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
+1
Dana boomer (talk | contribs)
52,509 edits
Line 76: Line 76:


==Kept status==
==Kept status==

{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Katyn massacre/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/League of Nations/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/League of Nations/archive2}}


Revision as of 23:52, 18 November 2011

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 23:52, 18 November 2011 [1].

Katyn massacre

Review commentary

Notified: WikiProject Socialism‎; WikiProject Death; WikiProject Russia; WikiProject Soviet Union; WikiProject Military history‎; WikiProject Poland‎
Talk page notification 13 December 2010

Featured in 2006, the article has declined slightly, and the standards of Wikipedia have advanced. My concerns relate to:

  1. Quality of citations
  2. Quality of cited source material
  3. Synthesis by cherry-picking via deep google book searching, rather than reliance on HQRS
  4. Use of non-HQRS, Primaries, etc. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Declined slightly? Brad (talk) 08:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments MOS problems

  • The article is horribly overlinked. For a moment I thought my browser had accidentally changed my font color to blue.
  • There are 25 photographs in the article. This is not an article; it's a photo gallery. Did not check all the licenses but there is at least one fair use without a fair use rational.
  • Gigantic See also section. Brad (talk) 08:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be more specific about which citations are problematic, and where do you see a synthesis?
Looking through the article, I don't see the overlink problem, all linked terms seem notable.
Some photos may need to go; feel fee to review the licenses, and maybe we can cut down on some non-free stuff.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnotes 2, 4, 9, 80 & 116 are underused, as they form the scholarly basis of the article in English. 27, 31 seem to have some scholarly merit, in languages I unfortunately do not have. There's Synthesis from primary sources going on to a massive scale. I first became aware of the Synthesis issue from a badly presented citation of the Black Book, which was obviously a result of Google Books deep searching (the citation was apt, but indicated a lack of familiarity with the text, authors, and academic conventions such as authored chapters in edited collections). The article could do with having all of its primaries purged and the material sourced from HQRS scholarly works. It could also probably do with its structure, weight and emphasis following scholarly works. Some of this may be as simple as resourcing, but someone with access and capacity needs to check for broad level synthesis because the sourcing basis here reads like an original essay rather than the recapitulation of the scholarly knowledge. Fifelfoo (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Brad101 - I think I've managed to remove most of the overlinks. It wasn't that bad (I've seen much worse).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And cut down the SAs from 7 to 3. Looking at some other History FAs I see a range from 0 SAs to 7 SAs, so 3 should be fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Fifelfoo - Can you point to which primary sources are you referring to and which synthesis you have in mind? I see some reference to primary sources in the text but it looks like that text is usually sourced to secondary sources which are discussing the primary sources, which is how it should be done. Maybe I'm missing it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Volunteer Marek! Thanks for the questions. I've responded in relation to the first fifty citations immediately below to illustrate my point. (Given our past relationships, you ought to know I listed this for article improvement only, not to defeature it. Our article should be of the highest quality on this topic, and truthfully record the Soviet government's illegal and abhorrent actions, and the historical controversy surrounding their public denials, and the historic post 1989 reactions. I'm only noting this to avoid any questions regarding my motivations. My motivation about source quality is connected to the high HQRS expectations I have of such an important article.) This article can be great, but my reading of the sourcing is that it currently repeatedly returns to primary sources to substantiate facts which are either not encyclopaedic (ie: not reported in scholarly HQRS as significant to the narrative), or which are encyclopaedic and are found in the HQRS narrative by scholars. I'm also accepting that post 1989 reactions are rightly sourced to news magazines and newspapers due to how recent the reactions are. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Data combined from Alexander Shelepin's letter to Khrushchev..." is the sole source for a statement
  • "Excerpt from protocol No. 13 of the Politburo of the Central Committee meeting, shooting order of 5 March 1940..." supports three statements without secondaries
  • "Text of the original TASS communiqué released on April 14, 1990..." is miscited and improperly used to support a claim (it is the primary for the claim, it doesn't further illustrate the claim through quotation).
    • In both cases this ref is backed up by 1 or 2 others. I don't see a cause for concern here, particularly, how is it miscited? Are you suggesting we should simply cite it? The problem is that it is in Russian, and not translated, so we cannot simply cite it in the article. What I'd do is I'd convert this from a reference to a proper footnote (and I'll do it shortly). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "IPN numbers quoted by Expatica.com article "Polish experts lower nation's WWII death toll", 30 August 2009..." is an inappropriate tertiary
    • Not sure if it was inappropriate, but I added another one, and the correct secondary source (original publication). While I don't have the book, I found the excerpt reproducing part of it online. Seeing as the numbers are consistent with the other tertiary source (which in fact is an interview with the director of the IPN), the numbers seem reliable (would be nice to add the exact page number from the book but it does not appear to be online in any shape or form, sadly). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Записка председателя КГБ при СМ СССР..." is on both instances solely cited without secondaries
  • [I can't check the polish sources properly due to language, they may be some source books or biographies cited]
  • "various authors (2003). Zdzisław Peszkowski, Stanisław Zdrojewski. ed. Kozielsk w Dołach Katynia - Dzienniki Kozielskie. Pelplin: Bernardinum." is reliant on diary information; it is also cited over two other sources (if they're secondaries) and it doesn't illustrate by quotation
  • "Various authors. Biuletyn „Kombatant” nr specjalny (148) czerwiec 2003..." may well be memoirs inappropriately cited
  • "Assembly of Captive European Nations, First Session..." isn't an RS due to the high degree of partisan opinion and is the sole citation
  • "Bauer, Eddy..." is an inappropriate tertiary
Ok, thanks, I'll look through those. Give me a little time.Response to small print in small print. No problem! Relisting FAs is a good thing as it keeps article quality up. I have never had any concerns about your motivations.

. Since this is the English Wikipedia, I'm also concerned about the overuse of foreign language sources; see WP:NONENG. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree pretty strongly with this. There's nothing in WP:NONENG which prohibits use of non-English language sources and AFAIK this has never been any kind of standard at FA. In fact, there are lots of articles which should rely on foreign language sources, as that where the in depth, academic, and more than superficial coverage's going to be. Of course, if there's any controversy, editors are free to request translations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree all you may, the WP:V policy states: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, where English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." Are you saying that English-language academic books on the topic, like that of George Sanford are superficial, and we need to resort to WP:PRIMARY foreign-language sources to learn the WP:TRUTH? Because that's exactly what WP:SYN is designed to prevent... Tijfo098 (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason that both Sanford and relevant non-En sources cannot be used in the article. If it's in Sanford (or other En source) then yes, we should prefer it and use that to cite the text, but if it's not, it's fine to use non-En sources, per WP:V - it depends on a specific piece of text (so thanks for providing specific examples below). So to answer your (perhaps rhetorical?) question, no I am not saying that at all. Neither am I disagreeing with policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See below for an example of passage that appears problematic source-wise to me. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also English-language books like Sanford's are cited without page numbers. Further, I'm not a stickler for über-uniform ref formatting, but the citations are a giant medeley of styles. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will try to address these. I think I can do the page numbers, but I'm a mess with ref formatting.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "Recent developments" section needs serious pruning; perhaps moving most of it to an article called Politics surrounding the Katyn massacre or something like that. It largely reads like the antithesis of WP:NOTNEWS. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this. Will do it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did some cleanup of that. I think that the remaining info is mostly relevant, through I won't swear by every single sentence - some further shortening may be possible. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also bad writing throughout. E.g. there is a section called "discovery" (which one can fathom what it's about from its title), but yet another one called "revelations", which starts with the cryptic phrase: "From the late 1980s, pressure was put not only on the Polish government, but on the Soviet one as well." Pressure by whom? Tijfo098 (talk) 04:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, a few more read over copy-edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should take a look at the French version of this article (also FA), which has more revealing section titles fr:Massacre de Katyń. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example that looks questionable source-wise:

Contrary to a number of claims (cites: Montréal Gazette, Canada, 5 November 1990. "Germans Hanged for Katyn" and Letter published in Anzeiger der Notverwaltung des Deutschen Ostens, No.5, Sept./Oct. 2005., Retrieved on 16 November 2006.) of all the accused during the Leningrad Trial, only Diere was accused of a connection to the Katyn massacre. (cites: (in Russian) I.S.Yazhborovskaja, A.Yu.Yablokov, V.S.Parsadanova, Катынский синдром в советско-польских и российско-польских отношениях, Moscow, ROSSPEN, 2001, pp. 336, 337.)
Nobody in the English-speaking world figured out the claim from the Russian source, or do they perhaps disagree with it? Tijfo098 (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also one of the sites linked there [2] (presumably just to give us the text of that letter) seems to have anti-Semitic overtones in its sidebar. The other one, fpp.co.uk, is the site of David Irving. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further, it's not clear at all on which of these sources the previous sentences in that paragraph are based on (up to "In a note of 29 November 1954 he recanted his confession...") Tijfo098 (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah those are totally trash sources. Junking them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular case, also, it seems that the original wording was "Contrary to claims on several "revisionist" sites" - so those sources were given as examples of such claims with a refutation. That's actually not all that good of a sentence/sourcing either, but it does explain how those sources wound up in there in the first place. So the article did accumulate some cruft and nonsense through a series of many small pov edits. Will try to fix that too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I've added a couple of secondary sources for the well-known stuff (Sikorski etc.) but the info about Arno Diere seems exceedingly hard to source reliably. Hopefully the Russian source is more reliable than the various letters that appeared in Western newspapers and were then cherry picked by the revisionist sites; I can't find any serious Western historical/academic source covering that issue. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He is mentioned in this French book. I have no idea if it is reliable or not. This is the only hit I get in GBooks, no hits in GScholar. Considering the sparsity of references, I am open to further discussion on whether this should stay or not (perhaps on talk of the article)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burdenko Commission's forgeries and plan to deceive, which was the basis of 50 years of denials by Soviets, needs to covered at more depth. Both the 2001 Russian book (just in the paragraph before they cover Diere) and also [3] [4] [5] describe these, including Burdenko's deathbed admission. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also chapter 1 of this 2008 book (pp. 1-14) chronicles with excerpts from the Soviet archives the level of knowledge and cover-up in the post-Stalin years, up to Gorbatchev, included. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the Russian book appears to be quite reliable and grounbreaking at the same time. A 5-page English review & summary appeared in Cienciala, A. M. (2006). "The Katyn Syndrome". The Russian Review. 65 (1): 117–121. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9434.2005.00389.x.. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian book would require an editor who can read Russian. FYI, that would not be me, and I have my doubts about whether VM can read it as well :( Thank you for the other finds! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear on that one: I was trying to figure out if it's reliable, because it's already used in the article. I'm not asking for it to be used any further than possible within the limitations of Wikipedia's policies (which prefers English-language sources if the material can be found in those, but there's one interesting passage which apparently cannot be found elsewhere), nor am I asking that editors suddenly become expert Russian readers or something like that. :-) Tijfo098 (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- It looks like quite a bit of work has happened on this article, but there have been no comments here in the past week. Do the nominator and other editors believe this can be kept without a FARC (if a bit more time is needed it can stay in this section)? Dana boomer (talk) 13:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep in Review for another fortnight. Problems outlined above still exist, but I hope work is progressing. We have an "Original documents section" which is reliant solely on primaries (and of questionable use). We're still solely citing primaries for facts (Correspondence between the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR and the Presidents of the USA and the Prime Ministers of Great Britain during the Great Patriotic War of 1941 - 1945, document №. 151, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1953, USSR) which leads to synthesis. I still hold out hope that this doesn't need to go to removal candidates. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC) [I'm planning on reviewing progress shortly, this is a stand in. My hope is this would be better left in review longer rather than moving to being a removal candidate. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)][reply]
    • Someone should at least go over the references footnotes and make sure the book citations have page numbers; also some English text should be added next to the foreign sources. I have no idea what "Катынь. Пленники необъявленной войны. сб.док. М., МФ "Демократия": 1999, сс.20–21, 208–210." is for instance. It appears to be a book in Russian. Maybe consistently adding ISBNs for books would help too. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, not much has happened with the "Recent developments" section. Very choppy prose there jumping from one topic to another. Perhaps a minimal effort should be made to group items by topic e.g. declassification and transmission of documents, Russian political statements etc. It's unclear to me what the ECHR case is about from the brief sentence there. Perhaps find someone with good copyediting skills... Tijfo098 (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding the Russian sources, perhaps you could ask for help in translating/verifying them at Russian Noticeboard? Note that I've rewritten the RD section for logic a while ago. The prose can use improvements, I'll ask a copyeditor I know if he can help. But perhaps you or others could ask somebody else as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing citation concerns, I unfortunately note there are a large number of citations which don't (and can't) meet FA standards, largely because of lack of page references. This probably means that it needs to go to FARC on this basis alone, due to the research quality impacts. I still believe there's serious weighting problems, and that the article shows signs of being cobbled together instead of following HQRS. Additionally, the citation formats are widely variant and not in the least consistent. Example list from the first 40 footnotes of footnotes with no page range / place evidence found in text, but page range / place found in text required (Fischer (1999–2000), Sanford (2000), Departmental Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation (2004), Dziennik Ustaw (1938), Jawodny (1962), Молотов на V сессии Верховного (undated), Polska 1939–1945 (2009), Kowalski (2009), Яжборовская (2009), Peszkowski (2007), various authors (2003)). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fisher is a journal article, as far as I know, we don't add pages to those (or at not required to). Same for Dziennik Ustaw and Peszkowski. Fixed refs to Sanford. Departmental Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation is a one page news release, hardly possible to add pages to. Zawodny refs fixed. Polska 1939–1945 is a reliable source, but I can only access online introduction, which doesn't have page numbers (it is linked in the ref and it is the source of information cited). Kowalski ref replaced with one I can verify. various authors (2003) removed, wasn't needed. I also removed "Молотов на V сессии Верховного" (with no prejudice to anybody restoring it after proper translation and verification). Яжборовская (2009) seems to be a similar case to Dzieje (part of the work reproduced online and linked); and anyway all info from the para it is used in can be vefiried with Fisher (so if somebody really dislikes it, it can be removed). I will see about transforming some other refs to cite books. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Since not much has happened on this in the past couple of weeks, I'm moving it to FARC in the hopes that the move will spur more work and comments on the article. Comments in the review section focused mainly on sourcing, although images and MOS compliance were also brought up. Dana boomer (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not much happened because, as far as I can tell, all issues were addressed, and/or reviewers did not respond to comments raised... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Issues still open from original comments.

  • Read MOS:Images and its associated pages very carefully, slowly and attentively. No image crowding, place pics only where relevant, photo galleries are discouraged, no text sandwiching. Photos need alt text.
  • 1c There are still inline cleanup tags in the article.
  • 3 File:KatynPL-mogily.jpg and File:KatynPL-grobyBS.jpg have a questionable copyright status. If they were released by the Smolensk Memoryal into the public domain the permission must be on file. The editor who uploaded the pic cannot just claim to have had permission. File:Les mrtvych v Katyne.jpg does not have a free use rationale for inclusion in the article but with all of the free images available for this article there isn't any justification to use a non-free image. Brad (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per image copyright and MOS:Images. Less conversation; a little more action. Brad (talk) 11:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since this conversation took place the MOS Image trouble has mysteriously been corrected. Striking delist based on this issue only. Brad (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Until now no one has asked for help with copyright and MOS. All I was seeing were excuses and the problems not being directly addressed. I notice that the two pics with the questionable copyright have been removed from the article; that is good; two problems now gone. The fair use File:Les mrtvych v Katyne.jpg needs more investigation. At the source for the photo it says in part: Many are taken from photographs made by Dr. Robert D. Brooks at the German Federal Archives. If you wander over to the GFA you will find two upper and lower photos of the same poster. I'm not familiar enough with German copyright law but in the US a simple photograph of an out of copyright work can also be considered in the public domain. So is this poster at the GFA in the public domain? Find out and it can be determined whether it's free use or fair use. Free use is always preferable over fair use. Brad (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is, but my understanding of this situation (based on past discussion) is that the poster is copyrighted by "someone". It is not a matter of copyright of the photo, because if the original work was PD, so would be the photo (per Template:PD-art), but rather, that the original work is not PD. I think a rule of 70 years may apply here, so if we could identify the exact year, at the end of +70 it could be PD, but I admit I am not certain this would be the case. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok then. I was only hoping for a better license. Since you and Volunteer Marek feel the photo is of importance I won't make that an issue any longer. What do you not understand about MOS Images? Brad (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I guess whatever is still wrong with MoS. I removed the galleries and added alt text. The images should be spaced relatively well. What else should be done? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Some simple steps are:
              • Photo relevancy: Photos must be relevant to the section they're placed in. For example the Nuremberg trials section has two pics that have little to do with the subject of the section they're in.
              • Image crowding: Too many pics in a small area that could sandwich text between them. I see much crowding in the discovery section and a lot of text sandwiching.
              • When I first looked at the article there were 25 pics and now it's down to 14. Good improvement but further effort at reducing pics must be done.
            • I've only given you examples of what is wrong. There could be other areas that need attention as well. Brad (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I see. I tried to distribute the remaining photos more evenly, and keep them at relevant sections. Is it better now? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • No. They're still sandwiching text. There are just too many photos remaining in the article. There isn't room for all of them. The discovery section is only large enough to support 2 pics at most. I fixed the western response section but I cannot decide for you what pics to remove. Brad (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • One pic moved to the left, one moved to lead. Added a pic to Soviet actions. Did this solve the sandwiching? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Solved the sandwiching but now the article is up to 16 pics from 14. I'm on the verge of giving up on this. What part of "too many pics in the article" do you not understand? Brad (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • All the pics are relevant. Is there some limit to the number of pictures an article can have? Is there a MoS guideline that says "an article should not have more than 14 images" or something? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                        • My delist stands and I'll leave it to the FAR admins to determine whether the delist is warranted or not. Otherwise this conversation is going nowhere. The basic elements of Mos Images are not even being followed so you either haven't read them, don't understand them or you're playing games. Brad (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Please mind WP:NPA. I asked you a good faithed question, and you respond in an incivil fashion which is not helpful. I have read and reread MOS:IMAGES, and as far as I can tell, the article confers to all points listed there. The one single item that was not (an image in lead was left aligned) has been fixed (without you or anybody else pointing to that). Items you mentioned previously have been addressed (alt text, sandwitching, relevance, licenses). Most certainly there is nothing in the guideline about maximum number of images allowed ("too many pics in the article"). Unless you point out a specific item from the MOS that is not addressed (please link and quote the relevant part to avoid any confusion), I will have to conclude your argument is based, as VM suggested, on WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, and I'd suggest to the reviewing FAR admin to consider that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Brad, can you please be a little less belligerent? Your comments are bordering on incivil. And if someone asks you a good faithed question, then you should reply in good faith. Anyway. I looked at some other History FAs for comparison; Gettysburg Address has 11 images. Ming Dynasty has a whopping 34 images. History of Minnesota has 18. Gunpowder plot has 19, plus a couple chunky block quotes that resemble images in terms of spacing. École_Polytechnique_massacre has 8. December 1964 South Vietnamese coup has 5.
                          • Additionally I see nothing in MOS Images concerning the maximum, or optimal, number of images. 14 or 16 seems to be well within the normal range here. My sense of it is that the farther back in time the subject of the article is, the more images, because more are available in the public domain - again, this article falls squarely in that pattern, having more than 5 but less than 34. What exactly is the problem here? Unless you can articulate a proper reason other than IDON'TLIKEIT, this just seems petty.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I went through and took down the data on all current History FAs, their size and the number of images in each one of them (I counted images in the infobox, as well as very large tables). The figure below is a scatter plot of article size (number of characters) vs. number of images

Relationship between featured article size and the number of images in it

I included a regression line in the plot. As you can see there's a positive relationship between the number of images and character size, with on average, 1 image for 2000 characters. I also marked this particular article - Katyn massacre - on the scatter plot with the red dot. It's pretty obvious that this article is almost right on the regression line, meaning, that it has almost exactly the number of images one would expect. Actually, this article is below the line. Based on the general relationship one would expect this article to have nineteen images rather than the current fifteen. Of course, each individual article will deviate from the line of best fit for idiosyncratic reasons and it's not like we should demand that each article be exactly on the line. Only if the article is some kind of crazy outlier should this be an issue. Additionally, I confess that I just don't get the logic that says that for an article of this size 14 images is ok, but 16 is "way too many".Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC) }}[reply]

  • Keep. All issues raised above addressed (at least, as I understood them, what is "text sandwitching?"); I hope other editors will be slightly more constructive than Brad, who refuses to engage in discussion (this is a collaborative project, you know... that implies conversation indeed). I am as always happy to address raised issues, but I expect that the reviewers are open to discussing their arguments in the spirit of this project. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The two images File:KatynPL-mogily.jpg and File:KatynPL-grobyBS.jpg are a subject of discussion elsewhere and really should not have an impact on the FAR of this article. If they're deleted, they will be removed. If not they could stay. Still, in the interest of compromise, I've simply removed them from the article, per Brad's request, though if they are kept I expect they can be put back in. I hope this is end of story as far as this completely unnecessary tangent goes. The issue with File:Les mrtvych v Katyne.jpg this image is a bit more complicated. The image is of unknown copyright status and is used in the article based on a fair-use claim. As far as I can see the fair-use claim is more than satisfied - there are 8 reasons listed to back it up. Additionally, this is a very unique piece of work, it conveys things which cannot be expressed in words and significantly adds to the article. If the law wanted to prevent fair use of images all together, it would just say so. The whole purpose of the fair-use clause is so that images like this CAN be used. If Brad really wants to contest this point then he should articulate specifically why the 8 reasons given for use of the image are not satisfactory. This appears to be some kind of a FAR version of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT - especially when it's presented as some kind of ultimatum along with a stubborn unwillingness to talk about it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. The citations are in a complete mess. Some are inside templates, some are not; some are "Retrieved", some are "Retrieved on"; some have the date/year of publication in the beginning of the cite, some in the end, etc. Also, the prose is repetitive in the section "Recent developments"; 11 of the 17 paragraphs start with "In/On [date]". Eisfbnore talk 21:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Valid points, if on rather minor issues. Would anybody be willing to help with this gnomish work? I'll selfishly admit I prefer to write content rather than tweak the obsure details like that, and I'd rather write a new DYK than deal with this... help would be apprecited. For now, I merged some of the short paras in that section, so it looks somewhat less like a list of "On that days". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would love to help you with tidying the citations, but you'll have to tell what format you prefer; using templates or not, "Retrieved" or "Retrieved on", etc. It is almost impossible to tell what citation style you/this article prefer(s) as there is nearly a 50/50 mishmash of two styles. Eisfbnore talk 10:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm, the article is certainly moving in the right direction, but it needs much more work. There are still a few cites which lack significant information and many which are not using templates. Also, some have their author(s) listed as "last, first" and some as "first last". The "Recent developments" section is looking much better now, but the section below ("Memorials") suffers from many of the same issues I pointed out above for the RD section. No less than six of the seven paras start with "In [place]". --Eisfbnore talk 19:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update? How is work progressing here? Is further editing needed? Note that if editors feel the concerns raised by the delists have been addressed, those reviewers can be pinged to re-review. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see an update too. It looks to me like all concerns have been addressed. The possible exception concerns the number of images in the article, but as my analysis/graph above indicates, this does not appear to have been a substantiated point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My concern above has not been addressed properly. The citations are still using different formats, and many of them are incomplete. I have marked six citations with {{full}}, resulting in no action. I did a light cleanup of the FR book sources, but much more is needed in the rest of the article, and regrettably I cannot see any willingness by the editors of this page to do some of this work (check the hist). My delist !vote therefore stays. --Eisfbnore talk 22:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Since I hate dealing with citation formatting I think I constructed the impression that this was being dealt with by someone else. Anyway, I've expanded two of your tagged citations, and replaced one of the sources for a a better one. I think I can fix all the ones you indicated, with the exception of the ones which are in Russian.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also see about streamlining the citation style.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove I've started looking at this fascinating article and found too many problems, just in the lead. Some I fixed myself. Other specific issues appear below. --Dweller (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the most commonly cited number being 21,768" the source provided is merely one source that uses that figure: it doesn't support the assertion that it's the most commonly cited number. --Dweller (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • sentence opening "About 8,000" doesn't parse well. Seems to be a word or two missing. --Dweller (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "ca." is an unnecessarily opaque abbreviation. "Approximately" works just fine.
    • Why spell kilometre in full, but abbreviation miles to "mi"?
      • This appears to be a problem intrinsic to the {convert} template. If you can point me to how it should be done I'll go through and fix'em.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • If a template isn't working optimally, don't use it for featured material? --Dweller (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh I agree but I do think it explains why the strange full/abbreviated format popped up in there. Also right now I've changed it to x kilometers/y miles, but that seems a bit clumsy to me stylistically. Wouldn't it be better to go with just one of them, say, kilometers? If a reader really cares that much it's not like it's all that difficult to make the conversion yourself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was the prisoner of war camp in the forest? Article implies it was, but I suspect it's an error.
      • "Article implies it was" - where? Bulwersator (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • "The term "Katyn massacre" originally referred specifically to the massacre at Katyn Forest, near the villages of Katyn and Gnezdovo (approximately 19 kilometers/12 miles west of Smolensk, Russia), of Polish military officers in the Kozelsk prisoner-of-war camp." It's that "in the" that does it - it implies they were massacred in that camp, which therefore implies the camp is in the forest. Try "from the"? --Dweller (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shouldn't geographically distant be hyphenated?
    • Every placename wikilinked until we hit Moscow
    • My knowledge of Soviet history is very weak. At that time, were "Belarus and Western Ukraine" part of the Soviet regime? If so, some tautology with end of previous sentence.
      • Hmmm, this one's tricky. Before 1939 "Belarus and Western Ukraine" were part of Poland. After Soviet/Nazi invasion of 1939 they were occupied by Soviet Union which incorporated them into their state. So the answer is, "depends who you ask". So it's not a tautology though I'm sure there are people who would claim it's redundant. I think the present wording is the best way to handle this situation, without having to go into unnecessary geo-political explanations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Katyn lists of Polish prisoners" What's a "Katyn list"?
    • Katyn Committee and the Federation of Katyn Families are either notable and should be links (whether red or blue) or aren't notable, in which case, their opinions should be excluded.
    • Nazi Germany making an announcement sounds odd. Why not say Berlin Radio?
    • Is Kharkiv (photo caption) the same as Kharkov (text)?
  • Sorry--Dweller (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "politicians, commentators and Communist party members continue to deny"... "Continue" is present tense, but cites are outdated. Please either find fresh sources, or change the grammar of the sentence (the former is of course preferred).
For now, changed tense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a related area, the very first sentence of the "Recent developments" needs to be followed by two or more sentences describing current Russian and Polish positions on the issue. Russia seems divided/conflicted (?). Fresh cites please. And.. I hate one-sentence paragraphs. There's another one lower down in that section.
You're right. I'll look around for fresh sources. In the meantime I removed that second 1-sentence paragraph as it was a quote pulled out of context that didn't have much to do with the text around it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can we please get an update here? It looks like there are still multiple outstanding delists/removes, although many of those editors' comments appear (?) to have been addressed. If the interested editors could ping those reviewers to see if they have additional comments or are interested in changing their opinion, it would be much appreciated. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since Fifelfoo went on break and won't be commenting I looked over his concerns about google books and synthesis and agree there is a problem with that type of sourcing and it's still prevalent throughout the article. Brad (talk) 08:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, can you be specific? Particularly in light of your previous arbitrary comments about the number of images, you'll have to forgive me if I'm a little skeptical.
I would very much also appreciate an update since I and several others have made an effort to address many of these concerns.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although some work has been done, my concern above has yet not been adressed. I am still seeing a mix of templated and untemplated citations and use of non-reliable sources (Flickr for example). Regrettably the problems won't be solved by pretending they're not there. Eisfbnore • talk 15:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but what Flickr source? I am not seeing one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think all citations are using templates now. Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fifelfoo was very detailed and specific about, paraphrasing: "google book searching and cherry picking references." Has anyone bothered to sit down and read books about the article's subject or did they just go picking through google books to find a reference for text that already existed? Brad (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fifelfoo's specific concerns were specifically addressed. And yes, FYI, I have bothered to read a book (or a half-dozen) about the article's subject. Dweller's comments below on the other hand have some substance.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still have worries about the copy. It needs a thorough go-through from an uninvolved copyeditor. I only looked through the Lead, found lots of issues and great you've fixed them, but the rest of it has problems too. Here's some examples from the next few lines:

  • "Nazi Germany, along with a small Slovak contingent" strange imbalance. A country and a contingent. Presumably, the former should be something like "xxx divisions of the Wehrmacht" or something similar
  • But fundamentally, why are you trying to summarise the early days of World War II? The first paragraph is irrelevant. Your interest is in the Soviet invasion (very briefly) leading to the repression
  • Are you calling it "Nazi Germany" or "Germany"?
  • Tautology about the little support offered to Poland
  • the placement of citing around the Polish prisoner numbers makes the sentence very difficult to read
  • "run by NKVD" or "run by the NKVD". I'd be looking for the latter. You use the latter 17 times in the article - why not here?
  • unnecessary repetition in "Out of those, 42,400 soldiers, mostly soldiers"
  • "Thousands of Polish intelligentsia" In BrEng that would need to be members of the Polish intelligentsia. No idea about USEng
  • "imprisoned, arrested for" the word "arrested" should precede "imprisoned" (logically, chronologically), but it's just redundant as implied or irrelevant as by far the lesser evil
  • I don't understand the logical conclusion that since conscription was compulsory for nearly all college graduates they were all therefore arrested. Are you saying that all soldiers were arrested? You've already hinted that about 300,000 soldiers escaped or were released very swiftly
  • IPN - define acronyms the first time, unless they're so well known that it's pointless
  • "perished under Soviet rule" - does that include people dying of natural causes? The words imply it does, but the context implies it doesn't.

And that's just on the next 16 or so lines. Oh... and two of my points above are yet to be addressed. So, sorry, it's a really good article on an important topic, but I cannot at this time support it remaining a Featured article as it is too laden with problems. --Dweller (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a good copyeditor on Wikipedia is not easy, I exhausted my contacts. We will fix the issues you pointed above, and any others you'll note, but I doubt we will get another copyeditor. Btw, for many items you note above, I wonder if it wouldn't take you less time to fix such issues then to report them here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that it's not just that these specific issues need fixing - they exemplify that the whole article needs fixing. I couldn't make that point by fixing the article. Believe me, I am comfortable with my record of helping articles close to FA quality to cross the line over the past five years. --Dweller (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, seeing how we are addressing all specific issues raised, I really feel that saying generalities is not helpful. I can also say that overall, I think this is a well written article up to FA standards. If you disagree, please list more specific problems, which we will fix. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in regard to these specific objections: Most of them are of substance and I will fix them. Some of them are just due to history of the article (for example I think the mentioning of the Slovak thing is some remnant from a long forgotten edit war).
Some of the other stuff I think could go either way. I think the first paragraph in the Background section is necessary because this is a World War II article so at some point you have to say "World War II started" (though not in those words). Jumping ahead to the Soviet invasion might leave the reader confused. And the paragraph is not overtly long and as general as can be. I did remove the stuff about Slovak participation and the operations in the Saarland which were indeed not necessary.
Germany vs. Nazi Germany. Obviously, in a precise sense it was "Nazi Germany". But once the context is well established I think it's fine to use "Germany" as a shorthand since the "Nazi" is implied (I've been told this many many times in various other discussions).
"Perished under Soviet rule" - it's hard to put that in any other words without going into much detail. It is what it says. A particular difficulty here is defining what exactly "natural causes" would mean in the context of a Soviet Gulag. There were no gas chambers but obviously the conditions were very rough; starvation, disease and malnutrition were rampant etc. Basically, explaining this accurately would involve another unnecessary detour. I'm going to change "perished" to "died" though.
Regarding the rest of the article, I'll do a thorough copy edit tonight and tomorrow. I don't think the issues are that serious - there is some sloppy prose in several places but overall the article's well written.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I did a copy edit of most of the article, except for the last sections "Recent developments", "In art and literature" and "Memorials" which I will leave for later (getting a headache here). I think most of the strictly grammatical concerns have been taken care of but of course there's always some issue of style (or things like US Eng vs. Brit Eng as you point out above) - in regard to that I wouldn't mind if somebody went over the prose one more time just to make sure. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really too much to ask for commentators to respond in a timely manner?

Seriously. Last reviewer/commentator post was on August 8, 12 days ago or almost two weeks. This has been a running theme throughout this so called "review". Somebody comes in here, makes some comments, some of which are legitimate some of which are frankly nothing but evidence that a person has not actually read the article or is unfamiliar with FA standards, within a day or two the editors who are actually interested and have worked very hard on the article respond and address the issues raised, then two weeks pass and we get another comment along the lines of "you dotted the i, but you haven't crossed every single t". Then the t gets crossed and it's another freaking two weeks or so just to hear about the fact that the curve on the "g" is not curvy enough or something.

Let me make it clear that I very much appreciate constructive criticisms (and some of the above does indeed fall into that category) but a lot of the above is pretty much equivalent to the practice of 'drive-by tagging; show up to the article, take a cursory glance, decide there's something not to one's liking in it, leave some tough sounding comments and then disappear for a month or two. I'm sorry but the editors who actually write the articles do have a bit of pride at the end of the day and hence, limited patience. A review is a collaborative process, so please collaborate.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. I do few reviews anymore, but I always watchlist them - and I have serious doubts any of the reviews here have dome so. I am not going to be talk page pinging the reviewers again, and I'd like to as the closing admin to consider closing this soon if we have no other comments. I believe all of the reviewers points have been addressed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much good work has been done, but could you please make sure that you do everything (or disagree with reviewers' points) that is asked for before plinging the reviewers. For example, much effort has been put into the formatting and standardisation of the citations; however, there are still a few citations that are not using templates (my command of Polish is to poor to fix them), so I will not strick my delist !vote until they're consistently formatted. --Eisfbnore • talk 18:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the single non-cite template ref. I believe all remaining refs use cite somethings. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist (again)

  • 1a The prose is not up to standard. Put in a request at GOCE so that an uninvolved editor may go over the article. I just caught one very simple mistake. A request should have been done three months ago.
  • 2c Referencing is totally chaotic. Sources are missing various information like publishers, location of publication. Author names should be last and first. The date formatting on referencing is all over the place. Pick one format and stick to it; either of MDY, DMY or YMD will do but only one format throughout. There are repeatedly cited sources that should be moved into a bibliography section and then only author and page numbers given as citations rather than repeating the source over and over again. Look at any recently passed FA to get an idea of how things should be setup.
  • MOS:LINK is still a problem that I pointed out three months ago. My two recent edits to the article should give example of common terms that do not require linking. Brad (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re 1a - the prose is freaking fine (actually, it's very good), just like the number of images in the article is fine. This is just another completely unfounded bullshit objection, just like your previous one (the discussion of which you recently collapsed [6], I guess because it embarrassed you). If there are any problems with the prose, they are very very minor - and hell, despite repeated requests for you to provide specific examples you have repeatedly failed to do so.
Re 2c; "location of publisher" - are you serious? Since when is the freakin' "location of publication" a requirement? I have edited a whole shitload of Wikipedia articles and have NEVER seen this as something of importance. If I felt like wasting more of my time on this joke-of-a-review I'd actually go out and get some data for you (just like I did with the number of images) but I seriously doubt that this has EVER been raised as an issue in a FA review before and it's obvious that it wouldn't help. Just looking at some existing FA's so far... here, let me check at random Flag of Armenia - none of the sources list "location of publisher"; Lisa del Giocondo - 3 out of the measly (compare to this article!) 38 sources give the location; Carrington Moss - 2 out of the measly 58 sources give the location; Smells Like Teen Spirit - 2 out of the 78 sources give location (as "UK", which is pretty broad).
Re 2c - "publishers"; - no, the information on publishers is given to the extent that it is available. Again please at least bother yourself to point out where it is missing. Every book that is referenced gives it.
Re 2c - "author names" - author names are given "First, Last" which is the way I standardized it after somebody complained about it above. There might be one or two exceptions that slipped through, since this article has 126 references. If you notice one, then fix it.
Re 2c - "repeatedly cited sources" - again, this has already been done. Again, there might be one or two that were missed, mostly because going through 126 references is a painstaking process and... it's entirely possible that couple got missed.
Re last point - it's not a problem unless you've got some very peculiar and idosyncratic idea of what MOS entails. All you've done in your two recent edits is change things like "Polish soldiers and policemen had become prisoners" to "Polish soldiers and policemen had become prisoners " - really? This is the freaking reason you want to delist this article? Because the double brackets are not in the exact place where you happen to think they should be? Lemme guess, in a few months someone's gonna come around and decide that it should be "Polish soldiers and policemen had become prisoners" and then some reviewer will make me waste more of my time by jumping through arbitrary idiotic hoops (set on fire) again. If it really is that big of a deal change it yourself. This is nothing but some exercise in sadistic power mongering at this point. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, just fuck it. This whole process has been ridiculous. Reviewers come here, piss on the hard work of others, make demands on serious' editors time - and sure, some of the original criticisms were justified - but then don't even bother to check back in, to engage the editors who've worked on this and then keep making up completely arbitrary objections. I can easily show you a couple dozen current FAs that are nowhere near meeting the standards and objections which have been raised here, most of which haven't been reviewed for at least four years. At this point I'm feeling like I'm being treated like some god damn poodle that some people find it entertaining to make him jump through some hoops. And when the poodle does jump through the hoop, somebody decides it would be funny to make it jump through a different hoop. And so on.

No thanks. I'm done with crap. Delist it all you want. It's still a great article and it will be whether it's got that little star on it or not. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cite templates are used throughout, and MoS allows various ways of referencing. You want to shorten some refs? Go ahead and do so, but don't invent make-work for others. Ditto for the other issues, which are not a MoS issue, but a personal preference. There were constructive comments, but I have to agree with VM that most of Brad's comments are ridicolous and not policy supported (just see the graph above for a great example - somehow Brad never apologized for his false claims there...). Point to specific problems and they will be fixed, but you cannot cite general polices, and claim they are not followed where they very much are. For the record, I claim that prose is up to standard, references are up to WP:CITE, and MOS:LINK is respected. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Came back here to catch up on progress. I've devoted quite a bit of time to this FAR and to see it categorised in these terms:

This whole process has been ridiculous. Reviewers come here, piss on the hard work of others, make demands on serious' editors time - and sure, some of the original criticisms were justified - but then don't even bother to check back in, to engage the editors who've worked on this and then keep making up completely arbitrary objections.

The Featured article processes are strenuous and fairly stressful, I know. But that's bad faith. If you would like me to re-review the prose, I will, but as things stand my objection remains. To categorise the problems I have found with the prose in this article as anything other than good-faith and substantial 1a problems is just insulting. --Dweller (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This still applies [7].Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments earlier where helpful - and addressed. VM has a point that it took you a while to come back and check on that (but we all have other obligations, of course), and some other reviewers have been much less helpful, to say the least. I do believe that VM went too far with his comments, but the fault is on both sides. I'd suggest that VM refactors his post above to remove bad faith/PAs - and that if the reviewers abstain from useless, example-unbacked generalities. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about popping my head in without at least a small review, but I think I read something here about some Russian book requiring translation. if that still needs to be done, I'm game. Buggie111 (talk) 05:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if the points raised by the delist !voters have been addressed, could they be asked to revisit? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, Volunteer Marek appears to have Retired three days ago, and has not edited since. I can pinch-hit on some of the nitpicky stuff that remains, if any. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed Otto T. Volunteer Marek  03:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, much better. Otto Tanaka (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Additional closing note - After over six months at FAR, there appears to be no consensus for delisting, and the review page has continued to descend into sniping and ill feelings, until finally going essentially quiet. At this point, due to the lack of consensus, I am closing the review as "keep", because that is the default close at FAR. If editors still feel that there are major issues that warrant this article not remaining at FA status, they may bring this article back to FAR in a few months - at which point hopefully feelings will have cooled. Despite this close, I would recommend that major editors to the article re-read the review with an open mind to take into consideration any and all comments made and evaluate them based on the FA criteria and how they could be used to further improve the article. Dana boomer (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2011 (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 Raul654 20:58, 4 November 2011 [8].

League of Nations

Review commentary

Notified: Kaly99, UW, Jbmurray, Themightyquill, WP International relations, WP United Nations, WP Politics, WP Human rights

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has numerous cleanup tags and other issues, some in place since 2008, and no work has been completed in response to an April talk page notice. Some thoughts:

  • At this point, referencing is the biggest issue, with over half a dozen fact tags and many other sections partially or completely missing references.
  • Reference formatting and completeness need work. I see bare urls, web cites without publishers or access dates, and books formatted in a multitude of ways (compare refs 23, 24 and 109)
  • Standardize English variation used - I see organize and organise, recognize and recognise, plenty of -ization/-isation, etc.
  • 5 dead links among the references and external links, see here for report.
  • The see also is rather long for a featured article. Can more of these links be worked into the article body?
  • The prose could use a go-over. For example, what does "This general regulation concerning unanimity was the recognition of national sovereignty." in the Principal organs section mean?

This is a high-priority article, and has unfortunately slipped from FA quality - I hope that this FAR will provide the prod that is needed to bring it back up to that level. Overall, the article is not in horrible shape; however, the referencing in particular needs attention. Dana boomer (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media criteria 3

2b There is a very long and unnecessary ToC in this article. Some of the sub-sections consist of only one sparse paragraph and running into fourth level headers is excessive. ToC needs reconfiguring. Brad (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include images, prose, referencing and MOS compliance. Dana boomer (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I take that back. Some stuff has happened. However, it still needs a copy edit; I'm seeing lots of consecutive sentences starting with "the". Ten Pound Hammer and company • (Otters want attention) 21:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nikkimaria did good work with the references and ToC. The criteria 3 problems were resolved by removing the two images from the article. I put in a copyedit request with GOCE but the prose isn't bad enough to warrant a delisting in its current state. Brad (talk) 10:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments There's a mixture of -ize/-ization and -ise/-isation endings; I wasn't sure which to adopt. (There are 20 -isations and 23 -izations; 10 -iseds and 5 -izeds.) I'm confused by the status of Argentina: the text says Costa Rica was the first to withdraw in 1925, but the animation shows Argentina withdrawing in 1921 (and then rejoining). Perhaps this could be solved by saying "The first member to withdraw permanently from the League was Costa Rica"? Surely, "after its founding" can be removed? Hatay appears to become independent in both November 1937 and September 1938? I presume this is because of different events being recognis(z!)ed as the start of statehood. Can this be reconciled somehow? DrKiernan (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to keep coming up with new comments, but I'm still seeing problems. Bernheim is mentioned in the lead, but not anywhere in the article. The lead should be a summary rather than contain novel material. The lead also implies that Germany withdrew because of League interference in Upper Silesia, but in the body of the article German withdrawal is laid at the door of disarmament. DrKiernan (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Comments - my apologies for taking so long to get back to this. Leaning towards keep, but a few comments first:

  • Why such general books in the Further reading section as Kelly & Lacey's Modern World History and Walsh's Modern World History? What do these general works tell readers that the article or other books in the References/Further reading section don't?
  • Not really in the purview of this FAR, but is it necessary for Covenant of the League of Nations and Article X of the Covenant of the League of Nations to have their own articles? It seems that, at least with their existing content, they could easily be folded into the League of Nations article, as much of the information is already contained therein.
  • Still not completely sure which English this is in...it seems that most of the article has been changed to AmEng, but I caught a couple BrEng: centre, defence, organisation, etc.
  • Languages and symbols, link Esperanto?
  • Languages and symbols, "The League had a very active postal department." Why is this important? The company I work for has a very active postal department, too, but I don't think this would rate mention in its WP article... Perhaps if it was expanded upon, especially more on "In many cases, special envelopes or postage stamps were used."? Why were special postage stamps used? What was special about the envelopes?
  • Principal organs, link International Labour Organization? I see that it's linked later in the Other bodies section, but should probably be linked on first occurance instead.
  • Principal organs, "Minorities and Administration (Saar and Danzig)" I'm not sure what the purpose of the links to Saar and Danzig is. Were these the two things principally dealt with by the M&A branch?
  • Principal organs, "In 1931, the staff numbered 707." How were these staff paid? Where did the LoN get the money for operating expenses in general?
  • Other bodies, "there were two to three million ex-prisoners of war dispersed throughout Russia" Russian ex-POWs or people from other countries who had been held in Russian prisons?
  • Mosul, "a League of Nations A mandate over Iraq". When I first saw "a League of Nations A mandate" , I thought it was a typo. On second look, I think you're saying that it was an A-classification mandate, but this could probably be made more clear.
  • Vilnius, "on 7 October 1920, the League negotiated the Suwałki Agreement.[99] On 9 October 1920, General Lucjan Żeligowski," Did the Suwalki Agreement give Zeligowski the right to take over this city, or did he do it in contravention of the agreement? I guess I'm wondering what exactly the Suwalki Agreement said/did...
  • Liberia, "The Liberian government outlawed forced labour and slavery and asked for American help, a move which generated anger within Liberia". Why did this generate anger within Liberia? From the population that was being used for slavery or the people that were promoting slavery?
  • Italian invasion, "United States endeavoured, with uncertain success," Why was the success uncertain?
  • Spanish Civil War, "In February 1937, the League did ban foreign volunteers." How much of an effect did this ban have? Did anyone listen to the LoN, or did volunteers continue to come to Spain?
  • Demise and legacy, quote, "Long live the United Nations" Should there be a period or some other sort of punctuation at the end of this quote?
  • It would be interesting to see if the links in the See also section could be woven into the narrative of the article.

The article is in much better shape (thanks everyone!) then when I nominated it. Once the above issues are addressed I think this article will be headed for a "keep". Dana boomer (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking much better! As the pertinent comments above have been addressed, I have changed my "comments" above to "keep". Nice work everyone! Dana boomer (talk) 12:54, 11 October 2011 (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 Nikkimaria 18:24, 10 November 2011 [9].

Homo floresiensis

Review commentary

Notified: Edhubbard, UtherSRG, Paul Barlow, WP Southeast Asia, WP Indonesia, WP Mammals, WP Primates, WP Palaeontology, WP Anthropology, WP Archaeology, WP Evolutionary biology, WP Tree of life, WP Human Genetic History

I am nominating this featured article for review because after an April 2011 notification of work needed, very little work has been completed on the article, and no discussion has taken place on the talk page. Some thoughts on the areas that need work:

  • Four citation needed tags stretching back to 2009.
  • A few other areas needing references. For example, in the Endemic cretinism hypothesis section, the sentence "The oral stories about strange human-like creatures may also be a record of cretinism." - says who? If this is from the study discussed earlier in the paragraph, it needs to be made more obvious. A few other areas like this - essentially, if an opinion is being given, it needs to have a reference.
  • Citation formatting needs work - there are bare URLs, references missing publishers, authors, access dates, etc. Formatting needs to be consistent for news/journal refs (some are in split format, others aren't). The way that page numbers are given should also be standardized - some are given in the text (as Ref:page numbers), others are given within the reference.
  • What makes Ref #35 (Patagonianmonsters) a reliable reference?
  • Ref #36 (Greenstone) is dead linking for me.
  • Endemic cretinism theory, "(only an abstract is available for the paper,[59] see also [60])" - discussion of abstracts should in the references, not the text. Or is there a reason that there only being an abstract is important to the discussion of H. floresiensis?
  • Why are a bunch of the entries in the References section missing authors? For example, the July 2008 Smithsonian ref, the September 2008 Spiegel ref, and the July 2004 Nature ref all have easily found authors, but none of them are listed here. These are just examples of missing ones, I didn't check all of them.
  • Check ENGVAR - I see lots of -ise's and -ize's, skeptic/sceptic, analyze/analyse, etc.
  • An IP has brought up on the talk page that the Small bodies section says "Semang...of Africa,", which they claim is incorrect and that the tribe is actually from Asia. If our article on the Semang is correct, then the IP is correct, since the article says they are from the Malay Peninsula, which is firmly in Asia.
  • Small bodies section, "Contradictory evidence has emerged." OK... what is the evidence? Is it important? Do scientists consider it credible?
  • Laron syndrome hypothesis, "the morphological features of H. floresiensis are essentially indistinguishable from those of Laron syndrome." Which features? Critics argue that the cranial vault is different, so, other than height, what features were being compared by Richards?
  • See also - what is important about Denisova hominin and the Nage tribe that leads to them being included in the See also section but makes them not notable for inclusion in the article text?
  • External links are extensive. Could these be trimmed? Links that are already used as references need not be repeated in the external links, and all links should be high value for the reader.

Unfortunately, this article has slipped from featured quality over the past few years. I haven't fully checked prose or images - if the above are addressed then I will return to the article for a more thorough review of these criteria. Dana boomer (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I have time over the next few months, I'll try to address some of the issues. (I studied some of the rodents found together with H. floresiensis in Liang Bua, if that is of relevance to anything.) Ucucha (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media criteria 3 No problems found. Brad (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include referencing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist for now. Major issues are 1c (I just placed several cn tags and sources need page numbers) and 2c... There are two different styles of citations being used. Brad (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist - Very little has happened to the article since the beginning of the review. Additional unsourced material has been added, which needs to be dealt with. Ucucha, if you are still planning to work on this, and would like to do so within the remit of FAR, please let us know and the review can be held. However, the article as it stands now is not of FA caliber. Dana boomer (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of late 2011, there is a lot of extra research that has occured. Of course, it is a back-and-forth between the research community and "Morwood's camp" as per usual in any case that "de-speciates" LB1 (Vanucchi 2011 versus Kaifu 2011). Nevertheless, the additional cranio research should be documented in the wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.66.157 (talk • contribs)


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 Nikkimaria 03:19, 6 November 2011 [10].

Richard III (1955 film)

Review commentary

Notified: WikiProject Film

I am nominating this featured article for review because it does not meet the featured article criteria of being well-researched and comprehensive, and it does not appear well-written either. For what exists in the article body, there are numerous passages that lack inline citations. The structure is also poor; there are a lot of short paragraphs throughout. In addition, I conducted research on this topic and found numerous references to use; they are listed here. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section focus mainly on referencing. Dana boomer (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2011 (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 Nikkimaria 03:19, 6 November 2011 [11].

Encyclopædia Britannica

Review commentary

Notified: User talk:WillowW, User talk:TimVickers, User talk:Balthazarduju, User talk:JoeSmack, User talk:Flux.books, User talk:Nauticashades, User talk:Stbalbach, User talk:Ericoides, User talk:Fat&Happy, User talk:SandyGeorgia, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books

I am nominating this featured article for review because it fails criteria 2c (inadequate in-line referencing). Snowman (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note - the required talk-page notification does not appear to have been made, so I am placing this nomination on hold. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comment: The talk page nomination was made with this edit. Following this an edit made by User:Nikkimaria put the template in hidden text. This looks like a mix up, so I have shown the template again. This FAR is not on hold and can continue. Snowman (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination and notification are not the same thing, and my edit was deliberate. Please review the FAR instructions. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ample notification to all readers has been provided by a maintenance template that has been on the article for more than one year, where all readers and editors have been invited to improve a poorly referenced section. I see no reason for delaying a FAR any longer. Snowman (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still see no talk page notification.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many people will have seen the maintenance template. Surely, a FA should not have had a maintenance template for a year. Snowman (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, the talk page notification is there (under the heading "FAR" - Nikki just copied Snowman's comments from here). Snowman, the talk page notification process was put in place by community consensus - maintenance templates or the lack thereof on the article don't change the fact that a notification is needed. Further comments on Raul's talk. This review is still on hold. Dana boomer (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion section and a banner notice are two totally different things. I don't know what it means to be on hold, but I don't think there is much chance of this getting cleaned up without a full formal notification. I don't see that any projects have been notified, and I don't really think they should be until this is fully listed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delegate note - Now that the required time has passed for a talk page notification and no work has been completed on the article, I am removing the hold placed on this review, as of the date in my signature. Dana boomer (talk) 13:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would hope that members of WP Scotland and WP Chicago are watching the article; nevertheless, for completion I have provided a notification on each talk page of these WikiProjects. WikiProject Books was notified at the time of nomination. Snowman (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • 1c There are maintenance tags present: citation needed and update needed. Several book sources used are missing page numbers; Kister and Sader being the worst examples. Some listed sources are missing their full information. There are many dead links to sources.
  • 1d Not sure if this is a neutrality problem but the article is not following Wikipedia:Criticism very well. The version of this article that passed FAC was in better condition regarding this issue but since promotion it has slid for the worse.
  • 2c Uniformity of dates are needed; currently there is a mixture of dmy ymd and mdy.
  • 3 The following file needs work if it's to remain in the article: File:Rosetta Stone.jpg Using Life +70 tag with no author listed; source links are dead. Needs US copyright tag.
  • MoS MOS:Images because the pics are crowding and sandwiching. WP:EXT because some of the links aren't very helpful to further understanding of the article subject. ie: link to French version doesn't help an English reader. Brad (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include referencing, neutrality and images. Dana boomer (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2011 (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 Nikkimaria 03:19, 6 November 2011 [12].

USS Kentucky (BB-66)

Review commentary

Notified: Top three editors by edit count: TomStar81, Hellbus, MBK004. Projects: Ships, Military history, Kentucky, United States, Operation Majestic Titan.

Promoted in 2007 there have been outstanding maintenance tags since October 2009. Talk page notice given June 2011.

  • 1c Multiple citation needed tags dated from October 2009 and two citations that don't back up what they're citing. There are three books listed in the bibliography that are not cited in the article. Sources are not meeting "High-quality and reliable" such as:
  • MOS Photos need ALT text; see WP:ALT. Brad (talk) 05:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Alt text done. Brad (talk) 01:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alt text is not a FAQ requirement. Unless something has changed in the last month or so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is. It falls under criteria two which requires articles to meet all style guidelines. Since alternative text is required in the manual of style, it needs to be in an article for it to be a featured article. - EdoDodo talk 19:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, no it doesn't. While it's technically true that it falls under the MOS, in reality it is not enforced at FAC - a large percentage, if not a majority, of the articles promoted have no alt text. Because of this, it is not required for articles at FAR. A discussion at FAC on whether or not it's technically and in practice required would probably be beneficial, but at this point, since it is not required in practice at FAC, it is not required in practice at FAR. Dana boomer (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • It may not be required at FAC, but as a matter of pride it is something we usually require editors to add when an article undergoes an A-class review for milhist, which will be the next stop for this article when and if it gets to FARC. FWIW, I am counting the days until school starts so I can get my UTEP library privileges restored so I can start up on fixing the seven articles of this class which at this point desperately need the updating. Also, as long as I am here, I wanted to ask a question: supposing I wanted to get away from DANFS as a primary source for the updating of the ships, would citing books that relate to the battles the ships fought in be acceptable for inclusion in the articles as primary sources from an WP:RS standpoint as it related to WP:FA criteria? I have this crazy idea that I could pull information from books like Halsey's Typhoon to help ween the articles Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri & Wisconsin off their net reliant sources, but before going through the trouble I thought I'd ask here first. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just added alt text. This article seems perfectly savable as a FA, and there are no reasons at all to convert it to a redirect. The page Tom found is a reliable source, and I've used it to remove one of the citation needed tags (I've changed the date the she was floated to just 'June'). Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • The information on the background to this ship's construction is confusing. I've had a go at moving it around so it flows better, but I think it needs a more substantive intervention:
    • A central problem is the confusion over the ship's class. As written, the article argues that USS Kentucky was basically a given, and that her design was changed. This isn't accurate; it would be better to restructure this material to make it clear that a) the hull number and name Kentucky were originally assigned to one of the units of the Montana class b) this order and ship was cancelled and c) instead an additional Iowa class battleship was ordered and named Kentucky and assigned the same hull number. Text like "As a result, Kentucky was reordered as an Iowa-class battleship midway through the war. This allowed her to gain eight knots in speed, the ability to transit the locks of the Panama Canal, and increased the number of anti-aircraft guns." is basically wrong - she didn't 'gain' anything as she didn't exist.
    • "Kentucky was one of the "fast battleship" designs planned in 1938 by the Preliminary Design Branch at the Bureau of Construction and Repair." - no she wasn't; she wasn't ordered until 1940 and used an existing design rather than being a unique ship.
    • "Concept artwork of the proposed missile conversion for Kentucky shows her aft end fitted with a pair of RIM-2 Terrier missile launchers." - does this have any official credence? It's presently unsourced and the artwork is a drawing by 'artbywayne.com'. I'd suggest removing this and the painting unless a source can be provided.
    • Whitley states that the proposal for the ship to be converted to a missile battleship would have included her being fitted with Polaris ballistic missiles.
    • I don't think that the USN normally 'calls upon' sailors with unique skills - it 'posts' them to where they're needed
    • "and holds the title of being the highest numbered battleship hull to have been under construction but not completed for the United States Navy. USS Wisconsin (BB-64) is numerically the highest numbered US battleship built, although she was actually completed before Missouri, making Missouri the last completed US battleship" - this seems like trivia Nick-D (talk) 04:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

  • Nick's last point about trivia is correct but it's also original research by comparing sources and coming to a conclusion.
  • When the class article was revamped it was discovered that all of the ships in the class were considered for conversion to BBG; not just Kentucky.
  • There are problems with the Rodgers source in that his cites are used to back up material not in his document. Wherever possible I moved the Rodgers cites to what he backs up and placed cn tags on what he doesn't back up. Brad (talk) 01:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TomStar81
For the Record: It has been suggested that this article and USS Illinois (BB-65) be redirected to the class page and the blurbs there expanded to better cover these two battleships. Nothing has come of this (yet), but if interest in this proposal does pick up I am leaving fair warning here only to avoid claims that may arise concerning the timing of a merger in light of this FAR, and perhaps in time FARC. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like this, but I don't think it's my call. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


All in all this article is actually not in that bad of shape, IMO, but I do concede that there is work to be done here.

  • Do photo captions not count as WP:RS? I see someone tagged citation 7 as "not in citation", yet if you take the time to scroll to down to the first photo the caption clearly states "Photo #: NH 96327 Kentucky (BB-66) Bottom structure is prepared for launching, at the Norfolk Navy Yard, Virginia, 10 June 1942. It was launched to clear the shipway for landing ship tank (LST) construction. Work was not resumed on Kentucky's hull for nearly thirty more months. Copied from History of the Norfolk Navy Yard in World War II, page 157, in the collections of the Navy Department Library, 1987. U.S. Naval Historical Center Photograph." I do not know how much more clearly one can provide a citation, but in the interest of WP:AFG I'm going to wait until I see some replies here before I remove this tag. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kumioko

I fixed a couple of the problems and I agree with the assessment above that the article is savable. It took me about 5 minutes to fix a couple of them. As for merging the article with the class article I personally would prefer to keep them separate. I think we have more than enough information available for the articles so I think keeping them separate is appropriate. If we had limited info that would be a different story. --Kumioko (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Comment - It looks like a lot of people have comments here, but also that a lot of people have been doing at least some work on them. At this point, does everyone think that this needs to move to FARC, or can it be kept without that step? Dana boomer (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that the article needs work to remain at FA level, but FARC might be premature. The article isn't FA class at the moment, but I don't think that it would require a substantial amount of work to get there. Nick-D (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had hoped I would fine more written material concerning the ship somewhere in the UTEP Library, however that hasn't happened. I know there are still issues outstanding, and I am looking into alternatives, but if you want move this to FARC then by all means do so. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're still working on the article, then it's fine for it to remain here. I was just checking to make sure there were still people interested in it! It would be great if you could post updates every once in a while, though, on how your work on the remaining issues is going. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So far my updates are as follows: After checking for written material on the citations in question I've got nothing. Checks of Barns and Noble have turned up no useful books, and of course the short time for the ships existence automatically excludes battle books. So far the only material I've been able to cite to books is stuff that is currently not under contention, ergo I am disappointed and frustrated with my attempts at improvement. thus far. Further bulliten as events warrant. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Discussion in the review section focused largely on referencing. While some work has been done on this article, not much has happened recently, so this article is being moved in the hopes that it will spur more editing and comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2011 (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 Nikkimaria 03:19, 6 November 2011 [13].

Yom Kippur War

Review commentary

Notified: Top five editors by edit count Reenem, Hohum, Sherif9282, Jiujitsuguy, Raul654. Projects:Military history, Egypt, Israel, Jewish history, Syria, Arab world, Iraq.

A talk page notice was given in May 2010 (now in archive) and there are still outstanding issues with this article.

  • 1c There are citation needed tags, dead links and many paragraphs without citations.
  • 1d and maybe 1e. Article was the subject of an arbitration ruling for edit warring and POV issues. While this issue may have come to an end it's possible that some of the warring and POV still remain in the article.
  • 2c There is little uniformity in citations. Full information of sources are missing.
  • 3 The following files need work if they are to remain in the article:

Comments - I made a second notification of work needed in October of 2010 (I hadn't seen Sandy's notification), but hadn't gotten back to the article to see if it still needed a FAR. After seeing this FAR opened by Brad, I agree that this article needs serious work to remain at FA status. Some thoughts:

  • The length is a huge problem. WP:SIZE recommends a top limit of 6,000-10,000 words. This article is currently at 15,500, which is way more than the top of the top limit. Heavy pruning and perhaps some removal of information to daughter articles is needed. The length of the article was at around 14,500 when I made my notification last fall, which means the article has been getting more bloated, not less.
  • As Brad points out, referencing is a major issue. The various tags, lack of referencing in some areas and poor/inconsistent formatting of references need serious attention.

These two points are the biggest issues that need attention, in my opinion. Once these are addressed, it will be easier to see where further work is needed. Dana boomer (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include referencing, images, and length. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Major issues are 1c, 2c and 4. There does not seem to be any ongoing effort to fix problems. Brad (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist - Editors argue on the talk page about minor issues while the major ones go unaddressed. The length still hovers above 15,000 words, with no response as to why this article needs to be this long. Referencing has also had little done - someone went through and did some formatting, but the issues with areas lacking referencing, citation needed tags, dead link tags, missing ref info, etc., have not been addressed. Nor have the image issues brought up by Brad been addressed. As I said above, the length and referencing issues need to be addressed before a copyedit is even attempted - it's no use moving commas around when a third of the article needs to be moved to daughter articles or tossed altogether. Dana boomer (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2011 (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=461355228"