak 21:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]- How many more days it takes before delisting as I'm planning to travel to the library by bus to get that book tommorrow. Thanks Secret account 23:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You won't be cut off, but I moved it as there hadn't been anything happening for about 12 days and no reason given. No need to panic YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok thanks, I'll get the book today and work with the article. Secret account 14:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I got the book hopefully I could start working on it tonight. Secret account 22:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist concerns not addressed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I'm addressing the concerns as we speak. Secret account 03:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep lots of work has been done by Secret. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (although I'm not sure about comprehensiveness), a lot of good work has been done to address the concerns.--BelovedFreak 10:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Still seeing short paragraph, two-sentence-long-paragraph in subsection After death. Also, can we come up with some better title for that subsection, rather than, After death? -- Cirt (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Secret account 14:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, delist = stricken. :) -- Cirt (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I need help, Ajona keeps trying to add information that is overexagguating about her like she sold 200 million records and 100 million people attended her funeral (some true as well which I properly cited), I'm out of reverts. Secret account 22:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Secret account 14:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold up you asked for my help and this is what all my magazines are telling me go cry to them and try to throw me under the bus oh well if the magazine says she sold more than 200 million then so be it, if the magazine said the funeral held more than 100 million so be it, so argue with them and not talk s about me. AJona1992 (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article is currently protected due to disputes; citations need cleanup:
- By ELLEN BERNSTEIN /Caller-Times. "Birthday hoopla is prohibited » Corpus Christi Caller-Times". Caller.com. http://www.caller.com/news/1997/apr/16/birthday-hoopla-prohibited/. Retrieved August 27, 2010.
See WP:MOS#ALLCAPS, missing date, inconsistent citation style, pls review others. Portals are not External links; see WP:LAYOUT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I requested for the citation to be fixed, and to remove the portal, if an adminstrator can do it that would be great. All the other citations are fine. Thanks Secret account 04:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gone rogue and edited a protected page. ;) Okay, no one is going to complain about something this simple; both done. Courcelles 08:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I requested for the citation to be fixed, and to remove the portal, if an adminstrator can do it that would be great. All the other citations are fine. Thanks Secret account 04:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comprehensivenesss What's the status on this front? YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- She had a short career, so I think it's as comprehensive as possible, can you remove the statement about Selena's mother with the tumor and it ended up being Selena, etc I think that's unnessarry, I only sourced it just to avoid breaking 3rr. Secret account 01:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Selena was in the music world for 15 years. She has done a lot, you just don't have any knowledge about her. Secondly no I disagree its reasonable to have that there esp if its in every Selena related book. AJona1992 (talk) 01:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you point to where the extra information can be found? YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "TV Y Novelas, April 2005" (magazine), "Biography: Selena" (TV special), and "Amor Prohibido (special) 2006" AJona1992 (talk) 01:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- His unreliable sources like 100 million people went to her funeral, I got the biography written about Selena, everything that should be mentioned, is mentioned. Secret account 02:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- id you mean "Joe Nick Patoski. Selena Como La Flor. Little Brown and Company. p. 30. ISBN 0316693782. ? It has at least 288 pages YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 269 not including the references sections, most of the beginning is family background, and alot of background information, the book itself for me is lacking, and outdated. Secret account 04:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- id you mean "Joe Nick Patoski. Selena Como La Flor. Little Brown and Company. p. 30. ISBN 0316693782. ? It has at least 288 pages YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here we go again another attack. It's a MAGAZINE get over it, do I have to show pictures on GOOGLE or send you pictures of the magazine and inside since you do not understand that it is a magazine about her, just becuz you don't own it doesn't mean it's real. AJona1992 (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The magazine is unreliable, showing your 100 million people attended her funeral, and 200 million album sales (only done by Celine Dion) edits show. Secret account 02:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no rule that states that magazine is unreliable. If you have a problem with the magazine YOU should take it upon them and not on me. I am not the author nor publisher. AJona1992 (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some magazines are reliable, is just because of those statements, yours are clearly not, your wasting my time. Secret account 02:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So then why bother with me? I wasn't even talking to you in the first place. I listen to you when you said that the magazine was a lie I did not add any source from it. But yet your still here talking about me and the magazine like if I am the editor of it and I planned to disrupt articles and this site. All you do here is mouth about us Selena fans that we are adding fan crap and junk on this article, you have the OWN issues with the article. I only edit it if I find information from Billboard magazine. But oh yea I forgot its a FA so I am not allowed to edit it becuz every time I do it gets reverted becuz you guys just can't seem to think that a beautiful Mexican American star like Selena can have titles like those mentioned. AJona1992 (talk) 02:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AJona1992, you don't seem to understand featured article crit 1c; if you think the source is reliable only because it's a magazine, please take it to WP:RSN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well no one told about that at all. Everyone is just dead against me on editing the page. We all know Billboard is reliable but yet revert it? I just don't get it and yet I am the one who is targeted. AJona1992 (talk) 02:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well you didn't add a billboard magazine source, you added your tv documentaries and telenovela gossip magazine (which is far from a reliable source, my mom reads it so I perfectly know the source). Secret account 02:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At the time no, but we was talking what I added on the lead section for Selena about her having the most successful songs in 1994 and 1995 her being called "best Latin artist of the decade" and "Best 1990s singer". And it got reverted (hidden) and it was all coming from a source "Billboard" so point taken even if I added a source from RIAA that Selena sold over 100 millions records (just saying here) it would STILL get reverted even if the RIAA confirmed it that's my concern with you guys. AJona1992 (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This conversation doesn't belong here: please continue it on your talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At the time no, but we was talking what I added on the lead section for Selena about her having the most successful songs in 1994 and 1995 her being called "best Latin artist of the decade" and "Best 1990s singer". And it got reverted (hidden) and it was all coming from a source "Billboard" so point taken even if I added a source from RIAA that Selena sold over 100 millions records (just saying here) it would STILL get reverted even if the RIAA confirmed it that's my concern with you guys. AJona1992 (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well you didn't add a billboard magazine source, you added your tv documentaries and telenovela gossip magazine (which is far from a reliable source, my mom reads it so I perfectly know the source). Secret account 02:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well no one told about that at all. Everyone is just dead against me on editing the page. We all know Billboard is reliable but yet revert it? I just don't get it and yet I am the one who is targeted. AJona1992 (talk) 02:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
STatus? YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no concerns for now, and if there is I will fix them on the spot. Secret account 01:23, 11 October 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 Dana boomer 13:31, 13 October 2010 [3].
Review commentary
- Notified: User:Bubba73, most prominent non-retired editor of article; also notified WP:CHESS
Large number of unsourced statements:
*"Chess moves can be annotated with punctuation marks and other symbols. For example ! indicates a good move, !! an excellent move, ? a mistake, ?? a blunder, !? an interesting move that may not be best or ?! a dubious move, but not easily refuted."
- Most of "Fundamentals of strategy" is unsourced.
- [citation needed]s in "Fundamentals of tactics" section.
- Under "opening" heading, "Most players and theoreticians consider that White, by virtue of the first move, begins the game with a small advantage. Black usually strives to neutralize White's advantage and achieve equality, or to develop dynamic counterplay in an unbalanced position." is unsourced.
- "Middlegame" section reads poorly with three consecutive two-line paragraphs. Section is also lacking in sources.
- "Chess composition" section has unsourced statements such as "Most chess problems exhibit the following features:"
- Large number of dead links, at least one of which is formatted as a [1].
- What makes ChessVariants.org a reliable source?
Or Chessgames.com?Or ChessHouse.com?Or Chessbase.com?Or Metajedrez.com.ar?Many refs are missing author, page or other relevant information.
Overall, the article is extremely messy and many of the sources are either dead or unreliable. I feel that the article has dipped far below FA quality. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources ChessBase and ChessGames has been discussed on the Chess Project. ChessBase has the largest database of chess games and ChessGames.com is a smaller one that is online. The members of the chess project consider them to be reliable sources. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 18:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My other concerns still stand. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm working on some of them. I can't do them all, though. (I didn't write any of the parts with the problems.) Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 20:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the one formatted as "[1]"? Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 05:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That was the "World Chess 2007" link which I changed. I'm happy to have a stab at re-drafting some of the middlegame paragraphs if that would help? Also, for the Ben Franklin quote, is this link better than the Metajedrez one? benfranklin300.orgFletch79 (talk) 07:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily much of the basic rules can come from any old intro textbook, which even I have YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the main problem that it seems to me is that the history focuses on naming personalities but not changes in chess theory, which is more important, with respect to things such as the 19th century obsession with material and accepting gambits, whereas Queen's Gambit accepted is thought to be very bad nowadays, and how in the old days, swamping the midfield with pawns was regarded as paramount whereas in the 20th century, things like Nimzo-Indian, King's Indian etc became regarded as sound etc YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Queen's Gambit Accepted "is thought to be very bad nowadays"? Odd - Kasparov still plays it, and has a plus score, against the strongest players in the world. Krakatoa (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He may mean the King's Gambit. As far as the history, I added in some of what Kasparov said about how Botvinnik and Fischer revolutionized chess. The hypermodern era and the approach of Steinitz were already in there. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 01:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Queen's Gambit Accepted "is thought to be very bad nowadays"? Odd - Kasparov still plays it, and has a plus score, against the strongest players in the world. Krakatoa (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recap the bullet points:
- 1 - now referenced
- 2 - major parts of "fundamentals of strategy" now sourced
- 3 - CN in "fundamentals of tactics" - one eliminated, the other is still there, but is it something that someone would question? (I don't think so, so CN can be removed)
- 4 - first move advantage now referenced
- 5 - Middlegame section - I worked on this - moved some material and eliminated the short paragraphs. May need some more work - others have worked to improve this section
- 6 - chess composition -
some still unsourced, done. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] - 7 - dead links -
still dead linksdone. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Assume it's the "Searching for Bobby Fischer" link - is a link to the synopsis on imdb suitable?
- It was Chess Notes by Edward Winter. Ref(47) http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/winter38.html. Now corrected. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 8 - ChessVariants.org - replaced by book reference
- 9 - ChessGames.com - OK
- 10 - ChessHouse - replaced by book reference
- 11 - ChessBase - OK
- 12 - Metajedrez.com.ar - replaced by Google Books
- 13 - Refs missing data - many fixed, some may still be missing some info Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 15:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you be specific. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know of any more, but there might be some. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 20:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you be specific. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Were these issues brought up on the talk page first before being brought to FAR? Last article FAR January 8 2008. Lambanog (talk) 03:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they were not brought up on the talk page. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 04:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Really, nominating for FAR in August while most people are on holidays... I find that kind of treatcherous. SyG (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but I accept the article required a revision to meet the points raised above. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Really, nominating for FAR in August while most people are on holidays... I find that kind of treatcherous. SyG (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments regarding criterion three:
File:Knight's tour.svg - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP (did the uploader create it or obtain it from a third-party source?)- Clarified. Эlcobbola talk 14:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Red King sleeping.jpg - Needs a verifiable source (what edition of Through the Looking Glass? US copyright term would be based on publication date, not pma, thus the importance.)File:UigChessmen SelectionOfKings.jpg - Is Solipsist the same person as Andrew Dunn?- He claims to be. User_talk:Solipsist#Chessmen_photos —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taemyr (talk • contribs) 01:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Summary revised. Эlcobbola talk 14:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He claims to be. User_talk:Solipsist#Chessmen_photos —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taemyr (talk • contribs) 01:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Capablanca-Lasker 1925.jpg - If the author is unknown, why is it being claimed s/he has been dead 70 years. US does not consider PMA for published works; what is the status in the US?
- It was published in the USSR before 1946(?) so it is in the public domain. It also falls under historic image. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 00:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Russian Federation has retroactively restored copyrights to most USSR works. They, too, are based on author lifetime. Who is the author? There's no such thing in copyright law as a "historic image". Эlcobbola talk 00:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From wp:Fair use "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary." Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 00:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the image the subject of commentary? It is beeing used to illustrate the history of chess, and the specific game from which the image is taken does not seem to be mentioned in the text. Taemyr (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From wp:Fair use "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary." Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 00:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Russian Federation has retroactively restored copyrights to most USSR works. They, too, are based on author lifetime. Who is the author? There's no such thing in copyright law as a "historic image". Эlcobbola talk 00:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It was published in the USSR before 1946(?) so it is in the public domain. It also falls under historic image. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 00:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Wilhelm Steinitz2.jpg - Needs a verifiable source (hitherto deleted nl.wiki page is not acceptable).- Wilhelm Steinitz died in 1900, so that makes it before 1923.
- The life span of the sitter and date of creation are irrelevant. Copyright term in Netherlands is 70 years after the death of the author, not the subject. Who is the author? When did s/he die? What is the source? We can then deal with status in the US, which is not necessarily the same as Netherlands, after those questions are answered. Эlcobbola talk 21:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The author is surely dead. Also, in the US, anything before 1923 is public domain. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 22:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So prove it. Steinitz died in 1900. Let's say this work is from 1890 and created by a 30-year-old author (i.e. born 1860). Say that author lived to the age of 81 (i.e. died 1941) - perfectly possible. That would mean they've been dead less than 70 years. Who is the author? When did s/he die? What is the source? You're wrong about the US, too, but we'll get to that once you answer these questions. Эlcobbola talk 22:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, the author may have died less than 70 years ago, but from Wikipedia:Image_use_policy "In the U.S., copyright has expired on any work published anywhere before January 1, 1923." Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 22:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the key word is published - quite different from "anything". Published is a term defined by USC 17 and is not the same as creation. It's why you need a source; then we can (usually) determine whether it was published. Also, this file is on the Commons, where images must be PD in both the US and country of origin, so the requirement of author information cannot be dismissed if it is to be hosted there. Netherlands does not consider publication date. You'll also note that WP:IUP requires a source. Эlcobbola talk 23:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't upload it and I didn't add it to the article. It is in Commons, which says it is in the public domain, so it isn't my problem. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 00:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's in the article. Featured articles must meet criterion three. It's a problem. I'm uninterested in these IDIDNTHEARTHAT responses. Feel free to ping me when you've actually addressed these issues. Эlcobbola talk 00:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Fair use" applies to this image. I don't own the article. There are probably thousands of images in Commons that you need to concentrate on. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 00:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Image removed [4]. Эlcobbola talk 17:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Fair use" applies to this image. I don't own the article. There are probably thousands of images in Commons that you need to concentrate on. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 00:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's in the article. Featured articles must meet criterion three. It's a problem. I'm uninterested in these IDIDNTHEARTHAT responses. Feel free to ping me when you've actually addressed these issues. Эlcobbola talk 00:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't upload it and I didn't add it to the article. It is in Commons, which says it is in the public domain, so it isn't my problem. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 00:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the key word is published - quite different from "anything". Published is a term defined by USC 17 and is not the same as creation. It's why you need a source; then we can (usually) determine whether it was published. Also, this file is on the Commons, where images must be PD in both the US and country of origin, so the requirement of author information cannot be dismissed if it is to be hosted there. Netherlands does not consider publication date. You'll also note that WP:IUP requires a source. Эlcobbola talk 23:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, the author may have died less than 70 years ago, but from Wikipedia:Image_use_policy "In the U.S., copyright has expired on any work published anywhere before January 1, 1923." Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 22:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So prove it. Steinitz died in 1900. Let's say this work is from 1890 and created by a 30-year-old author (i.e. born 1860). Say that author lived to the age of 81 (i.e. died 1941) - perfectly possible. That would mean they've been dead less than 70 years. Who is the author? When did s/he die? What is the source? You're wrong about the US, too, but we'll get to that once you answer these questions. Эlcobbola talk 22:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The author is surely dead. Also, in the US, anything before 1923 is public domain. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 22:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The life span of the sitter and date of creation are irrelevant. Copyright term in Netherlands is 70 years after the death of the author, not the subject. Who is the author? When did s/he die? What is the source? We can then deal with status in the US, which is not necessarily the same as Netherlands, after those questions are answered. Эlcobbola talk 21:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wilhelm Steinitz died in 1900, so that makes it before 1923.
File:Lucena1497.jpg - Needs a verifiable source.- Here it is: Lucena book. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 01:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The whole book is online there, and it is on page 133 of the file (but not the same page number in the book, because pages are not numbered and the file includes covers and blank pages). Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 17:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Image sourced. Эlcobbola talk 17:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The whole book is online there, and it is on page 133 of the file (but not the same page number in the book, because pages are not numbered and the file includes covers and blank pages). Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 17:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here it is: Lucena book. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 01:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:JaquesCookStaunton.jpg - How can we verify permission from Frank A. Camaratta, Jr.? This appears to need an OTRS ticket.Эlcobbola talk 18:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I got permission from Cameratta before I uploaded it. I thought I did submit the OTRS info. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 21:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked in the system and you did indeed. Apparently the OTRS volunteer forgot to tag the image back in 2006. Note that the author did not specifically agree to a GFDL license, but instead to certain terms (which indeed make the image sufficiently free). I've tagged the image and corrected the license. Эlcobbola talk 21:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I got permission from Cameratta before I uploaded it. I thought I did submit the OTRS info. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 21:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How is this going, everyone? If most of the work has been done, the reviewers need to be pinged to come back and say so; if not, this should probably move on to FARC. I'll give it a couple more days and if no-one comes around to say this should be kept before FARC, I'll move it down to the voting period.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dana boomer (talk • contribs)
- I think all of the original points have been addressed, except the "citation needed" in "Fundamentals of tactics". But that seems so non-controversial that I don't think a citation is really needed. Someone has issues with some of the images, but that is not really a problem with the article. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 15:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The images do need to be fixed though, before the article can be kept as a FA. Per WP:WIAFA, criterion three is "It has images that follow the image use policy and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly." So, Elcobbola's concerns must be dealt with - and snarky responses such as "it's not my problem" are unlikely to gain you ground in resolving those concerns. Once the above reviewers concerns are dealt with feel free to ping them and ask them to strike resolved concerns and add any new ones. Dana boomer (talk) 12:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the images are in Commons as free. If they are not free, that is an issue for Commons, not for this article. It needs to be addressed in Commons. I don't think there is a way to claim "fair use of a non-free image" if Commons already has it as "free". Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 16:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, none of the images in question are that important to the article - they are just there to enhance it - so take them out if you object to them being there. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 17:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And I didn't add any of the questioned images to the article or upload them, so I don't know the source. I had to search for the Lucena page. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 18:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, none of the images in question are that important to the article - they are just there to enhance it - so take them out if you object to them being there. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 17:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Images used in en.wiki articles must follow en.wiki policy (WP:IUP) and, if FAs, meet the criteria (WP:WIAFA), neither of which consider which server the image is on - that is merely "physical" location. Issues are likely very simple to resolve with rudimentary research. I've corrected issues with File:Red King sleeping.jpg, as an example. Alternatively, images can be replaced with properly licensed and sourced alternatives, or removed. Anyone can contribute to the Commons; files there are every bit as likely to have problems as local files. Эlcobbola talk 17:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have removed the image of Wilhelm Steinitz, so now I'm of the view that all issues had been resolved or dropped. If there is any outstanding issue please identify them. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Outstanding issues remain unstricken. Эlcobbola talk 17:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So far as I can tell according to the follow up dialog all the unstricken issues have been resolved. But to aid clarity and for the removal of doubt I've struck them all. If there are any unresolved be specific and identify them below. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- SunCreator, I believe Elcobbola was referring solely to image issues, of which a couple remain unresolved and unstriken above. I have pinged TenPoundHammer to come and take another look at the article, and have asked another reviewer to come take a look. I am fairly optimistic at this point that the article will be able to be kept before FARC, if any concerns brought up by the two reviewers I have asked and any others that stop by are taken care of quickly. Dana boomer (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So far as I can tell according to the follow up dialog all the unstricken issues have been resolved. But to aid clarity and for the removal of doubt I've struck them all. If there are any unresolved be specific and identify them below. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Outstanding issues remain unstricken. Эlcobbola talk 17:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have removed the image of Wilhelm Steinitz, so now I'm of the view that all issues had been resolved or dropped. If there is any outstanding issue please identify them. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment some books in the footnotes don't specify a page the statement came from, and I'm expecting Malleus to come here with and invite and say that the prose isn't good enough, because it isn't really. Also some of the prose is questionable in describing the beauty of some stunning/brilliant moves YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Also some basic formatting stuff. Web refs without publishers (see #65 O'Neill), books giving incorrect publishers (#63, this should be formatted as a book, with the proper publisher, date, etc, not as a website with Google Books as the publisher), etc. Lots of short paragraphs - combine or expand. Text sandwiched between images. Some books in split format (between references and notes), others in full format in notes. Cn tags - fix or remove with justification. Dana boomer (talk) 10:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The CNs are now referenced. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 16:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take care of the rest of the issues, they are still present. Dana boomer (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The CNs are now referenced. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 16:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article's getting there, but it still needs work:
- "Brilliant combinations – such as those in the Immortal Game – are considered beautiful and are admired by chess lovers." — unsourced
- now referenced. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 23:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Kasparov lost his Classical title in 2000 to Vladimir Kramnik of Russia." — unsourced
- now referenced. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 23:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with the short paragraphs. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Brilliant combinations – such as those in the Immortal Game – are considered beautiful and are admired by chess lovers." — unsourced
Comments by Sasata (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"... middlegame, usually the fiercest part of the game" fiercest?- Changing to intense. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the image of the tactical puzzle from Lucena's book adds little… can't even distinguish the pieces.- Agree. Image belongs in history section not tactics. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The oldest surviving printed chess book, Repetición de Amores y Arte de Ajedrez (Repetition of Love and the Art of Playing Chess)" I thought the oldest printed chess book was The Game and Playe of the Chesse (1474), mentioned in the culture section- Clarified. Oldest book with modern piece rules. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed claim of oldest completely having checked through Göttingen manuscript. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarified. Oldest book with modern piece rules. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"After the death of Alekhine, a new World Champion was sought in a tournament of elite players ruled by FIDE" the tournament was ruled by FIDE, or the elite players were?- FIDE, rewording. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"he lost the title to the Latvian prodigy Mikhail Tal" Haven't heard of Tal being called a prodigy before… I'd ask if this is what the source says, but this paragraph has no citations :)- Tal was a chess prodigy according to Kasparov. http://www.chess.com/news/garry-kasparov-talks-about-mikhail-tal-and-soviet-chess-history-1340
- By the way, Kaspaov's My Great Predecessors appears to be the reference to this section. You don't repeat the same citation at the end of each paragraph according to Malleus. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A skeptic might suggest that Kasparov called Tal a prodigy in order to make his own Wch winning age record seem even more amazing... but it's sourced and that's good enough here. Sasata (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be a cynic instead of a skeptic. :-) Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 18:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A skeptic might suggest that Kasparov called Tal a prodigy in order to make his own Wch winning age record seem even more amazing... but it's sourced and that's good enough here. Sasata (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the section on titles and rankings, Candidate Master is not an official title awarded by FIDE (unless something's changed recently; I've been out of the competitive scene for a while).- Just how long was recently? It has been around for a long time. http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=57&view=article i.e http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=405256 Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wierd; I've never met anybody who had that title. I guess my national federation doesn't feel it worthy to pay FIDE for these titles. Sasata (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"while 300 million people play intermittently." does the source define "intermittently"?- removing 'play intermittently', not in citation. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- prose is clunky in some places; ping Malleus and offer him twice his usual fee
- While the services of Malleus are always welcome, he rarely responses until there is a clear case for improving pose. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a number of fact tags to places I thought warranted them—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasata (talk • contribs) 02:03, 28 August 2010- Updated some, still a few more to go. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some fact tags are now sourced while some unsourced parts have been removed. Article currently fact tags free. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated some, still a few more to go. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the fixes. I think the article should be kept as a FA after a copyedit. Sasata (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed as nominator. So many editors are taking to this that I think it doesn't even need to go to FARC. If I find anything else that needs addressing, I can just hit up one of the many editors that are tending to this. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've standardized the journal and book citations. Please check for errors. In fact,
I think I put at least two of the books in the Further Reading section instead of References, so someone could fix that.I didn't change the web citations because many of them don't have authors and I don't know what to do with them. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 21:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick comments – I still see a few reference that could use further information. There are a few cites (such as numbers 7, 40, 63 and 99) that are only links with titles, missing publisher and access date, in addition to any authors. Several others are missing at least one item. The refs should be checked out and improved as needed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I added info to #7 but it has no author listed. (The last time FIDE listed authors for their rulebook was in the 1985 paper edition.) Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 01:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto #40, 63, and 99. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 01:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I added info to #7 but it has no author listed. (The last time FIDE listed authors for their rulebook was in the 1985 paper edition.) Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 01:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Not sure if lede/intro is comprehensive enough to standalone as an adequate summary of the article, per WP:LEAD - this should be expanded upon a bit more. "For a demonstration of the gameplay, see a sample chess game." - this seems a bit tacky and cheesy to link direct as a hyperlink within article text, should could be removed, and handled in See also or External links sect. Much of the article appears to be getting into a step-by-step How to process, instead of an Encyclopedia article about the topic. -- Cirt (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Link to the sample game moved to external links. I disagree about the "how to". It describes the rules objectively, much as paper encyclopedias do. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 16:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What specifically do you think the lead lacks? It is already four paragraphs, which is about the maximum. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 05:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I highly doubt other serious encyclopedia articles would go into this much depth with a how to play chess, in an encyclopedia article about chess. -- Cirt (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The only general paper encyclopedia I have here is an old edition of the World Book encyclopedia. It has three full pages on chess. The majority of it is about how the pieces move, etc. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 16:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What specifically in the article do you consider is a how-to? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I highly doubt other serious encyclopedia articles would go into this much depth with a how to play chess, in an encyclopedia article about chess. -- Cirt (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What specifically do you think the lead lacks? It is already four paragraphs, which is about the maximum. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 05:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Two quick comments if i may, borderline nit-picking: (DONE)
actual text "In the diagrams, the dots mark the squares where the piece can move if no other pieces (including one's own piece) are on the Xs between the piece's initial position and its destination." is a bit confusing as the "Xs" in the diagrams do NOT mark the positions between start and destination position. Replace sentence with "In the diagrams, the dots mark the squares where the piece can move if no other pieces (including one's own piece) are on the direct line of squares between the piece's initial position and its destination." or something similar.actual text "A game of chess is usually divided into three phases: opening, usually the first 10 to 25 moves, when players move their pieces into useful positions for the coming battle; middlegame, usually the fiercest part of the game; and endgame, when most of the pieces are gone, kings typically take a more active part in the struggle, and pawn promotion is often decisive." has three "usually" phrases making the sentence a bit awkward - maybe replace one or two "usually" phrases with similar different expressions.
I am quite new to Wiki, so please excuse possible format or other errors. This is a great article with what looks like an amazing amount of work put into it. GermanJoe (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your points have been addressed, thank you. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 17:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
- Featured article criteria of concern are sourcing, formatting YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved down to get a conclusion YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as I said earlier, so much work was done throughout this FAR, and it appears to be ongoing. It's nice to see a FAR where something actually happens. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delist - One image concern has yet to be resolved. It's minor in that it can be easily remedied (e.g. removal), but a criterion three failure is a criterion three failure. Эlcobbola talk 15:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if there is no author information on File:Capablanca-Lasker 1925.jpg, this image should be removed to order to keep the FA status. JJ98 (Talk) 21:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Two points: (1) it was published in the USSR in 1925, which makes it in the public domain (as with everything published in the USSR before 1940-something), (2) If it was not already listed as "free", it could be claimed as a "fair use" of a historic image. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 02:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bubba, this image needs to be fixed (or removed) and image clearance received from Elcobbola before this article can be declared "kept". Please see Elcobbola's and Taemyr's responses above about fair use and USSR free use. Just saying that something "could" be done is not enough - action must actually be taken. Dana boomer (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the image several hours ago, even I think the article would be better with it. There have been at least three people criticizing that image. In less time than it takes someone to complain about it, they could have fixed it. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 02:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bubba, this image needs to be fixed (or removed) and image clearance received from Elcobbola before this article can be declared "kept". Please see Elcobbola's and Taemyr's responses above about fair use and USSR free use. Just saying that something "could" be done is not enough - action must actually be taken. Dana boomer (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Two points: (1) it was published in the USSR in 1925, which makes it in the public domain (as with everything published in the USSR before 1940-something), (2) If it was not already listed as "free", it could be claimed as a "fair use" of a historic image. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 02:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
(assuming image problem is solved by Bubba73s above comments), a few minor points for improvements though:
- links
"players" as a basic English term needs no linking (links to stub anyway)"Checkmate" is linked 4 times, consider removing 2 or even 3 links
- prose
Lead 2nd para: "Computers have been used for many years to create chess-playing machines", awkward sentence with unclear relation between computers and machines, chess-playing "machines" are a subset of specialized computers. Also while technically correct, consider using a different term instead of "machines" (electronic devices?).Lead 3rd para: "The tradition of organized competitive chess started during the 16th century" With what exactly? Small tournaments? Also this lead statement isn't mentioned in later text (History)?Lead 4th para: "Chess is led ... by FIDE" - can a sport really be "led"? Consider some other phrase, maybe "Chess players worldwide are organized in FIDE".Lead last sentence: "Some other popular forms ...., and there are many chess variants". The last half sentence sounds like a disconnected afterthought, consider replacing it with "among many additional diverse chess variants" to combine all parts of the sentence.
- If i would be a bit more fluent in English, i'd work on those points myself. But so i just thought, i point them out. None of those points are essential for a possible delist in my opinion. The prose is generally good, comprehensive and no glaring syntax errors. (GermanJoe (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- All of those have been fixed except "organized competitive chess started during the 16th century". Offhand, I am not sure what kind - probably matches but could be tournaments. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 21:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been unable to resolve this. Hooper & Whyld say that matches (a series of games) between individuals were recorded as early as the 9th century. The word "tournament" was used in connection with chess starting in 1841, but there may have been competitions before the word was used. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 02:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I found some pretty interesting information regarding the supposedly first (European?) tournament held in Heidelberg, Germany in 1467. The website of the German national chess club has some information on it (google for "1467 chess tournament Heidelberg"). I will try to dig up some english language information and check reliability. GermanJoe (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a link to the german source with most information about the 1467 tournament http://www.schachbund.de/chronik/1467/heidelberg/index.html I am not exactly sure, if it can be of use here, but it's certainly an interesting read (in German unfortunately). More background information can be found at http://www.schachclub-hirschau.de/schachgeschichte.htm (with a list of print sources included) GermanJoe (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- History suggestion 3rd para closed. As i see it, the article is already very detailed and that minor, albeit interesting, tidbit would be better placed in the main history article than in this summary. Didn't find a good English source either. GermanJoe (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been unable to resolve this. Hooper & Whyld say that matches (a series of games) between individuals were recorded as early as the 9th century. The word "tournament" was used in connection with chess starting in 1841, but there may have been competitions before the word was used. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 02:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All of those have been fixed except "organized competitive chess started during the 16th century". Offhand, I am not sure what kind - probably matches but could be tournaments. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 21:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tending to weak keep - the article is pretty choppy. I have streamlined some of it. The history section looks wierd as it segues into discussing world championships...which is then not discussed until later. I think this would be better seguing onto the history bit. I have left one [citation needed] tag for something I hadn't heard before. There are some sections with several very short paras that would be good to combine, but it can be tricky given the content. It would be a shame for an article such as this to be delisted. 06:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- I took out the part where you put the CN - I don't think it added to the article anyway. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - No issues have been raised for over a month. I suggest the review is closed and any further concerns are raised on the talk page. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:00, 12 October 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 Dana boomer 13:31, 13 October 2010 [5].
Review commentary
- Notified: Markus Poessel, Dank, WikiProject New York City, WikiProject Science
I am nominating this featured article for review because it is no longer current (i.e., it is not comprehensive). Coverage of the 2009 event is minimal, of this year's event non-existing. (And what's up with reference 22? A bunch of references inside of one?) Nageh (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment did you notify the WikiProjects? JJ98 (Talk) 21:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was notified since I worked on it a little. Would it work to change the title to "2008 World Science Festival" and remove the short section on 2009? - Dank (push to talk) 22:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
- Featured article criterion of concern are comprehensiveness YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist for FA criteria concerns. Nobody addressing those issues above. JJ98 (Talk) 08:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I've just changed the title to World Science Festival, 2008, and removed the section on the 2009 festival. WP:TITLE didn't allow that title when Markus took it to FAC in 2008 because there was only one festival at that time. The article seemed comprehensive at the time to the reviewers, and still does, to me. - Dank (push to talk) 02:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No criterion three issues. No comment on other issues, if any. Эlcobbola talk 14:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The focus of the article has shifted to the 2008 Festival, so the comprehensiveness issue no longer applies. There are two or three dead links that ought to be attended to, but overall I don't see any reason why this should be delisted. Malleus Fatuorum 14:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Malleus Fatuorum. It doesn't need be delisted. JJ98 (Talk) 15:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Renaming is a dirty hack, but I am fine with it. :) As the FAR nominator, Nageh (talk) 12:35, 12 October 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 00:19, 11 October 2010 [6].
Review commentary
- Notified: Marek69, WikiProject Slovakia, WikiProject Cities, WikiProject Hungary
I am nominating this featured article for review because I rather naïvely pointed to it during a recent FAC as an example of a compact FA on an older city. Several other people, including some regular FA reviewers, looked more closely and noted serious concerns [7] [8] with the article, including doubts that the originally promoted version would meet current FA standards. Daniel Case (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: I have not notified MarkBA, the original FA nominator, because he was indefinitely blocked as a sockmaster a long time ago (which, I suppose, might have a lot to do with the article's decline). Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Demote per my comments linked in DC's original FAR nom statement. upstateNYer 23:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Please see the instructions at WP:FAR; the FAR phase is for article improvement, declarations are entered if the article moves to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Woops, didn't know that. Will keep my eye out for that stage. upstateNYer 01:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see the instructions at WP:FAR; the FAR phase is for article improvement, declarations are entered if the article moves to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment regarding the issues:
- This image File:Coat of Arms of Bratislava.svg has no source information. Needs a source per WP:IUP.
- Also, there are nine dead links:
- [9] - this link appears to be broken.
- [10] - this link appears have a connection time out.
- [11] - dead link, connection time out.
- [12] - broken link.
- [13] - dead link on cite ref 109.
- [14] - dead link on cite ref 127.
- [15] - also a dead link.
- [16] - dead link on cite ref 151.
- [17] - dead link, connection time out. JJ98 (Talk) 20:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
- Featured article criterion of concern are structure, lead, undue weight (per linked diff comments), sourcing, images YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. Above those issues are not addressed. JJ98 (Talk) 18:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, per above. Daniel Case (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per my comments above and initially. upstateNYer 01:51, 30 September 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 00:19, 11 October 2010 [18].
Review commentary
- Notified: Trevor MacInnis, Bzuk, Mark Sublette, Snowmanradio, Kyteto (all users with more than 100 edits to the article), MILHIST, Aircraft
A 2007 FA that has not been reviewed since its promotion. There are quite a few spots that need referencing, verification or clarification (see tags). a few dead links and some potentially unreliable references:
- Ref 50, "Aviation Photography:B-17 Flying Fortress". This is a sales site, what makes it reliable?
- Ref 92, "Kern, Chris". Self published website, what makes Kern an expert on the subject?
- Ref 126, "Williams, Kenneth Daniel". What makes this a reliable source?
- Ref 147, "University of Texas: Tom Landry". Link broken, although link checker doesn't show it.
The see also and external links sections are huge, these should be trimmed. See alsos that are already linked in the body of the article don't need to be repeated, and a truly comprehensive article should already have links in the body to anything that is really needed in the see also section. Anything that is already used as a ref doesn't need to be in the external links section. Web references missing information (publisher, access date, etc), inconsistently formatted book references. Gets really "listy" towards the end. Survivors section - no references, and the numbers don't match up. Also, the bulleted format doesn't really tell the reader anything - turn it into prose, give some more description, etc. Dana boomer (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I registered my opinion of this article three years ago. I see it's still citing Joe Baugher, which is not a reliable source. The article is also replete with MOS errors and unformatted citations. Also, too many images, too many lists, haven't looked at content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kern has been replaced by a WP:RS.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I have not been a major editor on the article, I am trying to help out. I removed a couple images that were causing whitespace issues for me, and I started working on cleaning up up the web citations. As an aside, is it a common practice to put all the citations in a list in the "references" section and just use cite names to point to them in the article? It does make it hard to fix a citation becuase you have to find it hidden in the refs section... -SidewinderX (talk) 11:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is using a fairly new style of referencing called list defined references. I'm not a big fan of it either, but some editors love it. If you would like to change it, I would suggest asking on the talk page first, as it's considered rather rude to change the reference style without consensus. Hope this helps. Dana boomer (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, you learn something new every day! I don't have any desire to change it... it's not as annoying once you realize what is going on. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the featured version did not use list-defined references (and many of us hate them), the question is, was there consensus to change them to begin with, per WP:CITE? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well no-one objected when the change was made as part of User:Kyeto's improvements to the article, that eliminated most of the non-reliable sources that were claimed (and there arn't many left now) - so that implies consent.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The change was made here in September 2009, there was a note on the talkpage announcing it and there wasn't any dissent so "qui tacet consentire videtur." Woody (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh - I thought it was later than that - anyway - it seems that there was consent (or at least implied consent) for the change.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I had absolutely nothing to do with that change. I've found it, as an operating editor, a nightmare in comparison with how it is done usually, I certainly wouldn't have it the way it is right now by my own choice. I don't object to it strongly, but certainly wouldn't (and didn't) promote it or impliment it. Kyteto (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh - I thought it was later than that - anyway - it seems that there was consent (or at least implied consent) for the change.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The change was made here in September 2009, there was a note on the talkpage announcing it and there wasn't any dissent so "qui tacet consentire videtur." Woody (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well no-one objected when the change was made as part of User:Kyeto's improvements to the article, that eliminated most of the non-reliable sources that were claimed (and there arn't many left now) - so that implies consent.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the featured version did not use list-defined references (and many of us hate them), the question is, was there consensus to change them to begin with, per WP:CITE? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, you learn something new every day! I don't have any desire to change it... it's not as annoying once you realize what is going on. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is using a fairly new style of referencing called list defined references. I'm not a big fan of it either, but some editors love it. If you would like to change it, I would suggest asking on the talk page first, as it's considered rather rude to change the reference style without consensus. Hope this helps. Dana boomer (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I have not been a major editor on the article, I am trying to help out. I removed a couple images that were causing whitespace issues for me, and I started working on cleaning up up the web citations. As an aside, is it a common practice to put all the citations in a list in the "references" section and just use cite names to point to them in the article? It does make it hard to fix a citation becuase you have to find it hidden in the refs section... -SidewinderX (talk) 11:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments I think that this article needs quite a bit of work to return to FA standard. My specific comments are:
- Some sentences and paragraphs are unreferenced
- The article contains some overstatements. For example: - "The aircraft went on to serve in every World War II combat zone" seems unlikely given that these aircraft played almost no role in the war on the Eastern Front in Europe or in China,
- Poor quality prose - for instance, the 'The RAF' section is confusing as the narrative jumps around and sentence structure is frequently poor (and Royal Air Force doesn't seem to have been abbreviated the first time it appeared in the article)
- The coverage of the air war over Europe seems rather generic, and isn't focused on the role B-17s played and their strengths and weaknesses
- The article contains unnecessary foreign language terms ('Jagdflieger' and 'fliegendes Stachelschwein' where only 'fighter pilot' and 'flying porcupine' are useful to readers)
- The 'U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard' sub-section seems greatly over-long given the small number of B-17s being discussed here
- I agree, I had tried months ago to trim minor details from it, and found my revisions reverted. Considering how pathetically small the USAAF's section is in comparison, and how minor their usage in this hand-me-down context is, it is completely overboard. I've done a trim just now; still bigger than I'd like, but lets see how this floats. Kyteto (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The 'Other military achievements or events' and 'Civilian achievements or events' of the 'Noted B-17 pilots and crew members' section seem fairly trivial. The 'Civilian achievements or events' should probably be removed outright as these people explicitly achieved notability for things other than their wartime service in B-17s, and given the huge number of B-17 aircrew it's only to be expected that many of them either went onto achieve fame after the war or had some claim to fame before the joined the USAAF (Clark Gable seems an exception to this though as his wartime service is notable in its own right) Nick-D (talk) 02:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
- Featured article criterion of concern are comprehensiveness, MOS, sourcing, list/trivia YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist for FA criteria concerns per above by Dana boomer and YellowMonkey. None of those issues are not addressed. JJ98 (Talk) 04:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per the unaddressed concerns raised above Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist In short, it simply isn't amongst the best content on Wikipedia, as the status it has now suggests. It has unreliable sources, tons of trivia, unbalanced sections, sketchy coverage (The USAAF section is tiny, there's more on Germany's usage of them than their primary user!), it doesn't meet the grade and that's been known for at least six months without revolutionary input other than my own TBH. I've tried my best to overhaul it, but it doesn't come up trumps now. Delisting is the right course of action. Kyteto (talk) 16:16, 1 October 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 00:19, 11 October 2010 [19].
Review commentary
- Notified: The Filmaker, WikiProject Star Wars WikiProject Films
I am nominating this featured article for review because the article has never been reviewed since becoming an FA nearly 4 years ago, there are expansion and additional ref tags, and the references could use some cleanup, as well. The Taerkasten (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Removing-- pls see FAR instructions, and give your first nom a bit of time before putting up another. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I had already left this user a note about the multiple noms, asking that they not do it again in the future but saying I would leave the nom. However, I will not reverse your removal. I have let the editor know they can re-transcribe this page when the first article moves to FARC. Dana boomer (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds reasonable-- sorry, Dana, just catching up from travel, and it popped on my watchlist. Two on one topic back to back will really strain the editors working in that area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now retranscluded the review. As a note to myself (or YM if he works on this), the timestamp of my signature should be used to determine review timing, not the timestamp of the original nom statement. Dana boomer (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds reasonable-- sorry, Dana, just catching up from travel, and it popped on my watchlist. Two on one topic back to back will really strain the editors working in that area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I had already left this user a note about the multiple noms, asking that they not do it again in the future but saying I would leave the nom. However, I will not reverse your removal. I have let the editor know they can re-transcribe this page when the first article moves to FARC. Dana boomer (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Way too many references to IMDb.
- This is not a RS; it's a fansite. Same with this.
- This is not a RS; it's a personal website hosted on a college domain.
- There should be no reason to use a straight-up jpeg as a source.
Other sources that I'm not sure are reliable:
- Is Filmbug — appears to be a mirror of an older version of William Katt
- Hollywoodnorthreport.com should be removed, as it triggers a spam filter.
- Starwarz.com
- Harrison Ford Web
- TV Party
- Mindjack Film
- Telnet.org
Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your complaints on the Blue Harvest fansite references as well as the college domain's personal website have been addressed. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Star Wars Origins reference link [20], which is referenced quite a lot, appears to be nothing more than a marketing website. And what made it reliable in the first place?. --The Taerkasten (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the reference dates need consistency, e.g. some refs use September 12, 2006 others use 2006-02-04.--The Taerkasten (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like another user has helped fix this page by removing unarchivable sources and date formatting among several edits that he has made. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The state of the article is not clear so moving it down. There are inconsistencies in the ref formatting though, and I have seen previous refs to DVDs cite the time clock of the snippets, along the lines of page numbers, rather than just the title as well (the making of doco might be an hour or two?) YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
- Featured article criterion of concern comprehensiveness, sourcing YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - This article is not up to current FA standard. --The Taerkasten (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist as per TaerkastUA - This article is better as a GA class because it is not up to quality standards. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as a note, when/if this article is delisted from FA status, it becomes unassessed - it is not moved to GA status. If the editors wish it to be of GA status, they need to go through a new GA nomination and review. Dana boomer (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. Agree with the concerns above per TaerkastUA and Sjones23. Apparently, nobody hasn't addressed those issues lately. JJ98 (Talk) 18:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per others; does not meet FA criteria. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per sourcing concerns. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not to open up a whole further can of worms, but given our guidelines about article titles, why is this page not named "Star Wars (film)" or "Star Wars (1977 film)"? WesleyDodds (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - According to the latest requested move, it was felt that, even though it was the original title of the film, the current title is best for consistency, it illustrates the fourth chapter in the series, and that the current name is just as well known.--The Taerkasten (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Consistency of naming between the page titles of installments in a series isn't a concern according to the naming guidelines, though. Not that I want to raise a big fuss about it, it's just something to consider, along with the more pressing FARC issues. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, this isn't really the place to discuss the title of the article. Make another request on the talkpage after this review, if you wish.--The Taerkasten (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. As much as it hurts me to say it. It's not featured article quality. Good article maybe. I am going to try my best to watch these Star Wars movie articles to make sure they always cited and cited properly when edited. − Jhenderson 777 23:10, 7 October 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 00:19, 11 October 2010 [21].
Review commentary
- Notified: User talk:LaurenCole, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome.
FA from 2005, with 1c issues throughout - lots of big chunks of completely unsourced and uncited content in the article - this includes entire paragraphs, and issues with subsections. 10 images are used in the article - these should have an image review. At least one image is fair use and is inappropriately used on the page - this image should be removed and/or deleted. Issues with sourcing and WP:RS: appears to be lots of cites to primary sources, these should be avoided with secondary sources preferred, instead. Entire subsection, In literature and film, has zero references whatsoever, and basically no critical commentary about reception of these works. -- Cirt (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not think the sourcing of the literature and film section that bad; the source for the existence and plot of I, Claudius is I, Claudius - and so on. But there are individual claims of fact there which are genuinely unsourced. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments regarding the issues:
- There's a unsourced statements starting with "Antonia may have had two other children who died young, as well" and "up hope of public office and retired to a scholarly, private life" which is completely unreferenced.
- The section "As emperor" has no citations. Fails criteria 1c.
- The paragraphs "also put the imperial provinces of Macedonia and Achaea back under Senate control" and "Senate-emperor relations" in the section "Claudius and the Senate" are unreferenced.
- There are two dead links like [22] and [23] which are completely dead. The Geocities web site no longer exist.
- The section "In literature and film" has no citations or footnotes.
- This image File:IClaudius.JPG has no rationale or source. Fails WP:NFCC and criteria 3. JJ98 (Talk) 04:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My observations:
- As pointed out by nominator, loads of unsourced content. Statements like "However, as the Flavians became established, they needed to emphasize their own credentials more, and their references to Claudius ceased. Instead, he was put down with the other emperors of the fallen dynasty." should really be sourced.
- Does "marriages and personal life" need the subsections? Every subsection is super short.
- None of the external links looks like it's reliable. They all appear to be personal websites. We shouldn't have had a link to Geocities on there in the first place. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
- Featured article criterion of concern is sources YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, per concerns raised, above. -- Cirt (talk) 04:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per my concerns, and per review by Cirt and TPH. Concerns not addressed. JJ98 (Talk) 04:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per my concerns. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:59, 8 October 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.