Wikipedia:Featured article review

Reviewing featured articles This page facilitates the review of featured articles and the subsequent removal of the featured status of those that still fail to meet the featured article criteria after the review process. There are two categories in the process: the featured article review (FAR) and featured article removal candidate (FARC) lists. Articles cannot be listed directly as FARCs, and must first undergo a FAR. It is regarded as desirable for a FAR to run its course and be closed without progressing to the FARC list, unless the circumstances suggest that such a progression is necessary to maintain FA standards. Older reviews are stored in the archive. Purge the cache to refresh this page

Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured article candidates (FAC) Featured article criteria Featured article log Featured article statistics Featured article review (FAR) Former featured articles Unreviewed featured articles/2020 Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue About Today's featured article Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Mentoring for FAC Nominators of featured articles promoted Recent changes to featured articles Random featured article

Featured article reviews (FARs) FARs are intended to facilitate a range of improvements to FAs, from updating and relatively light editing—including the checking of references and their formatting—to the addressing of more involved issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness and POV. When listing here, a nominator must specify these criteria and may propose remedies. The nomination should last from one to weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Here, reviewers do not declare "keep" or "remove". If the consensus is that the deficiencies have been addressed, the review is closed; if not, the article is placed on the FARC list. Older FAs are held to the current standards. Articles that were recently promoted should not be listed here (three months is typically regarded as the minimum interval between promotion and listing here, unless there are extenuating circumstances). Nominating an article for FAR 1. Place {{FAR}} (upper case) on the top of the talk page of the nominated article. Write "FAR listing" in the edit box. Hit "Save page". 2. From there, click on the "add a comment" link. 3. Place ===[[name of nominated article]]=== at the top of the subpage. 4. Below this title, write your reason(s) for nominating the article, specifying the FA criterion/criteria that are at issue. Hit "Save page". 5. Copy {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/name of nominated article}}, hit "Edit" for the "Feature Article Reviews" section, and paste it at the top of the list of nominated articles, filling in the exact name of the nominated article. Hit "Save page". 6. Consider advising the main contributors to the article (identifiable through the edit history page) and any relevant WikiProjects. NB If an article has already been through the FAR/C process, use the Move button to rename the previous nomination to an archive. For example, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Television → Wikipedia:Featured article review/Television/archive1 Featured article removal candidates (FARCs) Articles are listed as FARCs only after undergoing a review. Reviewers may declare "keep" or "remove", supported by substantive comments that focus on the outstanding deficiencies in relation to the FA criteria. Reviewers who declare "remove" should be prepared to return towards the end of the process to strike out their objections if they have been addressed. If, after a period of review, the deficiencies have not been addressed and there is no obvious momentum to do so, the FA status is removed. If consensus has emerged that the changes have brought the article back to standard, the review is closed. Moving an article from FAR to FARC lists 1. Hit "Edit" for the "Feature Article Reviews" section, and copy and remove ===[[name of nominated article]]===. Hit "Save page". 2. Hit "Edit" for the "FARC" section, and copy and remove ===[[name of nominated article]]=== . Hit "Save page". 3. At the top of the "FARC" section, hit "Edit" for the article in question, and copy and remove ===[[name of nominated article]]=== . Hit "Save page". Specify the unaddressed FA criteria at the top, based partly or wholly on comments from the major review; provide a link comparing the article now with its state at the beginning of the review process. (To do this, compare edits on the history page of the article, and copy the web link, and paste it in at the top of the nomination within single square brackets.) Paste ====Review commentary==== at the top, above the review comments, and ====FARC commentary==== underneath the review comments. Hit "Save page".

Featured article reviews

Place the most recent review at the top. Please do not declare "keep" or "remove" in this section; this is appropriate only in the FARC section below.

Dawson Creek, British Columbia

previous FAR Wikipedia:Featured article review/Final Fantasy X

Race

Article is no longer a featured article

Review commentary

Race was featured on the main page on October 26, 2004.

I have not attempted to notify the original authors who brought the article to FA status, as I have not been able to find the original FAC in archives (can anyone help?). The edit history shows a preponderance of anon edits, so I am leaving a message for User: Slrubenstein, the editor who appears most often in the edit history.

I will leave (2a) prose to Tony, and am not able to evaluate the article for (2b). There is a pending To Do list on the talk page, which includes removing redundancy and editing for NPOV (2d) needed. I found no evidence in recent talk page or edit history of stability (2e) issues. I have not checked the images for copyright issues (4), since I don’t speak that language yet.

The article needs review mainly on 1) not our best work (general cleanup, article tag and reorganization needed); and 5) length and summary style.

2c) Factually accurate (references)

• There are three different citation styles employed, which does not provide an example of our best work.
• There is a concern on the talk page, from 9 May 2006, that “the whole thing smacks of original research”.

3b) Headings and 3c) Table of contents

• There is a talk page concern from 13 April 2006 that a major reorganization and cleanup is needed. The Table of Contents is overwhelming, rambling, and disorganized.

5) Length and Summary Style

• There is a {{summarystyle}} tag on the article. Overall size is 110 KB, and prose size is a very large 76 KB. In October 2004, the article was 49KB overall, so it has grown considerably since it received FA status. The article is not “of appropriate length, staying tightly focused” on its topic. The large increase in size warrants a new review of the article.

Sandy 21:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is a version from the date it appeared on the main page: [1]. Sandy 03:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Cavalli-SforzaMap.jpg has a nonsense fair use rationale. It should probably be deleted. Jkelly 04:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This article dates back to the Brilliant Prose days. Here's the archive of the promotion — not much to look at. Boy, have we come a long way since then! Pagrashtak 04:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks: I left a talk page note for User:JDG. Sandy 05:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Per User: Slrubenstein, I also notified User:FrankWSweet and User:Guettarda.

• Which variety of English is it written in? I see "color" and "rigour". There are far too many instances of "as well as", which is a marked form of "and". There is unscientific language, such as "presumably". The article appears to be not well organised. Tony 13:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Status? In the two weeks since it was nominated for review, the article has grown from 110KB to 116KB overall size. Here is the compare: [2]. No activity to clean up the problems, suggest moving to FARC. Sandy 13:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• The refrences section here is rediculous. It takes up 3 whole screen legnths on my monitor. I know we want good sourcing and that most wikipedia articles are under refrneced, but there is such a thing as over refrencing. And with no inline citations, it would take days to find the proper refrnece here. There needs to be some way of organizxing the refs so that we know what refs what here. I have never seen a larger more confusing refs section. I would have to vote to remove the article Tobyk777 06:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Criteria 2a, 2c, 2d, 3b, 3c, and 5 are at issue. Tony 14:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. There's been a little work performed on this article since nomination, but not nearly enough, IMV. Looking at random, there are problems such as:
  • "The term race distinguishes one population of humans (or non-humans) from another." (First sentence.) I hate the reference to "non-humans"—what does it mean? Can the last two words be removed as redundant ("The term race distinguishes populations of humans on the basis of relatively superficial genetic differences, and culture."? ... or something liket that?
  • "physical anthropologists at PhD granting departments, rising from 41% to 42%"—Yuck to the "PhD granting" bit; is the rise from 41–42% statistically significant? I doubt it, from that small sample.

Too many problems, and no one seems to care. Tony 03:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. No effort to address all of the issues raised, and no one apparently even trying. Sad, since the original FA was a good article. Sandy 22:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Remove or roll back to the version that was featured.--Peta 05:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The original featured version – while far better than what is there now – had only two inline citations. I'm so disappointed the original authors and involved editors and Projects didn't take this on. :-( Sandy 22:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Sandy. I'm afraid it's more than I can handle right now. I'm quite ill (cancer, unfortunately). It needs a whole rewrite with good inline cites and I'm just not up to it. Oddly, if you go back to around June, 2005 you'll see quite a fine article with more sourced research than the original FA, and written pretty intelligently. It looks like a couple editors with shaky prose skills got hold of this only recently and really did a number. If you roll back, I'd say a version in early-mid `05 would be best. I'm surprised User: Slrubenstein is happy with the current version. I agree with most of the comments here that the writing, in many spots, verges on embarrassing. I think Slr was so close to it for so long, he must have lost perspective... Ah well, I suppose demotion is the best thing for it now. JDG 09:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

My best wishes for a good outcome, JDG, and thanks for letting us know. I will raise questions about the possibility of a rollback on the FAR talk page. Best, Sandy 14:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Adding cites to a good article is easier than cleaning up a bad one.--Peta 00:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Here are some older versions for comparison before, during, and after the 2005 growth phase. --Rikurzhen 05:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Remove, problems not addressed. --jwanders^Talk 10:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per jwanders Niz 12:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Remove NCurse _work 19:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism

Article is still a featured article

Review commentary

This article has extensive problems that have existed before and after its recieving featured status:

• 2(a) The article continues to suffer from many copyedit issues as evidenced by continuous fixing, 23:45, 14 July, 19:14, 14 July, 15:17, 7 July, 13:10, 5 July, 14:18, 22, 16:44, 21 June, 01:45, 20 June. Many of the passages are long-winded or tangential due to multiple editors adding one line at a time in response to each other, rather than writing a coherent passage. These issues call into question the status of its prose as "compelling, even brilliant".

• 2(c) The article fails to cite proper sources and in some cases even misrepresents them, I removed 8 already today. Many of these sources where placed by two editors (RJII and Hogeye) who have since been banned for intentionally disrupting wikipedia, in part by continuously misrepresenting what they cite. Some of the sources that remain are not peer-reviewed, are secondary sources that do not use primary sources themselves, are not independent, and have conflict of interest in representing the issues they discuss, violating reliable sources guidelines.

• 2(d) It is not uncontroversial in its neutrality, with the discussion page displaying a prominent warning that it is a controversial topic next to 14 pages of archives dealing with many POV objections that have been resolved/ignored/dismissed to various degrees.

• 2(e) The article has changed considerably both from when it was first nominated and on a day to day basis, with many editors making extensive changes on a semi-daily basis. It is also occasionally the subjet of ongoing edit wars, both of these issues compromise its stability.

• Several previous calls by myself and other editors (172, Revcat, AaronS, infinity0) to address these and other issues have largely been ignored or dismissed by editors, and while some issues have been slowly resolved, others have resurfaced or never been addressed. This page is simply not up to the standard of being the best wikipedia has to offer, the controversial nature of its subject matter seems to draw edit warriors to it like a magnet.

Blahblahblahblahblahblah 10:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Agree, I'd add that the whole "Modern Somalia" is uncited. - FrancisTyers · 12:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Agree. I've been trying to clean up this article, removing a lot of fluff and theoretical speculation. I'll add more when I have time. I'm not sure why it was ever given FA status. --AaronS 18:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V problems. Not our best work. Jkelly 19:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Agree. I'd also note the content problems noted above are likely symptoms of the article's overall poorly laid out structure. 172 | Talk 11:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Agree, the article at present is a mess, and featured status reflects poorly on Wikipedia. Sarge Baldy 01:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Agree with all of the above. The article's lack of stability and the constant disputes regarding its neutrality and factual accuracy, alone, are enough to remove its FA status. These problems have been exacerbated by the recent influx of anarcho-capitalist partisans, some of them sockpuppets. -- WGee 00:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to Blahblahblahblahblahblah's comment:

• 2(a) You showed that copyedit problems were fixed, not that this article suffers from them.
• 2(c) I don't see any unreliable sources [3]. Can you point out which sources are you contesting?
• 2(d) There is no POV tag on the article or on any of its sections; taking into account number of the people who strongly oppose anarcho-capitalism as an ideology, that's quite a proof of its neutrality.
• 2(e) This version of the article was featured. Article remained basically the same. Only difference is that objections regarding size, neutrality and verifiability were taken into account; so the article only gained on its quality and readability.
• Their objections were taken into account. 172 and Revcat were skeptical about Modern Somalia section – that section is now removed since it was largely based on original research. AaronS complained about article's length of "nearly 70KB", article in now long 51KB (40KB in readable prose). Infinity0 complained about presence of personal webpages, blogs and podcast links in the "External links" section. After short discussion, they were removed [4].-- Vision Thing -- 13:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see a review that focuses on the article content and issues, rather than editors involved and past edit history. There is a lot of detail provided in the review request about editors and edit history, but little in the way of actual examples of the current problems with the article. Please provide specific examples of the following mentioned above:

• The article continues to suffer from many copyedit issues ... Can you list some examples of current issues.
• The article fails to cite proper sources and in some cases even misrepresents them, Can you list some current examples of sources that aren't "proper".
• Some of the sources that remain are not peer-reviewed, are secondary sources that do not use primary sources themselves, are not independent, and have conflict of interest in representing the issues they discuss, Rather than discussing banned editors and their edit history, please give concrete examples of current sources which are problematic.
• It is not uncontroversial in its neutrality ... 14 pages of archives dealing with many POV objections. Examples, please, of current POV problems.

Also, have you notified the authors who originally brought the article to FA status? And can you give us a link to the article when it attained FA status? Sandy 14:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I see VisionThing provided that link. Sandy 14:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can oblige your requests. The reason I gave evidence of recent problems in the article, rather than current ones, is that the moment I see a problem in the article I fix it. My evidence was not meant to point out particulars that could be easily remedied, but a series of problems with the entire article that are ongoing. As evidenced by my numerous examples above, all the copyedit and source problems that I have found I have done what I could to fix, rather than simply complain about them here, my goal is not to remove from FA status an article that could be easily fixed. I would encourage anyone who is interested in verifying the status of the page to just give it a quick read themselves and check the current sources and external links that are still there (and are currently being added even now), to see if they accord with the explicit standards of FA status for wikipedia, or if like myself and others you feel this is an article that still needs a good deal of work. If nothing else, the major edits and somewhat frequent edit wars that are added or removed on a regular basis call into question the stability of the page.

One thing I can at least address is the POV problems, as they are more systemic than particular and more difficult for me to fix. For example, the page includes a box which gives a series of definitions that anarcho-capitalists use in non-normative ways. Many of these definitions are highly selective and do not match those used in dictionaries or even in the field of socio-politics. Because these anarcho-capitalist definitions are then used as such in the article, it thus transforms the article from a neutral wiki presentation of anarcho-capitalism into a pov anarcho-capitalist presentation of anarcho-capitalism every time they use one of these words. Any subsequent criticism of their use of terminology can then be immediately removed by citing "the box" as evidence that the article is upfront concerning its bias. This may be the case, but the fact that it readily admits bias does not make for a neutral description of the subject matter.

In addition, there is a strong tendency by editors of this article to remove sourced evidence that is critical of anarcho-capitalism or contradicts statements made by anarcho-capitalists, and insert in their place highly selective quotes from particular sources rather than ones which represent the field they are taken from. For example, in the last day alone Vision Thing has removed quotes by E Armand (citing that he is only an individualist and not an american individualist), Joe Peacott (claiming it was "not important"). He then included a series of quotes that he has carefully farmed from various sources to suggest that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, while specifically (and I would guess willfully) ignoring those that contradict his prefered conclusion.

There is also a strong tendency to give summaries of all issues in anarcho-capitalist terms, for example explaining individualist anarchism primarily in terms of the labor theory of value, which is an anarcho-capitalist method and not one generally used by historians or individualist anarchists themselves. Of course, most anarcho-capitalist editors on the discussion pages immediately dismiss these concerns, and I imagine Vision Thing will attempt to give a quick response that dismissed them here, but the fact that they exist (and in most cases have been brought up repeatedly) demonstrates that the page is not "uncontroversial in its neutrality". I hope that helps Sandy. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 20:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the long explanation. Besides the problems you mention, the article is a blooming link farm and a subsidiary of Amazon.com, which is a tipoff the POV issues that are occurring.Sandy 01:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, his explanation is not an objective one. All problems he mentioned above are more or less fabricated. Also, if you look into his contributions list on the day he started this review, you will notice that he had left a note about it only on a talk pages of editors with a negative stance towards anarcho-capitalism. [5][6][7][8][9]

What do you mean by subsidiary of Amazon? -- Vision Thing -- 21:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd ignore that comment about us awful editors. Vision Thing has a tendency to characterize anybody who does not endorse an anarcho-capitalist point-of-view as being a hardline communist with dark ulterior motives. I for one could care less about anarcho-capitalism in itself. What I do care about is the accuracy of the encyclopaedia. I'm not here to endorse a viewpoint. Wikipedia is the worst place for that, not only because it ruins the project, but because, unless you're looking to raise an army of pimply-faced technogeek revolutionaries, you're better off evangelizing in the real world. --AaronS 13:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

And if I were to ask you to show me were I characterized anybody as "a hardline communist with dark ulterior motives" you, just like Blah..., couldn't do that because that claim is made up. -- Vision Thing -- 20:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. Sandy 21:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Response to Blahblahblahblahblahblah's comment:

1) Can you show examples in which are words from box used in a non-normative ways?

2) For example, I removed [10] Joe Peacott claim from section "Dispute over the name "anarchism"" because he doesn't deny that anarcho-capitalists are anarchists and his claim was already mentioned in part of the article about Individualist anarchism.

3) I don't know how you can claim that article describes individualist anarchism primarily in terms of the labor theory of value when labor theory of value is mentioned exactly one time in the whole section about Individualist anarchism, and even then only in a context of differentiating individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. -- Vision Thing -- 21:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Given Vision Thing's history on this issue and the quality/tone of his responses I'm happy to let my previous comments stand. I believe I have provided sufficient evidence for any reasonable person to take the time to review the page themselves and come to their own conclusions. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 07:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

article review

I would like to see that those who argue that anarcho-capitalism should loose its featured article status, present their arguments based on the diff of the current article in respect to the version of the article when it was given featured article status [11]. Thanks! Intangible 17:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Opposition and Extreme Objection to this Review

I agree with Intangible and oppose this review for the following reasons:

The Anarcho-capitalism article meets the requirements for a featured article by easily passing each and every one of the criteria necessary to pass it's tests.

• The article is written in a clear and concise manner. It is well written by any literary standard and particularly adheres to encyclopaedic format. It is easy to follow and specifically not confused with the blending of ideologies found in so many articles now.
• It covers all bases and aspects of the topic. For example the philsophy behind the principles of anarcho-capitalism Anarcho-capitalism#Philosophy, and this in excellent detail, as evidenced by it's five sub-sections. Disputes are discussed Anarcho-capitalism#Conflicts_within_anarcho-capitalist_theory, it's relation to anarchism is discussed in a well-rounded manner. Anarcho-capitalism#Anarchism_and_anarcho-capitalism. It's history, originators, (and supporters) are gone into Anarcho-capitalism#History_and_influences, both in the United States and Europe. There are historical subsections here Anarcho-capitalism#Individualist_anarchism_in_the_United_States and here Anarcho-capitalism#The_Austrian_School. The reality or likelihood of it's existence, and the possibility of a very similar society is talked about here Anarcho-capitalism#Anarcho-capitalism in the real world. There is a 'criticism' section here #Criticisms_of_anarcho-capitalism. There is also a section that includes quite a few links to literature concerning anarcho-capitalism Anarcho-capitalism#Anarcho-capitalist_literature.
• It is referenced throughout. All one needs to do is go through the article to verify this. It specifically does not make claims that it can't back up.
• It remains neutral in that it is factual, it includes criticism of the concept of anarcho-capitalism, and does not read like a tabloid, editorial or an article that is propagandistic in nature.
• It certainly does have a hierarchical set of headings and a reasonable (not too large) table of contents.
• As far as stability goes I see this article has having been quite stable until the arrival of a few editors, whose edits strongly suggest not only POV pushing but a downright attempt at sabotaging this article. These can be seen here, particularly with the almost non-stop edits of User:Blahblahblahblahblahblah:

1. [12] here,
2. [13] here,
3. [14] here,
4. [15] where User:Blahblahblahblahblahblah makes 15 edits on July 13 alone. here,
5. [16] where User: AaronS makes 7 edits on July 12 and 8 edits on July 6, and User:Blahblahblahblahblahblah makes 6 edits on June 27.

As far as an attempt at sabotaging this article goes I find it a bit odd that User:Blahblahblahblahblahblah joined Wikipedia as an editor on June 27, [17] and went straight to work at editing this article on that date.

This looks like not only a clear case of a group of editors who are pointedly against the notion of anarcho-capitalism, going out of their way to degrade the quality of the article, and then starting on a deliberate campaign to lower it's high quality. This extreme vandalism having been done, these same editors then suggest that this article lose it's featured article status. I suggest that this entire case be dropped by the aforementioned evidence, all of which are in blatant violation of Wikipedia policy. Shannon^{duck talk} 20:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As the current article stands, I do not see any inaccuracies or slander that would require any changes at this time. - MSTCrow 22:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is easy enough to answer Shannon's criticism of my attempts to "sabotage" the article. Look through any of the edits that Shannon listed, or any of my other edits, and see if the article is better or worse for it, rather than simply criticising my number of edits (whose purpose was to improve the article).

As for it being "a bit odd" that I edited the article right after joining, this explaination is also pretty easy, I was a user of wikipedia (Kevehs) for several years previously. I left, waiting until users Hogeye and RJII got themselves banned with their abusive behavior, so that some resemblance of civility could be brought back to the pages I edit. I created a new identity, in accordance with wiki policy to avoid being harassed by the sockpuppets of RJII and Hogeye that continue to plague these articles. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 01:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

*** Shannon (User:Lingeron): do not censor the comments of other editors. The following comments have been replaced. ***

Perhaps you should provide diffs to my edits. If I am so opposed to "the notion of anarcho-capitalism," why were all of my edits working towards improving the article? I removed fluff, made sections more concise, fixed grammar, fixed references, moved long sections to their own articles, deleted theoretical speculation, and made the article more like a featured article candidate. I think that this article should be here and that every article should work towards this status. Before throwing around words like "sabotage," "deliberate campaign," "extreme vandalism," and the like, provide some evidence. I think that you just don't like the idea that this article is being reviewed. Well, if it's a great article, then this review won't matter, and it can certainly stand for itself without you attacking various editors. Next time you want to throw around accusations, provide some actual proof. If anybody takes the time (but why would they?) to look at the diffs in question (which you did not link to), they would see that my edits improved the article. Anarcho-capitalism is monitored by many, many anarcho-capitalists and interested parties; if my edits were so terrible, they would have been reverted. Of course, they were not. --AaronS 20:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact, here is the diff that you didn't provide. All of my edits improved the article. All of my edit summaries explained what I was doing. I discussed them on the talk page. So, please, these accusations are starting to get silly. If you don't stop, I'll have my secret cabal of Communist henchmen make you stop. --AaronS 21:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This article already has this status. Apparantly you have no faith in those who make these decisions. Shannon^{duck talk} 00:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Blind faith in authority never helped anybody. --AaronS 00:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

FWIW

Oppose: As one of the editors who worked hard to get this article to FA status, including doing my damndest to get individual claims cited correctly, I think I can say that the article has not degraded from its original FA state. In fact, I think some parts are better. (The lead section I think has turned out very good, and efforts by subsequent editors to trim the fat off of quite a few sections has been to the good without losing content.) The current problem it seems (which is the perennial problem) is the fact that ancaps and anarchists do not use a common lexicon (both of which subtly diverge from common usage). This is the reason for the sidebars. You just can't adequately discuss a philosophy with out using the terms as used by that philosophy-- and the article is being very up front about that. To gain some perspective, try and imagine an article about Marxist Theory that doesn't involve at least some idiosyncratic definitions. I don't think it's possible. --Saswann 17:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that not all articles on wikipedia have to be featured articles. The problem you point out of "requiring" use of specialized anarcho-capitalist definitions for common terms to describe the subject just speaks to me that the article cannot be uncontroversial in its neutrality, you are saying that the only way it can be presented is to present it, literally, in anarcho-capitalist terms. I actually disagree with you that this is a necessity, but if it is then I would say it precludes featured article status. Besides, I think it is a bit of a stretch to compare use of specialized marxist terms like, I dunno, "dialectical materialism" to non-normative uses of much more common terms like "voluntary".

In addition, just recently the criticism section (and external links) has been all but removed, that section being referanced by two of the support voters during FAC. The external links that remain still have ones in violation of wikipedia policy on appropriate links as do many of the sources, and I'm getting less and less motivated to fix these issues given the "we refuse to accept that there is anything wrong with this article at all" attitude I keep getting on the talk page.

I simply can't agree that all the changes since FA status are improvements, or even that the article as it was originally submitted was good to go. I respect your professional editing Saswann, and I readily admit to having bias as concerns this subject, but you really pushed to have this article put up for featured status and I'm not sure you have enough distance from it to avoid being, understandibly, defensive. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 18:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well there's obviously a disagreement between us as far as terminology goes. IMO it is very hard to describe the subject in a neutral way without using terms as ancaps define them, otherwise you head straight into the POV thicket of qualifying every statement in the article again and again and again, to the point where the article presents a clear anti-ancap bias. It made a lot more sense to me (and it still does) to present the terms as they're defined by the ancap usage, and present clearly what the terms mean in ancap philosophy in a prominent manner, once. The alternative seems a whole lot uglier to me, both aesthetically, and in terms of POV problems. Also, I didn't say all the changes were improvements, just that some were. I'm afraid I just don't see the wasteland of Ancap Advocacy<-->Rampant Vandalism everyone else does. Most of the arguments seem more tangential and, in the grand scheme of things not nearly as important as everyone makes them out to be. --Saswann 20:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Then again, I can't help but feel that if you are correct, this article will never be featured status quality. You say that it would be POV and ugly to point out when and where the anarcho-capitalists are using terms in non-normative ways, but I can't imagine how it would be NPOV to make a small box on the left hand corner as a cheat that allows editors to then proceed to use the voice of wikipedia to describe anarcho-captialism as the anarcho-captialists would most want it described. There really is a problem with having the article go on and on about anarcho-capitalism being the height of voluntary, non-coercive philosophy, and side-stepping rather large issues like the fact that if we used normative definitions anarcho-capitalism would entail the very things it claims to be against. You used the example of marxism to show that some ideologies need to be presented with specialized terms. That is fair. But how about if I used the example of white nationalism to show that some ideologies, if presented in their own terms, will do so to the detriment of a balanced presentation for wiki readers? Blahblahblahblahblahblah 08:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That's just it. If you refuse to present white nationalism in its own terms, and insist on qualifying their statements, you are essentially enforcing an anti-white supremacist POV on the article. Now, I don't see many people becoming upset over that particular bias, but it's still a bias, against the whole idea of NPOV, no mater how many people agree with the sentiment. Also, I think you're severly underestimating the reader's intelligence in parsing the article. It is quite obvious, not only from the sidebar, but from the context of the article, what's being talked about. And, to put an even finer point on it, the "anarchist" definitions of the terms "voluntary," "coercive," and "capitalism" aren't any more normative than the ancap ones. If I were to walk up to anyone in my office here and suggested their employment was somehow not a voluntary arrangement on their part, they'd think I was nuts-- but by the "anarchist" definition of voluntary, that's exactly what it is.--Saswann 17:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

While I don't want to get into theoretical speculation, that's really only at first glance, and it does depend on the circumstance. Perhaps that's the case in your nice, air-conditioned office, but it is certainly not the case everywhere. Some people feel compelled to accept poor employment because their circumstances demand it. Quite differently from you, I could very easily ask my friend who earns minimum wage at a supermarket and who has no health insurance whether or not he felt coerced into his situation, and he would respond with a hearty "hell yes."

This isn't the point, though. I think that what Blah is saying is that the way the article presented right now might be a bit too advocative (is that a word? It is now). --AaronS 18:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because an article achieved featured article status does not mean it is "done" by any means. To believe so is foolish, counterproductive, and generally in opposition to the way Wikipedia works. If featured articles deserved to remain in the state they were when they became featured, they would be locked then and there. The review process exists to continue to examine such articles, and simply being a featured article is not sufficient evidence for not revising an article. Shannon's reverts to the article have made significant progress on the revision difficult to achieve. In fact at one point, as nearly as I can tell, she reverted the whole article to its revision as of when it gained featured article status. While her edits may have been in good faith, she has shown noteworthy inability to assume good faith herself.--Rosicrucian 12:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Here's what has been done since nomination—quite a lot. Does the nominator think that the changes are sufficient? Tony 14:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that in general it is headed in the right direction, though the removal of the entire criticism section and the all criticism external links was a step in the wrong direction, imho. Still, work needs to be done with the external links that remain, which do not meet wiki standards and seem too numerous. I also think it is important to continue checking the validity of the referances section, since several of the referances were not reliable and added by now banned uses. I don't currently have access to a university library, so I've only been able to remove those that were obviously invalid on the surface. Last, I think both the "definitions" box and the "other names for anarcho-capitalism" box still have reasonable standing objections, I don't agree with saswann that the only way to present a subject in NPOV is to tacitly accept anarcho-capitalist definitions by having wikipedia's voice use them in its presentation. Other than that remaining problems are pretty minor from what I can tell, some grammar and the use of two templates, for example. In short I still think it could use some work. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 15:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think that User:TheIndividualist is pushing it in the wrong direction by inserting highly contentious claims like "anarcho-capitlaism is a form of individualist anarchism" in the very first sentence of the article. Those are the kinds of claims that we're trying to avoid, and which have dubious sources at best. --AaronS 15:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It does definitely seem like an effort to make an assertion that as of yet has achieved no consensus in Template Talk:Anarchism. As such, I'd agree that it's premature to call Anarcho-Capitalism anarchism in the political sense. Given Individualist's edits in the template talk it's evident which side he weighs in on, but it has no place in the article until it's resolved--Rosicrucian 16:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Topheavy

The introductory section of the article is rather dense with information, perhaps needlessly so. If one can't see the ToC without scrolling at 1024x768, I think things may have gone somewhat awry. I'd favor coming up with a more concise introductory paragraph, with any other information moved to the appropriate section of the article as needed. It fits Wikipedia:Lead section better that way.--Rosicrucian 21:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Worked this. Rlevse 00:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concerns are prose writing quality (2a), sources (2c), POV (2d), stability (2e). Marskell 08:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral. There does seem to have been a lot of work done on this—about 240 edits since nomination on just over two weeks ago; this compares with roughly the same number of edits between the start of April and nomination (three and a half months). Blah, do you think it should be saved? Tony 13:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a lot of positive contributions have happened over a short time, so the review seems to have had a good effect on the quality of the article. However, there have also been some backwards steps as I noted above. A lot of the unfortunate changes have been the direct result of edits by now banned sockpuppets (shannon and individualistanarchist), and one of the better editors twobitsprite has recently had enough of the partisan bickering and given up. I'm on the verge myself actually. I would really like to see someone like saswann or radgeek return to the article and work on it. At the moment I would say it definately fails to meet featured article status, but I'm certainly not the least biased individual for making such a determination. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 15:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I think that under circumstances, there's not enough firm evidence to remove it, and significant work has been done on the article since nomination. Tony 10:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I think the reviewers may have exhausted themselves with all the comments early in this FAR :). Taking a look, I think this is quite a fine article and agree much work has been done. I would only add that the TOC is a touch verbose—could we shorten "Real world systems with characteristics similar to anarcho-capitalism", for instance? Marskell 17:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Reject for now, mainly on the grounds of (2e). Removing the FA status of this article would not be a sleight towards the many people who have worked on it; it's quite a good article, but the topic is too contentious for some people. There are many good articles on controversial topics that aren't featured articles for this very reason. --AaronS 23:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The only problem I currently see is the top heavy verbose lead, which should be re-written. It shouldn't be too difficult to correct. Most of the description of the article's problems appeared aimed at *editors* of the article, rather than the actual article or its content. I haven't seen a good argument for delisting an article of this quality. Sandy 18:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Reject for NPOV concerns and some troublesome citing. While the article is a fine (in fact, hyper-enthusiastic) description of AnCap, it terribly misrepresents everything else. The article as it stands make's good use of exploiting first appearances, stating matter-as-factly things that are actually hugely contentious (the best part about this article is the sidebar that states that they use terms differently from others - fair enough, but a red flag). The article can do without ad-hominem attacks on those who disagree with central tenets of AnCap (the highly troublesome Anarcho-capitalism#Individualist_anarchism_in_the_United_States is the best example). Also problematic is the tone of argument through intimidation, with reams of texts being cited at any point where AnCap isn't assumed to be the political theory-of-everything, without the same courtesy extended to the better represented POV that contest these claims. The best example of this is the line "Several scholars see anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism" with 13 citations, all lined up, of which one stated the opposite of what it claimed (till I pointed that out and it was removed). This isn't a good thing - it's clumsy and betrays an overly aggressive bearing. It's especially bad because this phrase has worked itself into every article tangentially related to the question of whether AnCap has a place in the anarchist tradition.

If I can summarise my problems with it: I would not oppose this article's FA status, I'd probably even endorse it, if it didn't attempt to contextualise itself into other traditions (which it shouldn't do in the first place) and change those traditions to fit. There is a group of editors who have been very aggressively pushing an AnCap POV over Wikipedia (and elsewhere) especially within the Anarchism series which keeps a group of editors like myself busy with trying to defend the articles of more modest pretentions. Let this article say what it wants about AnCap - it is what it's there for, and does it well - but let it keep quiet about everything else except as to how it directly ascertains to AnCap (for instance, name and influence but neglect to attack the influence for not being AnCap enough). When this attempt at theory-of-everything POV violation falls away the dodgy citations and contamination of other articles will as well, and we will actually have worked towards an agreement.--Marinus 23:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the "definition box" is a bit troublesome. Namely, if anarcho-capitalists use or interpret terms differently, that should be explained in the article. I'm sure that there must be criticisms of anarcho-capitalism based upon their unique interpretations of these words. At this point, the article assumes that the infobox is enough; or, worse yet, it presents itself as if it is using those terms in their every day sense. The lead is also troublesome. Note that the lead of socialism, for instance, does not say "Socialism is an ideology seeking to overthrow the ruling class as an oppressive means of exploitation and replace it with a system where every individual is free." The lead for this article, however, tends to take an advocate's stance. --AaronS 03:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Currently...

... the article has seemed to stabalize, most of the editors who have filed complaints about the article have seemed reduce their edits, disruptive users have been dealt with for the most part. Most of the complaints filed above have been rectified. What do you all think now? I'll start with my vote:

• Keep. The article has gone under significant reworking since the review began, and most of the complaints filed have been resolved. Two-Bit Sprite 14:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

*Reject. Comment. This article will never be stable. While there are many good editors working on it, there are a few bad apples who will always be around, and it will always be undergoing edit wars and significant changes. I might support a future nomination. --AaronS 14:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

AaronS has entered a duplicate vote, please strike. Sandy 18:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this a re-vote? --AaronS 18:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Votes entered above still stand unless the editor who entered the vote strikes the vote. Sandy 18:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. --AaronS 18:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No need :-) Sandy 20:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That's an awefully negative view point, to say that this article will never reach some amount of relative stability. I'm sure there are plenty of featured articles that get vandalized often enough; the fact that there are people who will try to use wikipedia as a platform for thier beliefs should not nullify the fact that the article as it stands is of high enough quality to be considered one of the best articles on wikipedia from an encyclopedic stance... —Two-Bit Sprite 15:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure it does. It may be a negative belief, but some articles on Wikipedia are just like that. See George W. Bush for an example. --AaronS 15:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I also think it would be unfortunate to remove on the basis of "cannot be stable". GWB is the exception of exceptions. Look, for instance at abortion—it gets hit by mass vandal/anon edits, yet the core article has remained stable. If we can do it there... More pertinently, is there POV issue in this article at this moment that needs to be addressed before closing the FAR? Marskell 08:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is - not in the way the article represents AnCap, but in how it represents other movements. This is especially troublesome because these POV misrepresentations are repeated in various other articles. --Marinus 23:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Premature closing of vote

Most of the people originally involved in this review have not even voted, yet. Was there a discussion about closing it that I missed? --AaronS 16:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There was more than a full month review period, and the article was at FARC for more than two weeks. There were no requests to extend the review period due to unusual circumstances, the article had stabilized, and yours was the only vote to remove. All editors had more than two weeks to enter a vote. Sandy 16:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes there are circumstances in real life which prevent people from monitoring Wikipedia. I can think of 3 or 4, perhaps 5, editors who would be interested in this vote, if they were around. --AaronS 16:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

My reasons for closing:

• Original concerns were addressed.
• There was a concensus for keeping the article's featured status.
• Work was not being done on the article at the time of closing.
• Article had been stable for more than four days.
• Article had been in review for a month with no outstanding requests for extension.
• I understand that not everyone can check Wikipedia every day, however the FARC was open for 2 weeks. We cannot have a FARC open until everyone votes. Joelito (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Those are good reasons, and I wasn't assuming that you didn't have any. :) It's just that I happen to know that a few people haven't been active in a few weeks, but were originally very active in the FAR. A recent rise in sock puppetry regarding anarchism-related articles has driven them off for a bit. To date, I am the only original person who thought that the article should be reviewed to have voted. --AaronS 18:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, nobody has counted Blah's vote, so that makes two of us. The vote currently stands at 4 to keep and 2 to reject. --AaronS 18:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a vote from Blah. Sandy 18:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"At the moment I would say it definately fails to meet featured article status" --AaronS 18:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a vote there, and FARCs are closed based on consensus on the issues raised. There was never a strong argument in this FAR that the article did not meet FA criteria. The nomination and subsequent discussion read as an issue with the *editors*, not the actual article. Sandy 18:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a consensus, yet, is there? The fact that some of the discussion was marred by sock puppets and banned users does not devalue the points raised by some of the original editors questioning the article's status. Forgive me, but I do not understand the motivation or reasoning behind closing this discussion, other than "that's just the way it is, and that's the way I think it should be." --AaronS 18:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

A wee extension

I have notified interested parties of the closing of the vote. I request that there be a wee extension while they consider whether or not they would like to vote or add anything to the discussion. This includes editors who I believe might vote to reject as well as editors who I believe might vote to keep. Due to the controversiality that often surrounds this article, I feel that it's important that we make sure that the issue will be settled when it is settled. --AaronS 18:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It's unusual to canvas editors after the FARC has closed, considering it had a two-week review period. I don't see a vote above from Blah. And I was wondering why you didn't also canvas Intanglible, MSTCrow, and Saswann ?Sandy 18:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I notified the main editors on the first page of the histories of anarcho-capitalism and anarchism, as well as those who I could remember off of the top of my head. I'll notify those editors, as well.

It may be unusual, but during this FAR, there was a great deal of edit warring and sock puppetry going on with regard to the anarchism-related articles, discouraging quite a few editors and causing them to take a bit of a leave. I'm one of them, although I've stuck around for things like this.

I don't see any harm in leaving it open a bit longer while all of these people have their say. The harm in closing it, right now, would be the continual questioning of the legitimacy of the FA status of the article. I wish that there had been some kind of notification before close, akin to a little "well, are we ready?" for everybody. --AaronS 18:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I would support an extension of the FARC. Blockader 15:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's legit to call for an extension for something after the fact... I mean, I suppose you have the option of openning a new FARC... It has been a month, after all; if you were going to canvas and get more votes, you probably should have done it sooner. Two-Bit Sprite 18:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Bad faith F.A.R.

I know all about "assuming good faith," and I do, but after looking this over, I suspect that the attempt to remove this article from Featured Article Status was not done in good faith. I can't help thinking that this comes from the typical anti-capitalist psychology of wanting to destroy or discredit what others have built through their hard work. Not only is the article itself the fruit of enormous intellectual and physical labor but the article itself is about a philosophy that supports profiting from one's achievments. On top of that, the article is awarded with a Gold Star. It fills the anti-capitalists with envy and resentment. Instead of building anything of value themselves, they work destroy what others create. (Compare to the attack on the World Trade Center). DTC 18:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my. --AaronS 18:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It read that way to me as well (that is, the nomination was not about the article, rather editors of the article). Sandy 18:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If you truly believe that, then I question your neutrality in deciding whether or not this issue should be closed. --AaronS 18:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

My vote counts no more or less than yours. The FA criteria are clearly defined: this FAR never showed that the article failed to meet the criteria. Sandy 18:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I also believe that it meets all criteria, except that it is unstable, and that there are issues regarding NPOV. Just take a look at Template talk:Anarchism. --AaronS 19:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

DTS: you scold me, Aaron, and others for assuming bad faith, yet here you are assumimg that we "work [to] destroy what others create? Outrageous. -- WGee 01:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

DTS: Didn't lingeron use that exact same phrase? Or maybe it was one of the other banned users. I can't keep you all straight anymore. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 09:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, are we voting on something that was already voted on? I'm confused. - MSTCrow 02:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Bicycle

previous FAR

Economy of the Republic of Ireland

previous FAR

Medal of Honor

Article is still a featured article

This article is quite well written, but the prose can be improved. In particular, a cursory reading of the first few paragraphs revealed the following problems with respect to Criterion 2a.

• "All branches of the U.S. military are eligible to receive the medal, though each branch has a special design." "Though" in wrong here, since it doesn't contradict the preceding clause.

• "The Congressional Space Medal of Honor is a separate award and not equivalent." Insert "is" before "not"; "equivalent" to what needs to be explicated for ease of reading.

• "Scott did not approve the medal; however, such a medal found support in the Navy." Either "approve of the medal" or "approve the proposal" is required here, whichever conveys the intended meaning.

• "In the rare cases (19 so far) where a service member has been awarded more than one Medal of Honor, regulations specify that an appropriate award device will be centered on the MOH ribbon and neck medal." The parenthetical phrase would be less intrusive if place after "Honor" (i.e., before the comma). Remove "will".

• Stubby, one-sentence paragraphs, including one in the lead and quite a few further down.

I note that Medal of Honor is displayed as the example of FA-class articles at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, next to the statement that these articles require "no further editing ... unless new published information has come to light."

The problems listed above suggest that the article needs a close copy-edit if it's to continue to be held up as a shining example of the pinnacle of Wikipedia's achievements. Tony 16:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to fix some of the specific problems you listed, but I'll still have the following content issues with the article:

• Not enough references. Unverified sections include Origin, Appearance, Versions of the medal, Flag, Evolution of criteria, and Similar decorations.
• Accounts of the meaning of the medal contradict each other. The quotation in the first paragraph leaves no clue as to its source, and the quotation in "Authority and privileges" is similar but different. The latter seems to quote the 1862 law, but it is inconsistent with the quotation at the end of "Origin".
• The introduction contradicts itself on the awarding body; does the President act on behalf of Congress or the people? What precisely does being commander-in-chief have to do with it?
• The image layout in "Appearance" obscures the connection between image and text.
• Data tables in "Recipients" should be moved to the subarticle and/or replaced with prose.

Melchoir 16:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Sandy 23:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It's been a week with no progress, so I'll move this to a major review. Melchoir 19:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note that this comment was made just before the minor/major review processes were merged. Tony 12:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Work is being done, though it is slow. Please give it time. — ERcheck (talk) 01:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• I just fixed the refs. There may be a few stragglers.Rlevse 02:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• I've added several refs and others have been working on this too. Rlevse 00:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Could someone please list remaining concerns as of this time. Thanks. Rlevse 02:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure! The following elements need either citations or revision to meet 2(a), 2(c), and 3(a). Feel free to interleave your own indented notes, but please wait for me to strike out items on my own. (fm Rlevse, those would be well-written, accurate, and lead section)

• All of the quotations:
  • "for conspicuous gallantry ... enemy force" (1p intro, infobox)
    • This quotation still needs help. It's currectly cited to [18], which doesn't have the same wording. Perhaps some brackets and ellipses are in order...? Melchoir 22:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • made quote exact Rlevse 23:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "any singularly meritorious action" (1p Origin) Not found at website cited at the end of the paragraph.
  • "to be bestowed ... the present war" (3p Origin)
  • "to such noncommissioned ... present insurrection (3p Origin)
  • "The President may award ... call of duty." (1p Authority and privileges) This needs a citation including a date, since the U.S. Code may be amended. Or if this is the 1862 language, it needs to be identified as such; it isn't clear, especially upon comparing with the rest of the article.
    • found and added refs for all these, plus found one you missed-;) Rlevse
• Specific facts:
  • "awarded by the President on behalf of the Congress ... presented by the President of the United States, who acts as commander-in-chief on behalf of the American people." (1p-2p intro) This doesn't add up, and it's glaring. Does the President really change hats between "awarding" and "presenting"? Is he specifically acting "as commander-in-chief", and does that theoretically mean something?
    • It's better now but still not perfect. For example, do we really mean to say that the President signs the medal? And I still wonder if "as commander-in-chief" has some content or if it's fluff. Melchoir 23:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • The President IS the commander-in-chief of the US military, yes, that means he is in charge of them. Neither the Sec. of Defense, nor the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is the top dog. I reworded it too.Rlevse 23:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't question that the President is the commander-in-chief, but for all I know some constitutional expert at the White House has written an authoritative report stating that while the President exercises his commander-in-chief powers by approving a medal, during an awarding ceremony he is actually functioning as head of state. In fact, are you sure that isn't the case? Melchoir 00:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
          • I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill on this one.Rlevse 02:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Well, it is the fifth sentence of a Featured Article. I'll just remove the detail. It's not discussed in the body anyway. Melchoir 02:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "The Medal of Honor is one of only two U.S. military decorations that are presented as neck orders." (3p intro)
    • Wording is better but I'd still like some verification. How do we know that MoH and LoM are really the only two neck orders? Perhaps they're simply the only two that Wikipedia knows about? Melchoir 23:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • reworded so we don't have this problem.Rlevse 23:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "This decoration is considered America's first combat award (and the second oldest, after the Fidelity Medallion)" (1p Origin) In what organization's consideration is there a distinction between first and oldest?
  • "Scott did not approve the proposal, but such a medal found support in the Navy." (3p Origin) Who in the Navy supported the medal?
    • It's a bit of a stretch to point to Secretary Gideon Welles; [19] only has him requesting the Philadelphia Mint to work on the design.
      • If he didn't approve it, he wouldn't have asked the mint to work on it and as the Sec Nav, he'd have to approve any new medal. You're splitting hairs here.Rlevse 23:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
        • The paragraph states that Lincoln signed a "Public Resolution"; I don't know what that means, but it doesn't sound like it comes from the Secretary of the Navy. The current wording, in its context, suggests that Welles was given the same opportunity as Scott to reject the medal. Was he really, if Lincoln was ordering him around? Melchoir 00:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Things get approved at every step of chain.Rlevse 02:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
            • You don't mean it was some enlisted sailor's idea? Now, I don't know who proposed what to whom, and I don't know how Lincoln's cabinet operated. How's this instead? Melchoir 02:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "The Air Force Medal of Honor is unchanged in appearance since its inception in 1965." (2p Appearance)
    • Uh, where in [20] does it say this?
      • It simply hasn't and it's implied by that you can not find any mention of change anywhere. In the US military, this is well known. If it's a problem, remove it if you like. Rlevse 23:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Okay, I removed it.[21] Melchoir 00:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "It is considered a conjectural decoration by the Institute of Heraldry." (3p Appearance)
    • Sorry, but [22] is an old Wikipedia mirror![23] Melchoir 23:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • OK, removed it. Rlevse 23:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "On special occasions, the medal can be worn on civilian attire." (5p Appearance) Is this unusual for a medal? Who decided it?
    • (A) It's not only unusual, it's the only exception (lapel pins are provided for civilian attire for lesser decorations) (B) Nobody "decided it". It's part of previously cited Army regs. footnote added.--Buckboard 07:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
      • That would be an excellent addition to the article, but are you sure it's true? Army §578.4 only says the rosette is for wear on civilian clothing. The claim "Medal of Honor recipients also wear the Medal itself around the neck of civilian attire for special occasions" is, as far as I know, an invention of the website [24] that was blindly copied by [25]. Melchoir 07:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I erred and footnoted the wrong regulation. AR 670-1 is the governing regulation. I added the proper footnote (it's in pdf) with the exact page number and also discovered something else--the Army allows retired soldiers to wear any of their medals with "appropriate" civilian clothing! 578.4 and AR 670-1 forbid only active duty personnel from wearing their medals except on the uniform--otherwise they must wear the rosette or pin. I changed the text to read "former military members".--Buckboard 08:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Ah, that clears things up! I'll merge the information into the relevant item under "Privileges". Melchoir 17:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "Many stayed four days extra, and then were discharged." (2p Evolution of criteria)
  • For that matter, every example in "Evolution of criteria" needs a citation.
  • "Since the beginning of World War II, the medal has been awarded for extreme bravery beyond the call of duty, where a service member consistently and persistently put his comrades' safety foremost, to the utter disregard of his own life, while engaged in action against an enemy." (6p Evolution of criteria) Is this a quotation? Where is it from?
    • I don't see it in [26]. Melchoir 23:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • changed ref. Rlevse 23:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
        • It isn't in [27] either. (I've since moved that ref to the following sentence.) Melchoir 00:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I've simply removed the wording that can't be found elsewhere, so I don't have a problem with it now. Melchoir 08:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "Due to these criteria, the medal is often, although not always, awarded posthumously." (6p Evolution of criteria) How often is "often"?
    • Now it seems to imply that McGonagle is the only recipient to survive the medal.
      • reworded.Rlevse 23:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I looked at older versions of the article, and this seems to be the intent of the passage. I think it's fine now. Melchoir 00:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "Various times after the Vietnam War, past heroism was recognized and previous awards have been upgraded to the Medal of Honor." (7p Evolution of criteria) How many times is "various"?
  • "A 1992 study commissioned by the Army described systematic racial discrimination in the criteria for awarding medals during World War II." (1p Controversies) Does this study have a name?
    • The reference [28] is extremely troubling. See below in a few minutes... Melchoir 23:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • REMOVED ALL REFS USING THAT SITE, used official army cite that discusses the racial issues.Rlevse 02:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Same for "A similar study of Asian Americans in 1998".
  • "The American Indian Movement has asked that the 20 medals awarded at the Wounded Knee massacre be rescinded." (2p Controversies)
  • The section "Authority and privileges" still has no citations. (added, see USC template links too, RLEVSE)
  • "The Medal of Honor is the only service decoration that cannot be privately bought, traded, or sold." (1p Legal protection)
  • "When the patent expired, the Federal government enacted a law making it illegal to produce, wear, or distribute the Medal of Honor without proper authority." (2p Legal protection) What law?
    • I guess this can now be inferred from context, but it ought to be explicit.
  • "In 2003 Edward and Gisela Fedora were charged with violating 18USC704(b) - Unlawful Sale of a Medal of Honor. They sold medals..." (3p Legal protection) Does that mean they were convicted...?
  • "However, legislation has been proposed to sanction those who falsely represent themselves as Medal of Honor recipients." (1p Impostors) Proposed when, and by whom?
  • The statistics in the first paragraph of "Recipients".
  • The second paragraph of "Recipients".
  • "While current regulations explicitly state that recipients must be serving in the U.S. Armed Forces at the time of performing a valorous act that warrants the award of the Medal of Honor, exceptions have been made." (3p Recipients) Were these medals awarded before current regulations? If so, how are they exceptions?
  • "The Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor is also typically considered the police equivalent to the Medal of Honor." (Similar decorations) Considered by whom?
    • Reference added. — ERcheck (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • A connection to the MoH is not asserted at [29]. Melchoir 23:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • This one was reworded too.Rlevse 02:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Ah, so it was. The President bit isn't found until the subpage [30], but it's close enough for me. Melchoir 02:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "The highest civilian honor of all is the Presidential Medal of Freedom, considered to be a direct civilian equivalent of the Medal of Honor." (Similar decorations) Considered by whom?
    • Reference added. — ERcheck (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • A connection to the MoH is not asserted at [31] or at [32]. Melchoir 23:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • reworded to show all awarded by President. Rlevse 00:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "The following obsolete military decorations were equivalent to the Medal of Honor" (Similar decorations) Equivalent? Surely not in their awarding criteria? If their only similarity is that they're all top-level military awards, doesn't this information belong at List of highest military awards and not at the American article?
    • No problem now, but I wonder, would anyone else like a list article? Melchoir 23:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Worked every specific facts. Rlevse
• Editorial problems:
  • The lead section contains stub paragraphs.
  • The lead section does not summarize the article.
  • The image layout in "Appearance" obscures the connection between image and text.
  • Most of "Versions of the medal" is a duplicate of previous material in "Appearance".
  • Why is the second paragraph of "Versions of the medal" in the past tense?
  • The "Flag" section reads like a newspaper article. It's out of order, it consists of stub paragraphs, and it repeats itself.
  • "Awarding the medal" starts with three disconnected stub paragraphs.
  • "Nomenclature" is just one short paragraph long -- too short for a subsection -- and it is misplaced. It needs to be worked into the prose elsewhere or else just deleted for being redundant.
  • Most of "Evolution of criteria" is passive voice.
  • "Legal protection" consists of stub paragraphs.
  • The "By conflict" table in "Recipients" creates too much white space for being in the body of the article.
    • addressed all in "Editorial problems". Rlevse

Eh, that's enough. Melchoir 07:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I've acted on each of Melchoir's inputs in some way. Rlevse 19:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well, here's something disturbing. http://www.medalofhonor.com/Summary.htm is such a good source for those hard-to-verify details because it's a copy of this version of our article! Note the minor edits not too long before and after that version and the provenance of the images, such as Image:KY Medal of Honor.jpg, for proof that they copied us and not the other way around. So, the good news is we're not committing a copyright violation. That bad news is that at least the page [33] is an unreliable source, and you've got to wonder about the entire website. Thoughts? Melchoir 01:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I found Army Center for Military History refs for the racial citations, they're better info anyway. I also removed the question web site refs (GOOD CATCH!), using governemtn sites for that, again better anyway. Rlevse 02:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Great! If you're looking for more reliable sources, I wonder if you'd be willing to replace http://neptune.spaceports.com/~kjb/medal.htm and http://www.homeofheroes.com/? Melchoir 03:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Even better, I replaced it with 3 refs, two of them government ones. Are there any issues left, anyone? If so, place them below here so they're easier to find. I'm okay with all changes at this point.Rlevse 10:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Actually, one more reference issue that I neglected to mention before: http://www.pownetwork.org/phonies/phonies1065.htm is currently our only source for the statement that the MoH is the only unbuyable medal. Any document that makes its point through varying combinations of center alignment, multiple fonts in various sizes and colors, SHOUTING, underlines, and italics... well, I find it hard to take seriously. Melchoir 18:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • • • • Actually, if you click on the US Code link ((18 U.S.C. § 704)(b) - click on the "704"), it shows you the actual law from a Cornell University web site. The U.S. Code templates all link there , so I consider them valid references from a highly regarded university. If you prefer, convert the USC templates to cite php, but I prefer the USC templates. Rlevse 20:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
          • So, our reasoning is that the MoH is the only protected decoration because if there were another, it would be listed in §704? (I'd buy that, but I'd want to change the wording a bit.) Melchoir 20:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Feel free to change. The MOH has special protections, yes. Note that 704a says "any decoration", but that section b specifically addresses the MOH. Rlevse 21:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Right, done. Melchoir 22:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I still intend to have a hard look at the lead section and copyedit the article one last time. Meanwhile, I wonder if anyone is interested in the following low-priority avenues for improvement:

• Is it possible to tighten up the "Statistics" section of the infobox, vertically speaking?
  • not without changing the template, which would affect other articles. Rlevse 12:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Is it possible to place the two tables in "Recipients" side-by-side?
  • done Rlevse 12:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• For all the cite templates, it would be nice to determine if any of the empty fields can be filled out, and to delete those that can't. The latter would make the source code more readable.
• Apart from the new material in the lead section, there are still four paragraphs without inline citations: Origin 2 and Appearance 3, 4, 5. I'm pretty sure they're covered by existing references, so could someone tack on the appropriate ref tags on the ends?
  • • added refs Rlevse 10:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• What's the rectangular thing in commons:Image:MedalofHonor-3.jpg? Would that image be appropriate to left-float in "Legal protection"? Melchoir 02:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • That is the case that holds the medal, it's not a book or anything like that. While a nice picture, I would not add it into the legal section.Rlevse 10:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to cry FARC over any of those, but as long as we're here... Melchoir 02:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have two comments about the lead section. First, the Coast Guard MOH is not the same as the Navy's. My understanding is that the Coast Guard has authority to award their own medal, although they have never done so. Second, the wording Since it was first awarded during the American Civil War, the medal has been presented 3,461 times is misleading. It was awarded another 700+ times, but then later rescinded. Otherwise, this seems like great work. Ydorb 17:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The approval for the CG MOH didn't come until 1963 or so. The CG sailor who has the MOH, Munro, got it during WWII, so he was given the Navy version of it. Reworded the CG intro and the rescinded ones are discussed later in text. Rlevse 17:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Status? A lot of work has been done to this article. Where does the copy edit stand? A quick look at a random section in the middle of the article reveals: "President Abraham Lincoln signed Public Resolution 82 into law by on December 21, 1861, containing a provision for a Navy medal of valor." Sandy 13:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct That statement is correct, PR 82 called it a Medal of Valor. I've clarified the confusion now in the article text. I'd like someone to state a valid reason this should not continue to be a FA or close this FAR out as I certainly think it is now still FA status. Rlevse 17:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been dragging my feet on copyediting the article. The article is definitely a FA. I'm ambivalent over closing the FAR. Melchoir 18:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's definitely FA, why not close the FAR? That does not make sense. Who decides to close a FAR anyway?Rlevse 21:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

For example, a quick check shows that the statement into law by on is still there: when will a thorough copy edit be completed? I'll be glad to have a second look: please let us know. Sandy 13:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see the other instance of that, so I've now reworded it. I also went through the whole article and tweaked some more copy. If you have more concerns, please be specific as I'm not a mind reader.Rlevse 14:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've started going through the references for bibliographic details, and #3 turns out not to be the Army after all. It's actually Army.com, which says at the bottom "This website is not affiliated, endorsed, authorized, or associated in any way with any government, military or country." The article itself doesn't include an author or a dateline, which you'd expect from a news source. And, for that matter, it doesn't contain the quote "in the name of Congress", for which it is cited in the opening sentence. So, can we get a replacement? Melchoir 00:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've copy-edited the article and left a few inline queries. Once these have been addressed, I'm fine with closing the review. Tony 02:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Tony left 3 questions, and in IMHO two are for whomever decides to close this to decide which of two wording choices he offers (like "have been" or "were"). The other, which appears first, is about Munro, the lone Coast Guardsman again. Munro was in the CG in WWII and got the Navy version of the medal as the CG version hadn't been conceived yet. The text clearly states this. In the "by service" chart he's listed as CG, just as Marines are listed as Marines, who also get the Navy version. Rlevse 02:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• I'm also fine with closing this review: nice work! Sandy 03:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool, that's 4 votes that all the work by several of us results in a keep, with no objections. I'll close it now.Rlevse 14:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

StarCraft

previous FAR

Lego

previous FAR

Mercedes-Benz 450SEL 6.9

previous FAR

Billboard (advertising)

previous FAR

Lastovo

previous FAR

Right whale

previous FAR

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 Gimmetrow 03:01, 23 April 2009 [34].

---

Phishing

Previous FAR: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Phishing/archive1. Notified: WP:COMP and ZeWrestler (talk · contribs)

Review commentary

Several portions of this article, quite frankly look in an absolute mess, this section should be reworked completely: a) it lacks ref; and b) Wikipedia is not a guide for things. Other sections contain no references and some of it appears to be a point of view. D.M.N. (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced by the fair-use rationale for File:Paypal Phishing.png since there is a free-use example of a phishing e-mail (File:PhishingTrustedBank.png). DrKiernan (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There are six dead links (see [35]). DrKiernan (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations, original research and synthesis. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delist, per FA criteria concerns, and referencing issues throughout. Cirt (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment What happened to the article? This version looks fine. Artichoker^[talk] 15:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delist citations needed; short sections should be merged or expanded; "See also" should be trimmed. DrKiernan (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment It's been neglected by editors, and left to the devices of individuals who don't understand or follow the policy of not writing unreferenced nonsense. Just delisting it now is the wrong approach - there are just a couple of problem areas. Remove the unreferenced sections on social engineering and identifying legitimate websites (I tried, Cluebot reverted my edits), or rewrite those sections and reference them. Simples. --82.33.50.145 (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Featured article removal candidates

Place the most recent review at the top. If the nomination is just beginning place under Major review, not here.

Cyclone Tracy

previous FAR

Papal conclave

previous FAR

Wikipedia

previous FAR

Asperger syndrome

presently ongoing FAR February 2020

previous FAR 3 September 2007

previous FAR 2 August 2006

previous FAR 1 September 2005

Sealand

previous FAR

Lord Chancellor

previous FAR Wikipedia:Featured article review/George II of Great Britain Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sarajevo

Java programming language

Article is no longer a featured article.

Review commentary

Not enough citations. Ideogram 08:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There are two many external links too, which should maybe be put in a separate article. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 08:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Criterion 2a is not met. Examples:
  • "compilers by compiling"
  • "Note that, although there's an explicit ..."—Please don't tell our readers what and what not to note.
  • "$20M"—New Zealand dollars? Which court gave the order?
  • "success at that goal"—"at"?
  • Some commas would make for easier reading.
  • "Although it is indeed possible"—Avoid "indeed" in this register.
  • "the burden of having to perform manual memory management"—Remove the three redundant words.

And much more. Please clean up the whole article. Tony 08:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concerns are citations (2c) and quality of writing (2a). Marskell 16:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Programming languages, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing. Sandy 22:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove three weeks, negligible edits, no change in citations and prose, no indication anyone is working on it. Sandy 03:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. Someone's had a poke around it, but none of the substantial problems has been addressed in all of this time. I notice a prominent "The above example merits a bit of explanation." Tony 02:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. This fails the criteria in 3 especially. I don't believe an article with large bullet point sections is in keeping with the style manual and the bullets are deployed even where not necessary (such as the criticism section). Shortish LEAD, lack of citations, and something of a link farm at the end. Marskell 12:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

C programming language

Article is no longer a featured article.

Review commentary

Not enough citations. Ideogram 08:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Good, but not featured. I believe it could be a good article, but it has to cite more sources to be featured. Also, I'm not entirely comfortable with how the article covers C. This is an encyclopedia article on C, not a tutorial. The "hello world" example should not be so long. 70.17.41.123 17:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comprehensive, and packed with useful information. But it sorely needs inline citations, both for some of the more controversial claims related to influence and usage, and for the history and philosophy sections. --Allan McInnes (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concerns are citations (2c) and encyclopedic style (5). Marskell 16:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Programming languages, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject C++. Sandy 22:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove three weeks, very few edits, almost no changes, no indication anyone is taking it on. The article needs to be referenced. Sandy 03:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove as per Sandy. In addition, the prose needs a lot of work; for such a complicated subject, our readers need utter clarity. Take the second half of the lead.

"C has also had a great influence on most other popular languages[1], especially C++ which was originally designed as an enhancement to C. It is distinguished for the efficiency of the code it produces, and is the most commonly used programming language for writing system software [2] [3], though it is also widely used for writing applications. Though not originally designed as a language for teaching, and despite its somewhat unforgiving character, C is commonly used in computer science education, in part because the language is so pervasive. Note that C# is a very different programming language.

• • It would be stronger without the "alsos".
  • "Great" might be better as "significant".
  • Comma after "C++" is required.
  • "distinguished for" better as "distinguished by", I think.
  • The second sentence is longish and needs to articulate the relationship between the three separate ideas. Ideas 2 and 3 are very close (contrastive), so why not: "C is distinguished by the efficiency of the code it produces; it is the most commonly used programming language for writing system software [2] [3], although it is widely used for writing applications."
  • Two "thoughs" in a row; two "commonly used"s.
  • "The language is so pervasive" is unclear; so is "somewhat unforgiving". Tony 02:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Good article, but lots of opinion and too much of a how-to. Has a lot of good parts, and the subject is close to my heart :). In addition to the above, I'll add a few random points:

1. "Maintenance" seems very opinionated ("drastically increases build times" [a comparison would be nice as well]).
2. "Although the list of built-in features C lacks is long, this has contributed significantly to its acceptance" without attribution, this is probably a POV violator (I agree with it though after using C++ for several years, but that is besides the point :))
3. The last paragraph of "Philosophy" is just too much of a how-to and an unneccesary reference to its popular cousin, C++.

RN 03:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous commentary

For what it's worth, this article is a textbook example of a Wikipedia phenomenon which, if it hasn't been named, should be called the "too many cooks spoil the broth syndrome". Many, many editors who know something about C have added (or deleted) their favorite hot-button statements, with the inevitable result being an undisciplined mishmash. Someone needs to (and I've wanted to) mount a concerted cleanup effort, though of course this (a) will take a lot of time and effort and (b) is guaranteed to result in N tedious discussions with various of those hot-button editors who won't be happy with the way the coverage of their issues has been resolved. (But I'm merely observing here, neither apologizing nor complaining, and of course the situation here is little different from any number of other Wikipedia articles, plenty of which have managed to overcome these difficulties.) —Steve Summit (talk) 04:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Volkswagen Type 2

previous FAR

United States Electoral College

previous FAR