Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Dana boomer (talk | contribs)
52,509 edits
→Removed status: Adding one
Dana boomer (talk | contribs)
52,509 edits
→Removed status: 2 delisted
Line 70: Line 70:


==Removed status==
==Removed status==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ahmedabad/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Adi Shankara/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Dorset/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Dorset/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bratislava/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bratislava/archive1}}

Revision as of 14:07, 25 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

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 23:05, 18 October 2010 [1].

Gliding

Review commentary

Notified: Jmcc150 and WikiProject Aviation

This article was promoted to FA in October 2006, and time has unfortunately done it no favors in terms of meeting the criteria. As so often happens here, referencing issues are the primary concern here:

  • Numerous sections are lightly referenced or completely uncited; the last section in the article is but one example of the latter.
  • The quality of the sources leaves something to be desired. I see at least one YouTube link (reference 28) and several personal pages (25, 39 and 41 among them).
  • The citations are almost all lacking names of publishers, and this leaves me wondering how many other questionable sources there are.
  • The link checker in the toolbox reveals about a dozen dead links, which is significant for an article with just over 50 total reference links.

Haven't reviewed the writing itself that closely, but the sourcing alone causes the article to fail modern FA criteria in my opinion. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a FA but update This review is a sledgehammer to fix a few referencing problems. There is no question about the content, format or language. These can be sorted out in a few days. The objection to a YouTube clip is curious feature of Wikipedia. Probably the best evidence that something is true is not a reference to a printed medium, but of a video of it actually happening. The degree of referencing is also something that is difficult to define. Is it sufficient to describe something in a paragraph with one reference that fully supports the contents of the paragraph? If there are little numbers against every sentence all to the same reference, is that better than one reference? Even so expect changes in the next few days, by which time the vote will not be relevant to the article as it then will be. JMcC (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a longer job than I thought. My original estimate of just a few referencing problems was a little optimistic. However I am surrounded by books working my way through the sections bringing the references up to modern standards. JMcC (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I now need someone to point out where the references are still not good enough. JMcC (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like, I can leave cite tags in areas where referencing appears thin (let me know if this is exactly what you want, as a lot of editors don't like "tag-bombing"). The citing looks quite a bit better now, in volume and reliability, though there are a few formatting issues left over. For one, spaces between punctuation and references should be removed; I see several instances of that. In addition, I see some exposed code in the Thermals section (by reference 20) and in the details of reference 55. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Additional citations have now been added as requested. It was a useful exercise. JMcC (talk) 10:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ran through the top: quite a few copy-edits were required, and in one place the tone was like a tourist brochure's. There are causality glitches such as the "thus" in "Powered aircraft and winches are the two most common means of launching gliders. These and other methods (apart from self-launching motor-gliders) require assistance from other participants.[6] Gliding clubs have thus been established to share airfields and equipment, train new pilots and maintain high safety standards." I see others, too. One in the lead I fixed ("ensured" that there were 50 thousand pilots ... was that some kind of five-year plan?). I think the whole article needs a serious run-through. Probably savable; can it be spruced up to avoid going to FARC? PS Images: the "gull wing" needs to be bigger, don't you think? It's detail-dependent. Try 250px? The Scimitar could be a piece of cotton stuck on my screen. What does the pic illustrate? Some of the other images are good; could I put in a suggestion that the Ventus 2b be on the right, too, to avoid sandwiching the text? There's nothing wrong in principle with all-right-side pics, unless it becomes utterly tedious to the reader. Tony (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can pages be provided for the books that are used? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Opening image: it's very dark. Can it be brightened and re-uploaded?
  • Good gliding, then A Scimitar, images: why not both at the right: I suggest putting the syntax for both at the top, one after the other. This will optimise image positioning given that some users have HUGE wide windows, and others don't. Why not boost the size of both to 240px? Same for many of the others. Left–right looks messy.
  • "Power stations"—why linked? Tony (talk) 04:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criterion of concern are citations, prose. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a couple of comments above in that page numbers are needed for the book references, and that copy-editing would be helpful. Also, an image review from someone here would be nice, to ensure there are no problems there. A lot of work has been done already to improve the article, and these fixes/checks would go a long way toward seeing this remain featured. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are page numbers really called for in style guidelines?? Unless the info being referenced is hidden in the middle of a page I feel that they would be superfluousPetebutt (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Page numbers are usually expected in inline citations. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. The article is rather awkwardly written in many places, and in parts (such as Learning to glide) reads like a promotional brochure. A few examples of problems with the prose:
I have changed wording in each instance that has been cited. As I understand it the objective of a review is to ensure that Wikipedia has featured articles of the required standard. This can best be achieved by making modifications where there are weaknesses and then assessing the result. Clearly there can be hopeless cases, but there has been no indication that this article is beyond redemption. I would therefore query the validity of the "delist" opinion at this stage. As the promotional brochure in learning to glide, I would suspect that many people would not know how to begin or whether ordinary people rather than test pilots can do it. Surely the purpose of an encyclopaedia is to give information that people might find useful. I agree that gushing praise about the excitement, the wonderful views or the great club atmosphere would be out of place, but I can't see anything that fits that description. If there are other instances of excessive praise or poor wording, please give specific references. Those quoted so far have been most useful. It shows what a fresh "eye" can bring. More comments please. JMcC (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People may find all sorts of information useful, such as contact details for their local gliding club, but our aim is to write an encyclopedia, not a how-to manual. My "delist" vote is not cast in stone; if the article is sufficiently improved I will be quite willing to reconsider it. Let me know when you think you're done, but bear in mind that I just gave a few examples of the the kind of thing I'm talking about. Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the war, civilian gliding in Europe was largely suspended. Although some military operations in WWII involved military gliders, they did not soar and so are unrelated to the sport of gliding." That doesn't really make sense. This article is about the sport of gliding; military operations during WWII were clearly not carried out for sport, which is is why they're unrelated to the sport. It's got nothing to do with whether or not WWII military gliders soared or not.
Deleted the sentence
  • "Gliding did not return to the Olympics after the war, for two reasons: first, the shortage of gliders following the war ...". Awkward repetition ("after the war ... following the war").
Removed the second "following the war"
  • "In many countries during the 1950s a large number of trained pilots wanted to continue flying. Many were also aeronautical engineers." And no doubt many were not aeronautical engineers. Why is this relevant?
The war and cold war caused the training of many pilots compared with the 1930s, but gliding needs engineers to design, build, maintain and repair gliders. Sentence now expanded.
  • "The increased numbers of pilots, greater knowledge and improving technology helped set new records, so that the pre-war altitude record was doubled by 1950 ...". What is that "so that" doing here?
"so that" changed to "for example"
  • "Instead of Olympic competition there are the World Gliding Championships ...". Many, if not all, Olympic sports also have world championships; the two are not alternatives.
Changed wording
  • "6,703 pilots worldwide have registered for this contest in 2010." A sentence ought not to start with a number.
Changed wording
  • "Soaring pioneer Paul MacCready is usually credited with developing a mathematical theory for optimizing the speed at which to fly when cross-country soaring ...". It isn't a theory, mathematical or otherwise. It's a principle.
Changed
  • "On cross-country flights where strong lift is forecast ...". Can a flight be in a particular location, as implied by "where"?
changed "where" to "on days when"
  • The airspeed and glide ratio of paragliders are generally lower still than the averages found in hang gliders ...". Why "averages" in the plural? How can there be more than one average?
Two parameters can each have an average, nevertheless wording changed
In which case it ought to have said the "airspeed and glide ratios". Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus Fatuorum 14:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The seven issues will be addressed. I am on vacation and so it will take a little while. One reason for a short delay is that the five of the images were taken by someone who was hit and killed when taking more photos of gliders. I will try to persuade the estate to amend the now outdated permissions. JMcC (talk) 09:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I" would normally refer to the signatory. What else could it possibly mean? Dhaluza (talk) 02:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How is work going on this? It has been over a month since anything has been done to the article, and there are still unaddressed concerns listed above. Please feel free to ping Malleus, Elcobbola and the other reviewers when you feel you have addressed their concerns. Dana boomer (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. This has undoubtedly been improved but there's still a way to go. For instance, back in May, Tony1 drew attention to varous "causality glitches", such as the use of "thus" here, in the lead: "Powered-aircraft and winches are the two most common means of launching gliders. These and other methods (apart from self-launching motor-gliders) require assistance from other participants. Gliding clubs have thus been established to share airfields and equipment, train new pilots and maintain high safety standards."
  • "The United States and Canada provide examples of this." Examples of what?
  • "One of the measures of a glider's performance is the distance that it can fly for each meter it descends is expressed as its lift-to-drag ratio (L/D)." Doesn't make sense.
  • "The glider and the pilot(s) can be retrieved from the outlanding location using a purpose-built trailer. Alternatively, if the glider has landed in a suitable place, a tow-plane can be summoned to re-launch the aircraft (as long as the property owner gives permission)." Still reads like a How-to manual in several places.
  • The Aerobatics section isn't talking about aerobatics at all, but about aerobatics competitions.
  • "Gliders, unlike hang gliders and paragliders, surround the pilot with a strong structure, so most accidents cause no injuries: but there are some hazards." Strange punctuation.
  • "People over 193 cm (6’ 4’’) will also have problems." Why "also"? Who else will have problems?
  • "The height gained from a winch is usually less than from an aerotow (about 1,700–2,000 feet) ...". The article has been using metric units elsewhere.
  • "Each year many other people experience their first glider flight because many clubs actively seek new members and can generate income by giving trial flights." Another causality glitch.

After three months here, there just shouldn't be problems like these still in the article. Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have just returned from three weeks gliding in the Alps. All suggestions are gratefully received and I will make the suggested changes. The photo permissions are being addressed and replacement photos will be added tomorrow. JMcC (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested amendments made and photos replaced where there were queries, subject to two OTRS requests "in the post". JMcC (talk)
  • Delist - all but one of the previous issues were addressed, but new issues have been introduced:
    • File:RidgeSrn.gif - "I" is not sufficient. See WP:IUP for what constituents acceptable sourcing. If Dhaluza indeed took it, as is presumably the case, change it to "Dhaluza took this picture" and the issue will be resolved. We can't rely on a self-license template. Note, also, that exporting this article (e.g. the "create a book" function) will export only "I took this photograph" with no mention of the uploader, thus breaking the required (GFCL/CC) attribution. This is why specificity matters.
      • Contacted Dhaluza again. He did respond to confirm he was the "I" in question, see above, but he is an infrequent contributor. I have put a request on his user page, but look for an alternative.
    • File:GoldenMedows.jpg - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP (it says uploaded by PiccoloNamek - did they also take the photo?)
    • File:Glider in flight.JPG - Needs a verifiable source. Uploader (Dtom) is not "Aero Club". How can we verify "Aero Club" has freely licensed this image?

JMcC (talk) 11:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • File:Bungylaunch1.jpg - Unclear sourcing. Is Jmcc150 the same person as Jon Hall? If not, how can we verify permission from Jon Hall?
      • I will have another go at this one. Vacations are not a good time for contacting people quickly. (Later note: old e-mail address was used on first attempt)
    • File:3 diamenty.jpg - Derivative work. What is the copyright status of the badge?
      • The gull logo that is used by most national gliding associations was devised in the 1920s by a German called Fritz Stamer. It never appears with a copyright, registered or trademark symbol and there is no evidence that it ever was copyrighted, though proving a negative is always difficult. For example it appears in the Soaring Society of America web site, on the German gliding organisation's web site and on the Australian site. The International Gliding Commission of the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale has its own logo and does not issue the physical badges. As far as I can see no-one owns the copyright for the logo. I believe the rules fair use and public domain cover this. A request on the Media Copyright questions page went unanswered.
    • File:CAP L-23 N381BA.jpg - Source is a direct link to the image. Where can we verify federal authorship? Эlcobbola talk 16:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Image replaced
  • Keep, if the above image issues are addressed. Malleus Fatuorum 16:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Light at the end of the tunnel! Messages have been sent out today to all the uploaders of the images queried by User:Эlcobbola to clarify the status of these images. Many were in Commons and so I thought they were safe, but even then there are pitfalls. JMcC (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding File:CAP L-23 N381BA.jpg, I can only comment that the license should be correct, in that it was taken by a Civil Air Patrol member in the course of the course of their duties. I uploaded it and feel confident that the license is correct, but if it is felt this is not good enough, then remove it from the article and request deletion on Commons. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How is work going on this? It has been 10 days since anything happened on the article. The image issues need to be addressed, and then the article can be kept as an FA. Dana boomer (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have put a status report against each photo in question. If there are no replies in the next two weeks, and I have not found replacements, then I suggest that this article's FA status is removed. I would prefer this to losing some of these photos. JMcC (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It looks above like you will be able to replace or source most of them. Is there any particular one that you are so against losing that you would rather see the article's FA status removed? Also, please see my comment on the Dhaluza image above. Dana boomer (talk) 11:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Lede/intro does not conform to WP:LEAD, does not adequately stand-alone as a summary of the entire article's contents. Lede/intro is also choppy, and consists of short-paragraphs and one-sentence-long-paragraphs. There are one-sentence-long-paragraphs and short-paragraphs and quite short subsections throughout the article - these should either be merged or expanded. Subsections Challenges for the gliding movement and Related air sports could both be significant expanded quite a bit, especially to deal with issues of comprehensiveness for an FA. Relevant portals could be added to See also sect, and perhaps this could be split into two columns, for style formatting. -- Cirt (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is never ending. There are two OTRS permissions due on two images, which should appear shortly. Otherwise I have met all previous suggestions. I am not going to spend any more time on this, especially to meet the latest points. Delist if you want. JMcC (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps you could ask Cirt what he thinks needs to be included in the two sections he mentions to make the article comprehensive? The rest of the things are easily done, and should not discourage you from working to help this article be kept as a FA. Dana boomer (talk) 10:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Challenges for the gliding movement only uses one source. It is formatted as a bullet list. This just seems rather unprofessional for an article purportedly of FA quality. Related air sports could incorporate much more material from the articles and topics it glosses over and links to - it only uses three sources to speak rather broadly about a wide array of areas. -- Cirt (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK I have expanded the intro to cover more of the whole article. The challenges section needs still some work to track down every reference needed. I am beginning to regret adding this section five years ago! As the treasurer of a gliding club I can see the challenges and trends but concrete references are harder. I would query the need to include more material from related air sports. The article is about gliding not hang gliding or paragliding. However I have provided a better link to a detailed comparison of gliders with hang gliders and paragliders. JMcC (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, leaning towards Keep' - once the image issues above have been resolved, I do not see problems with the prose which warrant delisting, although improvements could be made. Jan 1922 (talk) 09:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. As far as I can see I just have the bungee launch photo to sort out, but let me know if there are other problems. Second attempt just made to contact the photographer. He may have deleted previous request as spam. If no luck in a few days, I will put out a call for other pictures on the UK newsgroup. JMcC (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How this going? Any progress on the images? There are two dead links in the article that needs to be fixed. JJ98 (Talk) 07:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said in the posting above, as far as I can see I just have the copyright on the bungee launch photo to sort out. Which are the two dead links? Is there an easy way to detect them? JMcC (talk) 10:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is a toolbox at the top of this review page (the specific subpage that the Gliding review is on). One of the links says "external links". Click on this and it will run an analysis of all external links in the article and tell you which ones are dead. Dana boomer (talk) 02:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Almost all problems have been resolved. I believed it is time to close this FA Review. I believe that JMcC can address few remaining problems later. Ruslik_Zero 16:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I worked on a bit of copyediting earlier in the week, and now cannot really find any outstanding issues to address - which tells me that this very, very long review (Gliding went to FARC in June!) has resulted in a much better article that seems to meet the FA criteria. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 00:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional closing note: This article has been at FAR for over four months, and there is no consensus to delist (there is actually a consensus to keep, with a few minor outstanding details). If the dissenting editors feel that the issues warrant further action, the discussion can be carried to the talk page. If the issues are not fixed and are felt to be severe enough, the article can be brought back to FAR in a minimum of three months. Dana boomer (talk) 23:07, 18 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 23:01, 18 October 2010 [2].

Ormulum

Review commentary

Notified: Geogre, Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, Religious texts, Middle Ages, Lincolnshire, Bible, Christianity

I am placing Ormulum up for FAR for failure of 1c. Parts of the article are unreferenced, with the "Orthography" section being completely unreferenced. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Perhaps it would be reasonable to try to specify more precisely where the article may be falling short of 1c: "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate"
I would have thought the seven books cited as sources, plus the external link to the Ormulum Project, represented "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" – is the nominator aware of newer works that need to be added?
Since the article text has stood as a FA since 2005, I would postulate that the text is verifiable against the named books, which I believe to be "high-quality reliable sources". Is there an assertion that the text is not verifiable? Is there an assertion that they are not high-quality reliable sources?
Much of the article lacks inline citations, which of course were less common at the time of promotion than they are now. Nevertheless, the requirement for being "supported by inline citations where appropriate" leads to "inline citations are required for direct quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." The quotations are clearly attributed to Holt (1878). Should the the attributions be copied to a point directly after each quotation per WP:BURDEN?
Since the Orthography section is singled out as "unreferenced", is the nominator asserting that the text of that section is likely to be challenged and needs inline citation?
I believe the perceived problem with this article is not a lack of referencing, but a lack of inline citations. I suggest that it would be helpful if the nominator were to specify which parts of the text they felt were being challenged, or those parts which they found were not verified by reference to the named sources. --RexxS (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Orthography" now referenced; can you be more specific on what else you feel must be cited? I noticed a citation tag, but it seems uncalled-for - surely it's logical to say that the uneducated did not understand Latin? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It also caught me by surprise when the article was on the front page. I suppose it goes to show that FA standards were more lax then, at the time of the review, than they are now. On the other hand, there's an explanation on the talk page by an anonymous IP who appears to speak on behalf of the original author, who has sadly passed away. He (it's a he) insisted that no footnotes were to be used, inline notes only, but the latter were removed by some other editor. If so, that would mean that we need to hunt for citations in the edit history (!). Cavila (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In many ways you're right, standards were different when the article was promoted. The original author knew about the subject; sat down with the best books available; wrote the article using parenthetical referencing where direct quotations were used; and listed his sources at the end, so anybody could read the books and check that he had got his facts right. You can see how that had worked by looking at the article as it was when promoted almost five years ago. From what I can glean, there was a general assumption that creators of multiple FAs could be trusted to write neutral, accurate content. In some ways it's a pity that trust has disappeared. I don't have the books, so I can't be certain, but I'd very much doubt that anybody with access to the books would argue with the accuracy of the text. It's instructive to note that nobody has actually claimed that the text fails verification; only that the absence of inline citations makes verification significantly more difficult. If that's sufficient to demote a Featured Article, then so be it. I can't help but think it says more about our obsession with process than the quality of the article. By the way, I am informed that the original author (Geogre) is alive and well; one can only assume that he alludes to his "passing on" from Wikipedia – a sad loss indeed in that sense. --RexxS (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, glad to know that Wikipedia didn't kill him. Never mind about the "lost citations". The IP user was right about the earlier use of inline notes, but they have not been removed as such. They have simply been converted to footnotes, as far as I can see. Interestingly, this is not the first time that editors have expressed concerns over the lack of inline citations. A tag was added at least three times, each time followed by a reversion. Cavila (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't really think the reasons for the alleged failure of 1C have been demonstrated. I'm afraid it was I who changed the referencing system from in-text to inline citations, mainly because people were making such a fuss about it on the talk page on the day it was TFA'd. As far as I can tell from the FA rules, though, there's nothing to say that articles must have inline citations, as long as it has citations of some description, which this certainly does. In-text citations are a thoroughly respected academic referencing style, and as noted above, there are certainly a big pile of scholarly texts listed in the bibliography, paragraphs are on the whole cited, and it's only recently that the "one or more references per sentence" trend has appeared. This wouldn't be appropriate here, as it's not exactly a controversial topic and Geogre notes that many of the references only feature one page about this particular topic. I agree with RexxS's speculation that parts of the article are intended to be read as an assimilation of several listed sources into one sentence. As an aside, I thought it was quite refreshing to see a page on such an obscure topic on the main page, and it made nice change from all the video game and Family Guy episode articles that one so often gets at TFA. Bob talk 22:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with GamerPro64 (talk · contribs). However, it must be noted that the article should not mixmatch two different citation styles. It appears in-line is now predominantly used. That should be made uniform, throughout the article. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, WP:CITEHOW is clear on this issue: Citations in Wikipedia articles should use a consistent style. Any of the following styles are acceptable so long as each article is internally consistent. You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected. I would disagree that changing from parenthetical referencing to an alternate style is an acceptable change, particularly if done as a fait accompli. --RexxS (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article already uses predominantly in-line cites. Therefore, the very quote you gave, says we should be consistent, with that. Thanks for clarifying that for us! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Nope, the original author used parenthetical referencing and the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected - that should be clearer now. There is no dispensation to count up and "decide by majority". I'd recommend reading WP:ARBDATE#Optional styles and WP:ARBDATE#Fait accompli to better understand the consequences of what you are proposing - even if you meant it as a joke, someone else might think you were being serious and end up in hot water. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you are implying, but: 1) The article does predominantly use in-line cites. 2) The article, per your cited quote, should not mix and match different citation styles. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(1) is not part of any criterion for deciding what style to use; (2) The article should not be mixed style; (3) The actual criterion for deciding which style to use is to respect the style use by the original author, who used parenthetical referencing. What I'm saying - and I'm sorry that I was not clearer for you - is that the citation style needs to be made consistent with parenthetical referencing. Changing style from parenthetical to another style (particularly as a 'fait accompli') is a serious enough breach of our conventions that ArbCom chose to define such changes as a 'Principle' in a decision. HTH --RexxS (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glad we agree that the article should not have a mixed style. :) It now uses 100% in-line citations. Let us keep it that way, and not fall backwards. Thanks! Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 23:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also glad we agree that mixed style is inappropriate. However, parenthetical referencing is not considered by the community as a "falling backwards". Changing style to meet a personal preference is just a recipe for edit-warring. What response could you possibly have if someone were to change all of the in-line citations to parenthetical? --RexxS (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I don't think it would be a backwards step to go to parenthetical referencing; I don't use that style myself but many do and it has its partisans who could argue for it. I agree with RexxS that if someone were to revert to the original style that would be a reasonable thing to do and would be consonant with the guidance he quotes. I wouldn't take the time to do it myself, but I feel that an editor working on this article would be within their rights to recover the original citation style, if they wished to, and to subsequently defend that style. On a separate note, I wish I had the sources available to help work on this article, but I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to help. Mike Christie (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree that it was a mistake to change the referencing style, although was largely undertaken as a measure to prevent this type of review which was being threatened on the talk page. I've converted the last intext citation, so it's now fairly uniform with regards to citations, although I guess it might make sense to put the page number of "Matthew" in the inline reference, rather than the bibliography. I'm going to hold my hand up and admit, though, that I have absolutely no expertise on this text whatsoever (and I respectfully propose that neither GamerPro64 or Cirt do either), so I wonder whether it's really acceptable to judge if this is well-referenced or not? Even if it had a reference for each sentence, has the nominator claiming it's unverified checked the book sources himself? I suspect nobody has because they're all pretty specialist texts, which with the exception of the public domain Robert Holt reference would probably be difficult to locate outside of a copyright depository or university library. Bob talk 23:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let us avoid comments about individual contributors at this FAR page, and keep it focused to comments about content, thanks. As to verifiability, it makes it much harder to verify text, when we do not know which source is verifying which part of the text or paragraph or subsection. Even more difficult, when we have the source, but do not know which page from that source to check, to verify. -- Cirt (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Parenthetical referencing does not require year of publication inline. See WP:CITE#Parenthetical referencing for a description of how the full source is cited at the end. --RexxS (talk) 23:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is needed, to determine which work it is. There are works with the same author, but two different books, from two different years. Year is needed, in this specific instance, for verification. -- Cirt (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, the books are identified as 'Bennett' and 'Bennett & Smithers' - there's no requirement for a year when it's clear from the authors which work is referred to. --RexxS (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check the cites. They do not identify which "Bennett" is being referred to. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But they do! Geogre would never cite "Bennett" for a quote when he meant Bennett & Smithers. Absolutely unthinkable. --RexxS (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, so we can therefore remove, "Bennet & Smithers" - because it is not used as a source at all in the article? -- Cirt (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, you have to keep up with the story: Geogre used parenthetical referencing inline when it was required for quotes. He just didn't happen to quote "Bennet & Smithers". The whole article is sourced to the books named in References. So no, we can't go removing the books that Geogre used as sources. Don't forget the purpose of this phase of review is to find ways of improving the article, not gutting the references section of all the important sources on the subject. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 03:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, you think that "Bennet & Smithers", was not used for any parenthetical referencing? -- Cirt (talk) 03:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As sure as I am that Geogre was one of the great content contributors (that means I'm certain, in case it's not clear). We have always required direct quotations to be directly attributed to the source (for avoidance of plagiarism), and that was no different in 2005 from now. The next step is to conclude that the article never had inline citations for the purpose of verification, but that's already agreed. An accepted style then was to write the article and append the books used at the end. To verify the article, all you had to do was read the books. Sadly, those days are gone now. To improve the article, the task before us is to decide on what pieces of text are likely to be challenged and find the page in the sources that verifies it. I'd suggest asking around to see if anybody else has access to the books, because without the sources, we're sort of talking in a vacuum at present. Unless, of course, we can reach a consensus that we'd trust Geogre to have used the sources accurately? I know about WP:BURDEN, but I'm honestly trying to be as constructive as I can. --RexxS (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Holt is available on Google Books. ODNB has an online edition, and the paper version is probably in most academic libraries - there's one in my local library, if we need it. Actually, my library has all of the sources, although a couple are 2-hour reference only - if you let me know exactly what it is that needs to be cited, I can probably manage it sometime in the next couple of days. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's wonderful news, and I think we'll all be grateful for your generous offer to help. I'll make a section on the article talk page Talk:Ormulum#Citing challenged text and copy your offer there (hope that's ok). You have probably volunteered for a lot of work here, but as long as everybody keeps in mind the objective of improving the article, I think it should be a manageable task. I'd like to help, but having checked on Worldcat, the nearest library that would be of any use to me is about 40 miles away :( That's what I get for living in the middle of a cultural wasteland. --RexxS (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The two "Bennett" sources will need to be checked. -- Cirt (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Clearly underreferenced by current standards, though anyone familiar with the subject area with 90 minutes to spare in a university library could fix that. It was clearly against policy to change the reference style without considerable consultation, but that does not really affect FA status. Cirt, please don't be perverse on this point! There is a US spelling in the lead - "meter" - which should not be there; maybe there are others. Looking at the online bibiography from Sweden, there don't seem to be many major sources missing, except those on linguistic minutiae; but perhaps some of those contain more general points worth having - the sources used are either rather non-specific or fairly old. I note this published paper, available online; among other things it says: "The only modern edition of the text appeared in 1878, an edition which is far too unreliable to be used for any investigation of the language in the manuscript." But that is the only edition there is. Otherwise no one has really made serious points against the article. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criterion of concern are sourcing YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delist: I don't care what the naysayers are saying about the sourcing. I still say the article fails 1c. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fine then. Library's closed for Thanksgiving, but if somebody would lay out what exactly needs to be fixed with the sourcing (more specifically than "fails 1c", please), I can get to work on it tomorrow. Being neither an expert om Ornulum nor a mind-reader, there's not much I can do without more information. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of tags, but especially every para should have a ref, and now the guard dogs are alerted, the end of every para too. Also things in the lead that are not repeated below. Most of the sources' coverage is probably pretty compact, I'm guessing. The offer is much appreciated. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've taken out all of the books that can be borrowed, and will add citations and go back to look at the in-library ones within the next few days. If someone could cover the Holt source, which is available full-text on Google Books, that would be very helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since that is 1878, it's probably best to do the modern ones first, & then supplement with Holt where necessary. Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, since you have the books, I wonder if this entire issue couldn't be resolved simply by returning the article to parenthetical referencing? It appears that it has been established in the conversation above that the change from the original editor's (now apparently deceased) choice of parenthetical referencing to inline citation was in direct violation of WP:CITEHOW, and it also appears from the conversation above that it would be acceptable to change back to parenthetical referencing. I think this can be done quite easily by also referring to the version of the page on 14 September 2010 when it was protected in anticipation of TFA, and using the books where needed elsewhere. I'm not involved in any way and have no particular preference, just wanted to throw that thought out there. Aaron north (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would work; whichever is easiest. Johnbod (talk) 10:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be helpful, as I'm not really familiar with the citation style now in use - parenthetical is so much simpler. However, I really should point out that per comments above the original editor is not dead, but has merely left Wikipedia. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, strongly oppose going back to the old citation style. That is what got us into this mess in the first place: namely, poor issues with citing, failure to cite years, and pages, etc. -- Cirt (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've made your disregard for policy on this matter perfectly clear above. If you are not going to assist in improving the article, and of course we all know that won't be happening, at least don't hinder those who are trying to do the work! Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason why Nikkimaria should not go back to the old citation style if that helps save the article's featured status. Per WP:CITEHOW it should not have been changed. Mike Christie (talk) 03:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see no way of how it would help save the article's featured status at this point in time. The article has actually been improved a bit by recent changes, including the citations. -- Cirt (talk) 05:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've started adding citations but don't really want to get in a big argument about citation style; I'll just add them as I've been doing and let whoever cares about such things figure out the "correct" way to format them. And since the original note says that all quotations are from Holt, someone should probably look at it...Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a fix yet, those cites are missing years. -- Cirt (talk) 04:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like there are still a few places that need cites. -- Cirt (talk) 04:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that in my view I am happy with this remaining at FA. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully disagree, but okay. -- Cirt (talk) 05:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've now consulted every source except for Holt. The following remains uncited: "it may be interpreted as either "Reflection of Orm," or "Researches of Orm.""; "The text has few topical references to specific events that could be used to identify the period of composition more precisely. Orm may have been an eyewitness to the Anarchy of the reigns of Stephen and Matilda, but if so, he is quite elliptical, as the sermons almost never stray from their source material."; "Orm, however, says in the preface that he wishes Walter to remove any wording that he finds clumsy or incorrect; this implies that a revision or approval process was anticipated.". I am fairly confident that the last of these can be cited to Holt; the others may be too, I haven't checked, and if not they can be cited to an as-yet-unused source or removed altogether. I believe everything else in the article is now cited. Are there any remaining concerns besides these three uncited sentences? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked in Holt's Preface for these points, & can't see them (it has relatively little on the work itself). I can't work out where his notes are. Johnbod (talk) 01:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first part of the third point is citable to the first two pages of the text itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I scanned them, but my Middle English isn't great & I couldn't see it. Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Nikki, it looks like you're doing some good work. When you feel that the article is up to standards, please feel free to ping the editors who have already entered "delist" votes and ask them to re-check the article. Also, as a note on sourcing, the style can be whichever way you would like it to be, and actually should probably correctly be parenthetically, since that was the way it was originally written and there was no consensus to change. However it ends up, votes entered simply based on the use of parenthetical references versus ref-tagged references are invalid. Also, all of the voters are reminded that simple citation counting is discouraged - at this point in the process you should show why specific sentences need referencing (is it a quotation? an exceptional claim? a contentious BLP statement? an opinion? data or statistics?) rather than just saying "needs more references". Dana boomer (talk) 02:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Great work by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), excellent job overall with the research, thank you! :) As for those uncited sentences, perhaps they should simply be removed, until properly referenced. -- Cirt (talk) 06:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I already did that yesterday. Cirt, do you have any further concerns regarding this article's FA status? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, there are numerous misstatements and misunderstandings of WP:WIAFA and parenthetical inline referencing throughout this FAR, by Cirt-- it is absolutely inappropriate to change the original citation style on an article, and it doesn't appear that Cirt understands the difference between parenthetical referencing and the cite.php method also used on Wiki. I'm glad the article is now acceptable to reviewers, but the change in citation style that occurred here was wrong, and this misunderstanding about the citation style must be corrected for future reference. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note There was no misunderstanding of policy by Cirt. The relevant section of WP:CITE#HOW was pointed out to him and clarified ad nauseam in the thread following the fourth comment (by Bob 22:14, 29 September 2010) in the Review commentary above. It appears he deliberately chose to ignore the normal conventions and decided to push through his own idiosyncratic views, without respecting the style used by the original author. I am frankly dismayed by his dismissal of parenthetical referencing as a "fall backwards". As I see no evidence that he intends to change his stance on insisting on removing parenthetical referencing from FAs, I can see no way that any of this will be "corrected for future reference". --RexxS (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • After Nikkimaria's excellent and hard work here, that's the only reason I bring this up-- this should not happen again, it is plainly against WIAFA and CITE. WIAFA is perfectly clear on parenthetical citation, and there is no excuse for this. However, in this case, it looks like what's done is done, so it's best to move on. As long as it doesn't happen again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Bob Castle (talk · contribs) "converted intext variations into inline", followed by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) "refs, minor ce", followed by Bob Castle "converted single intext ref", followed by more by Nikkimaria [3], [4], [5], [6]. Note: SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) unduly focuses her criticism in her comments at this FAR page on one particular individual user, instead of focusing polite comments about content, for some odd and disturbing focus on a particular user over a prolonged period of time that is quite uncomfortable and unsettling, but it is important to note that I was not the editor to initially make such in-line citation style changes to this article, though I do think they have helped improve the article's quality. It is interesting to note the attacks made against me over comments in support of improvements to the article's quality, and none against the actual users that made the actual citation changes to the article itself. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The others either didn't understand or explained their actions above, while you continued to either misundertand or misstate the guideline even after it was pointed out to you. Hence, the importance of making sure you do understand CITEHOW and WIAFA, so that this doesn't happen again. I do not think the change from parenthetical citations was an improvement here, but since the article is now cited, and it's a fait accompli, what matters now is that this doesn't happen again. And stop alleging personal attacks-- it's an unhelpful diversion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At no point to my knowledge did I misstate the guideline. At several points on multiple pages on Wikipedia, SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) has seemed to have an intense and undue focus on one particular user, myself. Even when I did not make the actual edits in question - the users that did are not questioned at all about this. The attacks are focused on me. It is quite disturbing. I wish it would stop. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of editors wish the problems here would stop. The editors who made the actual edits didn't continue to advocate that parenthetical citations were a problem. They aren't. You did. I hope you now understand the guideline, and that some articles' style is more conducive to parentheticals. Stop the martyrdom, or at least, take it elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for stating it is a guideline, and not a policy. I hope you will take your undue focus elsewhere, as well. -- Cirt (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, I have never stated either WIAFA or CITEHOW is policy. As long as you want to continue sniping, I can decide whether I'll leave you the last word. Cut it out. It is not undue focus to correct serious misunderstandings that occurred on this FAR and were furthered by you so that this won't happen again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I struck out an inappropriate comment I made above [7]. I made a clarifying comment below [8]. Hopefully this is now satisfactory. -- Cirt (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part of the problem that occured on this FAR is terminology-- both parentheticals and cite.php formats are inline citations, as required by WIAFA. If you would understand that and make a clearer distinction in the future, further misunderstandings might be better avoided. The requirement for inline citations that was added to WIAFA in 2005 after the Siegenthaler incident did not specify which form they must take, while CITEHOW says not to change the original citation style. The discussion at the top of this article confuses the subject by referring to parentheticals as if they were not inline citations-- it's not clear to me if you understand this distinction yet, but it could just be the confusing terminology. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I thought in-line was one thing, and parenthetical another. I appreciate you clearing this up. Thank you. I will make an effort in the future to keep this in mind. I apologize for the confusion. I am sorry about that. -- Cirt (talk) 17:42, 17 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 [10].

Selena

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]

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 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]
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]
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]
  • There are also three red links in this article:
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]

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]

FARC commentary

Featured article criterion of concern are prose, referencing, copyright YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:23, 6 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]
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]
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:

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]

    • 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]
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]

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 [12].

Chess

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]

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 links done. 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?

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]
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]

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]
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]
  • 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]

Comments by Sasata (talk) 02:02, 28 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]
  • 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]

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 (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]
  • 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)
  • 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 [14].

World Science Festival

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]

FARC commentary

Featured article criterion of concern are comprehensiveness YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:49, 22 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.

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 Dana boomer 14:07, 25 October 2010 [15].

Ahmedabad

Review commentary

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian cities, Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities, User talk:Hardik jadeja, User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, User talk:Gppande, User talk:Aksi great. -- Cirt (talk) 04:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FA from 2006, fails 1c sourcing standards noticeably, specifically, just has tons of completely unsourced chunks spread throughout the article. Unaddressed problem tags on this FA include: weasel wording, pov issues, verifiability issues, sourcing standards. A whopping 22 images in use on this article, this FA could most definitely use a thorough and detailed image review of all the images. -- Cirt (talk) 04:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criterion of concern are POV and sourcing YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:57, 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 removed by Dana boomer 14:07, 25 October 2010 [16].

Adi Shankara

Review commentary

Notified: Kerala, Hinduism WP; author retired

The article is unsourced in many places, especially subjective areas relating to legacy. Secondly the article is predominantly based on a book by an adherent, rather than scholar sources, of which there are no shortage YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delist yet, please see the FAR instructions at WP:FAR. Usually, articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If the concerns not addressed, it moves to the FARC stage where editors declare "Keep" or "Delist". JJ98 (Talk) 06:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you, I will lend a helping hand in the review / improvements (and hopefully other editors also will)! I have struck my vote above. Thanks. --TheMandarin (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I glanced through the article and it falls significantly short. It will take a continuous, dedicated effort and 100s of edits to bring it back FA level. I will contribute after I am done with my current areas of focus. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the past 5 years of history on various Indian history pages, I don't think your battle on India will ever finish YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No battles for me - just an attempt to affect changes where ever there's a clear bias. If you have an interest in a related Indian philosophy article Upanishads, feel free to review it - it's in the GA queue right now. Takes you from 800 bc or even earlier to present day. Upanishads were called something like "the greatest discovery in human thought". Zuggernaut (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criterion of concern are sourcing YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:56, 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 removed by Dana boomer 21:09, 24 October 2010 [17].

Dorset

Review commentary

Notified: User talk:Steinsky, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dorset, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography

I am nominating this featured article for review because it currently needs more referencing - criteria 1c - e.g. for the education section which has no references. Tom B (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criterion of concern are sourcing YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:14, 5 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 [18].

Bratislava

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 [19] [20] 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]
  • Comment regarding the issues:

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]
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 [30].

Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress

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]
  • 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 [31].

Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope

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]
  • 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.

Other sources that I'm not sure are reliable:

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 [32], 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]
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 [33].

Claudius

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 [34] and [35] 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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive&oldid=392789487"