Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/August 2009

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kept status[edit]

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 Marskell 23:17, 26 August 2009 [1].

Australia at the Winter Olympics[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified WikiProject Australian sports, WikiProject Olympics, and Andjam.

This was promoted to FA way back in April 2006. It's not in terrible shape now, but there are a few issues that stick out when comparing the article to modern FA standards:

  • 1a: Some copy-editing would be beneficial. At a glance, I see that six of the first seven paragraphs begin with Australia, making for too much repetition. Later, I see this awkward sentence: "Steven Bradbury and Alisa Camplin's triumphs were celebrated by Australia Post issuing postage stamps of them, which followed on from them issuing stamps of Australian gold medallists at the 2000 Sydney Olympics." Overall, the prose is fixable with a little work.
  • 1c: Two cite tags and a couple uncited paragraphs. Formatting of the existing online references needs improvement. The group of athlete profiles at the bottom is formatted well, providing a good example for the rest.
  • 3: Three fair-use images with questionable rationales. Giants2008 (17–14) 14:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes http://www.glenstephens.com/linnsMarch11-02.html reliable? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started work on this pre-emptorily and will continue YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I supsect the article is not comprehensive; thw history starts with the first athelete without any info about political campaigns, YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify what you mean by political campaigns please? Andjam (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should have said political support and infrastructure.
  • 'Propose to remove the three fair use images. They easily fail FUC, although the original author has reverted removals of it in the past. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please do. Although fair-use can be a touchy subject, the guidelines were obviously interpreted more loosely in the years before I joined the project. Those photos would never make it through a modern FAC. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The person who I reverted was a serial remover of fair use images. I didn't trust her/his judgement. I trust YellowMonkey and know he is a positive contributor, even if I'm sad to see the images go. I don't see what images have to do with featured status or vice versa - if an image is not legal, then it doesn't matter if it's a stub or featured, and whether an article has images or not doesn't affect whether an article is featured or not (though not having an image would affect whether it goes on the front page). Andjam (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well the reality is that people don't really worry about FU violations on a consistent basis unless they are at FAC/FAR, but there they will complain. Also, images are not required for a TFA so it can still have its day in the sun. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 00:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose to remove/cut down not very serious info about Roy and HG; it is a comedy show to get more TV ratings, not a means of proving support to athletes, unlike eg, the AIS, training facilities and scholarships, support staff and all that. In 40 years time people will still write about Camplin and Bradbury in sports history books but not a comedy show.... Also I think the stamp thing should be pruned. It is routine for all gold medallists and a generalised comment should suffice per undue. I don't think the details about the technical production is necessary YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree here as well; the stamp paragraphs are particularly excessive. I wonder if they were included as a way to get the images in. Either way, it's too much trivial detail and it flows poorly with the rest of the section. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed and pruned per discussion YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Are you still performing copyediting? Because the "History" and, in a lesser extent, the "Public support" sections are huge! On a related note, there are too many one-sentence paragraphs. Parutakupiu (talk) 08:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article might need to be restructured. 29kb of prose at the moment. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed the Stephens not RS. Expanded and everything referenced. However, I am not happy with the structure which doesn't feel very natural and could do with ideas on a more efficent manner and anything that needs to be pruned. Information on the TV rights isn't needed because that is between teh TV company and the IOC, not the AOC. Also added a section on the budget. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 06:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sport by sport breakdown obviously means that there is overlap with the history, and the public support thing sometimes overlaps with history, but maybe they should just be combined to show the evolution of the administrative attitudes YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 06:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of comments:
    • I don't think the odd one-sentence paragraph is a catastrophic issue. There are times when there's only one sentence on an issue/time period and the article would be worse with the two alternatives: removing it or incorporating it into another paragraph about something else just for the sake of avoiding one sentence paragraphs.
    • Some minor c/edit suggestioons:-
    • In 1952, one staff member was present for the first time; Robert "George" Chisholm was the first manager of an Australian Winter Olympic team - "a staff member"?
    • In contrast to the large 1960 team, the teams in subsequent Olympics were scaled back and were the smallest since 1936 - When comparing team sizes, I don't think "subsequent" is specific enough to describe one end of the comparison to be honest. The years which were "the smallest since 36" should be explicitly listed in my opinion.
    • Australia had more officials present than athletes, five to three. - is that a ratio, or exact totals?
    • It was only the second time that an Australian had placed in the top 10.[22] It remained Australia's best result until 1994.[5] - could probably become one sentence.
    • His five skiing compatriots had a much more unproductive time - this sounded weird when I read it, maybe "much less productive" would be a more regular expression to use?
    • The 1992 Winter Olympics in Albertville, France was viewed as the potential start of a new era in Australian winter sports, with hopes that a maiden medal would result.[29] - that doesn't need to be a separate sentence from the next para, I dont think.
    • It was a successful campaign for the largest team that Australia had sent apart from 1960—27 athletes—an unprecedented five top 10 finishes were recorded - if you take out the mock-parenthesis-dashes the sentence doesn't read fluently.
    • In 2006, Australia sent 40 athletes to compete in 10 sports, a record number of competitors and events. For the first time, Australian officials explicitly set a goal of winning a medal.[50] - same as 1992.
Was 1992 an explicit goal, as opposed to a hope? Andjam (talk) 03:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I aven't done a basic copyedit until the content is all in the right place so you needn't bother with that till then
  • Toolbox - One link is allegedly redirecting, but is not. Help? Disambigs; one is on the template, giving three types of horseracing, and not the article, so I am not sure....Alt fixed except the flag which is in a nest of infoboxes. Not sure how recursion works here....help? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 07:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link was indeed redirecting, and I fixed it by appending a "/"; this is a common problem with links ending in a domain or directory name. The disambigs need to be fixed in the template; can someone else do that? I fixed the flag by adding "|link=" as per WP:ALT #When not to specify, but there were several more alt text problems that I also had to fix, including the gold, silver, and bronze medal images, and some rewording of the lead image's alt text. Eubulides (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, not quite my area, but a few things that I can see.

1) The history section seems generally good to me, but a few parts of it read like "X person managed the team until Y year, and then Z took over", which makes me wonder if another source or two wouldn't yield a bit more information about the interim.

2) There's nothing about Janine Shepherd in the article; since to my knowledge she was seen as an early real medal chance before her accident, that probably warrants changing.

I googled this and was unable to find any concrete evidence of this except weasel words, probably propagated by her own PR people. No indication of any high world rankings and so forth....There was nothing in the book by the AOC's official historian either. There are lots of sites saying that she was a "champion athlete" but not specifying any wins or medals in anything at all. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 08:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3) "Public support" seems like a bit of a strange section as is. Perhaps this could be broken up into an "administration/government assistance" section (also including things like the relevant sport governing bodies; also maybe something about any AIS support) and a "public support" section?

Integrated the administrative history (was in public support) into the competition history as it can't work otherwise. Split the funding, AIS type stuff into a separate section, and community based stuff into a third. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4) Perhaps a section about media coverage might be warranted?

Ideally yes but I'm not sure where to get a history of TV coverage of the Olympics, I don't know of any books that keep a record of this, of TV rights bidding or how many media went in the early years (probably 0). Gordon is the commissioned historian of the AOC and doesn't have it. Also the TV rights are between the IOC and Channel 7 and have nothing to do with the govt or the AOC, so it we could skip it YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5) I think the "results" section looks strange where it is if it's just a table. I think at least a prose section could well be written there to complement the table; otherwise I'd suggest moving it to the bottom of the article.

6) I'd get rid of the "winter sport in Australia" section entirely; I'd stick the first half of it in the lead, and the second half of it (about the newish construction of specialist courses and such) in with a section about administration and support and such

Done (variation thereof) YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7) I think "overview by sport" is in a strange spot at the moment. The content looks good to me at a glance, but I think I'd stick it right under "history"; it's fairly fundamental information.

8) I think the structure of the paralympics section reads a bit funny; I wonder if this could do with a copyedit. Rebecca (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few phrases that are more poetic than prose-like, such as "their olympic dream" and "snuffed out his chances". Andjam (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any more content issues, excluding the ordering of the structures. Referencing is all done. If not, copyediting and we should be done hopefully .... YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done copyediting YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 07:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm giving it a quick copy-edit pass to back up the great expansion and cleanup work here, and expect to wrap it up tomorrow. Compared to when the FAR started, every aspect has been strengthened. Giants2008 (17–14) 00:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All done with the copy-edit, though please note that I usually do lighter work than someone like Tony would expect. Giants2008 (17–14) 00:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be possible to keep, with a bit of effort. The prose isn't too bad, but I see little glitches here and there, and they will need to be fixed.
    • "Australia totalled only 10 goals in reply."
Not sure what you're getting at. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "in the 500 and 1000 metres speed skating"—should that be "500- and 1000-metre skating"? Unsure.
According to the official captions and all that, no YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Loose linking practice: opening sentence is "Australia first competed in the Winter Olympic Games in 1936 in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, and has participated in every games since then, with the exception of the 1948 Games in St. Moritz." Why not section-link to the Sport or Culture section of "Australia"; or perhaps there's a separate daughter article. WP:LINK says to focus links where possible. Why is there a deceptive pipe to "1936", when the secret lies just before it? I'd conflate to "[[1936 Winter Olympics|1936 Winter Olympic Games]]". The WO is linked to from that article, anyway. Tony (talk) 11:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, comprehensiveness, prose, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What's the status on this? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've finished the content and referencing. If anyone wants anything else, then I'm waiting YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I'll go through and iron out prose and MOS issues. Looks good for the most part. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm copy-editing the article. Mostly good stuff, but there is a bit of an organization issue in the last paragraph of Infrastructure and training. Here's the relevant passage:

The funding of the OWIA by the AOC varies by year, but hovers between AUD500,000 and 1,000,000, with a higher budget in the years immediately before an Olympics. Through the Australian Sports Commission, the federal government also sponsors OWIA, contributing more than half a million dollars a year. In 2009, the OWIA lobbied the government for an increase in its annual budget from AUD2.1m to AUD29.4m, which is still a fraction of the AUD132m that Canada—the host of the 2010 Olympics—is spending. Australia is aiming to win two medals in 2010.[this sentence is an abrupt break from the funding issue] In contrast, the current funding for the Summer Olympics team is AUD128m per annum and the AOC has asked for an increase of AUD108m annually.[the "in contrast" bit sounds like a contrast to Australia's medal goal]

. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like it you can move it off, I don't mind. The public culture affects the number of people going through the ranks up to serious competition. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These are the only times that Australia has competed in a team sport." I seriously doubt that, and that's probably not what you meant either. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mean a sport where they fight/manipulate for a ball/puck/ etc tweaked YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 06:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Great work by YellowMonkey to bring this up to standards. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – YM did a great job rebuilding the article from scratch to meet modern FA criteria. I can't believe this is the same article I nominated. Giants2008 (17–14) 15:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dabomb87 and my comments above. Daniel (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Great job. Rebecca (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. - per Dabomb87. Aaroncrick (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good improvements. Cirt (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:45, 25 August 2009 [2].

Du Fu[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified WikiProject China, Henry Flower and PericlesofAthens.

This September 2004 FA promotion currently fails FA criterion 1c, as there are a number of paragraphs void of citations. In addition, there seems to be a reliance on one particular source (Chou's Reconsidering Tu Fu: Literary Greatness and Cultural Context) even though there are a number of scholarly works on this author. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on the referencing issues. I've done a little work on the article. However, it looks like a lot of the unreferenced paragraphs are taken from the given sources at some point, and I don't have access to a university library to find the books and create inline citations. I also have some concerns over content: is that really all that can be said about the technical and literary elements of Du Fu's poetry? I feel like for anyone with access to a university library and some time, this would be an easy save, but that is not me.--Danaman5 (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to contribute, but I'm busy with a big up-and-coming project on Ancient Egyptian literature (I've got enough books checked out for that already!). Unfortunately, I think this will lose its FA status if someone knowledgeable and willing does not "step up to the plate," so to speak.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've never added alt text before, so I would appreciate if you could check and see if what I've written is proper.--Danaman5 (talk) 03:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you did is very nice, thanks. I tweaked it in tiny ways. At your option, please transcribe the Chinese characters in File:Dufucalligraphy.jpg into its alt text. This would be more for Google searches than for visually-impaired readers, but there may be an odd reader that could make use of it too. Eubulides (talk) 05:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The biographical part of the article is from Hung, as Dananman5 suggests. Personally I think that adding page numbers for every undisputed fact is a pointless exercise, so I won't be doing it, but if anyone really wants to, that's the one to look in. :) HenryFlower 16:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, reliables sources, prose, comprehensiveness, balance, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I now have access to my original notes again, so if anyone wants citations for any particular points (rather than the usual drive-by tagging), I can probably supply them. Just ask on my talk page. HenryFlower 16:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. There's a ton of citations that need to be added, the prose should be checked, the images need to be verified, and there's more room for further Wikilinking or explanations. At least a brief explanation should be given for many of the titles, positions, and historical elements in the article. In regards to the prose, there's a great deal of passive voice. I rewrote some portions, but others remain. The biggest issue is the citations, which are severely lacking in places. Many of these might be fixable using sources already existing in the article, but some may not, I fear. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold. Henry Flower's addressed pretty much all of my concerns. There's only two fact tags that need to be addressed, but I'm pretty confident that he'll fix them when he gets the source. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Awesome work by Henry Flower! The only thing that sticks out to me would be converting the two citations in the translation section to inline footnotes instead of main-body references, but since I didn't raise that in my initial review, I'm not going to hold back a keep for that. Great job! JKBrooks85 (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 03:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold Work is being done by Henry Flower. Let's give him a chance. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've finished adding the references JKBrooks asked for. In reply to a couple of the points above: Hung is the only full-length biography of Du in English, and is still the standard work, so it's not surprising that the bio is based on that. The impression that all of the criticism section is from Chou was partly caused by mistakes made when my Harvard references were converted to footnotes; I've now restored the correct attributions to other authors. HenryFlower 12:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to the alt text, it has been added. —mattisse (Talk) 16:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Nishkid was referring to this comment from Danaman5: "I also have some concerns over content: is that really all that can be said about the technical and literary elements of Du Fu's poetry?" Dabomb87 (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That I do not know. The "Technical excellence" section seems rather superficial, with no examples given of his poetry in English so the reader can not get an idea of what is meant. But I do not know how much in depth analysis is available. —mattisse (Talk) 16:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A search on JSTOR revealed several scholarly articles that could potentially be sources of info for this article. For example,
    • Lee, Joseph J. (Jul.–Sep. 1970). "Tu Fu's Art Criticism and Han Kan's Horse Painting". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 90 (3): 449–461. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • Chou, Eva Shan (June 2000). "Tu Fu's "General Ho" Poems: Social Obligations and Poetic Response". Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies. 60 (1): 165–204. (a book by this author is used as a source)
  • Not being an expert in this area, I can't attest to their value with regard to the article on wiki. However, I think it's worth checking out by Henry Flower if he so wishes. I can email him the articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have access to JSTOR as well and will check out these articles and others to see what can be added. Please hold for a little while longer.--Danaman5 (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did look through JSTOR when I was finding references, so I know of those articles, though I haven't read through them. I didn't add them at the time because they're quite specific in their topics, and there's no reason why those particular points should be in the article rather than the many other particular points discussed in the full-length works on Du Fu. Yes, more could be written about specific aspects of his poetry, but I take the view that an article on the poet himself should contain a general overview, and the three broad areas already covered in the article are those which dominate Du Fu criticism. We could (should!) have spin-off articles on 'Social Responsibility in Du Fu', 'Du Fu's poems on paintings' etc., but I think to go into those here would muddy the waters. Far too many articles on Wikipedia are catalogues of minutiae which bloat with no regard to the overall structure; the point of encyclopedias is that they provide an organisationally useful level of abstraction. (IMHO)
As for the point raised by Mattisse: yes, there is a lack of specific examples in English, and yes, there is analysis of examples in the literature, but it´s really not of much use to readers who don´t have some Chinese. The linguistic and formal features which stand out in Du Fu - the grammar, the vocabulary, and the word order - are pretty much tied to the original language. Personally I´d like to have some Chinese examples in there, but people tend to complain when articles require some background knowledge of other languages.
Since last week I've moved to Mozambique; beyond the general chaos of moving, this has reduced my library facilities to the couple of Chinese books I've brought with me, so I doubt I can help much more with this article. Danaman, please do add more, but as I say I do think that specific areas are better covered in spin-off articles. HenryFlower 12:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • (A parenthesis - thanks to all those who asked questions during this review. It sent me back to the original books and made the process much more rewarding than the usual FAR. :) )HenryFlower 12:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks a bit better post some work done on the article, nice job so far. :) Cirt (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:45, 25 August 2009 [3].

Diamond[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

I have little familiarity with the article or the subject matter, but on reading a critical review of the article in a soon to be published Signpost interview, I had to have a look at it. I must confess, then, that others more knowledgeable than me will need to make the necessary improvements. It was promoted in early 2005, and four years on I feel it has problems in meeting criteria 1c (some sections have no inline citations at all) and 2a (the lead needing a rewrite and probable expansion). Possibly a touch of 1a also; I can't speak for 1b or 4 really. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have 10+ years of research experience in this area and will quickly address any comment raised (I am going through the article, fixing whatever I notice). The article was in poor state a couple of months ago, but has been improved a lot recently by efforts of several editors. I wonder if the interview referred to the previous version of this article and would be glad to see the criticism. Materialscientist (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the interview (see the second question). Dabomb87 (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see displeasure with the article and no single comment. To me, saying "laughable" and give that article a start class merely reflects poor judgment of an editor rather than any realistic assessment of the quality of that article. Materialscientist (talk) 09:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Diamond is the second most stable form of carbon after graphite": grammatically, this means, assuming graphite is the most stable, that diamond is 3rd; I suspect what is actually meant is ", after"
    I added the comma.
  • does relative stability have a scientific definition independent of temperature & pressure? Peter jackson (talk) 11:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know such definition. Pressure and temperature (P,T) are essential, because another phase can be more stable at other (P,T) conditions. Materialscientist (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then the article's phrasing is unclear. Peter jackson (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where and how ? Materialscientist (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By talking of stability without specifying the conditions. Peter jackson (talk) 10:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article says "ambient conditions" with a link to what that means. If this is missed in some part, it should be added (though there is a convention to assume ambient conditions if not specified). Materialscientist (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not mentioned in the quotation. Is it appropriate to assume the reader knows the convention? Peter jackson (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess so. From my personal experience, literally hundreds (maybe thousands; haven't edited that much) of WP articles on chemicals list some properties assuming that they are for room temperature and atmospheric pressure, unless mentioned otherwise. Materialscientist (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might like to think about the distinction between articles with technical names like dihydro whatever & those with common English names like this. Who's the target audience? Peter jackson (talk) 10:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations (some are simply to a book without specifying a page), lead. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources and a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature ". YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed lacking page numbers. Checked reliability (replaced dubious web links with books). Lead seems Ok more or less. Further comments ? Materialscientist (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Unsourced statements and purported statements of fact and sentences of analysis that should have cites. Cirt (talk) 06:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please reconsider. The unreferenced small subsection you marked, "Identification", has been modified by a novice editor just hours before your assessment. I have added a book covering that subsection and do not believe you mean to delist an article based on that. Rergards. Materialscientist (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
  • There's a dead link that needs to be addressed.
  • In some places, particularly those identifying specific companies, the article verges on losing its impartiality. In a lot of places, some questionable adverbs are used. Take a close look at the DTC sections.
  • The article is a bit heavy on jargon ... if at all possible, I'd suggest translating some of the more technical terms into plain English. The lede is particularly intimidating; if possible, technical terms should be introduced later.
  • I've added a series of citation needed tags that should be addressed.
  • Citations 33 and 62 need a page numbers.
  • I'd like to see more information backing up DeBeers' dominance of the industry; the article doesn't give much coverage to anything other than DeBeers, but it can be justified if that dominance is made explicit.
  • In many paragraphs, there's only one citation, and I'm not sure if some of the citations can adequately cover everything in the paragraph ... spot checks turned up a few problems that have been identified with citation needed markers.
  • Overall, the prose is good, if a bit technical in spots. Citations should be the biggest priority, with working on weasel words a close second. Good luck! JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have addressed all the raised issues on references and jargon in the lede. Some terms (kimberlite and lamproite) are hardly avoidable. You're right in that other companies are not covered simply because DeBeers is an absolute monopolist in this area, and I have added references on that. Could you please locate the dead link ? Materialscientist (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dead link is the one published by the Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration. For your reference, the dead-link checker can be found at [4]. That site also contains tools for checking citations and wikilinks (to determine if they're directed at disambiguation pages). JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed dead link. Thanks for the Checklinks tool! Materialscientist (talk) 05:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My concerns about citations have been addressed, and an attempt has been made to remove some of the jargon and weasel words from the article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsKeep A good article, but some issues:
  • "There are also commercial deposits being actively mined in the Northwest Territories of Canada and Brazil." No reference.
    Added. These explorations are well known by now and are included in USGS reports. Materialscientist (talk) 06:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Distribution - Launches straight into a slightly technical discussion of de Beers, but lacks an overview of distribution in general (De Beers are powerful, but they are not the whole story). At the same time, a significant part of the explanation of the supply chain / distribution appears under the heading "gemstones"
    The partitioning of that section was indeed odd. I combined "gemstones" with "distribution" and also consolidated "production", which solved some problems. Added subsection on marketing. Also added some info on other diamond companies, though here De Beers still indirectly controls most of the world. Materialscientist (talk) 06:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interestingly there isn't an actual section on the uses of diamond, this being confined to some of the text under the headings "gemstones" (which is to some degree self-evident!) and "industrial grade". At FA, and given there is not a stand-alone article on the uses of diamond, i'd want to see more detail, and references, on the industrial applications of diamonds.
    I have added some text on applications into "industrial diamonds". Here it is important to note that the predominant application of natural diamonds are gemstones. Period. Diamonds which are too bad for gems are crushed for cutting and polishing applications. Anything else (electronics, heat sinks, etc.) is exotics. Materialscientist (talk) 06:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was stated that annealing can convert typically brown synthetically made (CVD) diamonds into colorless diamonds, and that after having sent these diamonds for diamond jewelry identification, they were not identified as different from natural diamonds" This seems a strange sentence, perhaps tacked-on to the article. Stated by whom? And in any case, this should not be the opening sentence of a section on Identification. It should begin with general introduction to identification, before moving into specifics. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]
    Certainly. Fixed that section and deleted the whole weasel paragraph mentioned above (a minor news probably added because it made headlines on its day). Materialscientist (talk) 06:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but a clarification request: "...gem diamonds do not trade as a commodity: there is a substantial mark-up in the retail sale of diamonds". As a lay person, I have no idea what the attributes of a "commodity" are, so tihs sentence is a little opaque. Could it be changed to "...unlike other commodities, there is a substantial mark-up in the retail sale of diamonds." Would that be correct?
    That is correct, and I put that into the article. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 12:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Alrosa has successfully appealed against a European court ruling,[49] but is not reported to have resumed sales to De Beers" - this makes no sense at all. Why would there be a court ruling? What has it to do with de Beers deliberately reducing its influence in the market? This passage generally is a little opaque. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I simplified this matter into saying that Alrosa (the largest Russian producer) have suspended their sales (i.e. they are out of any diamond sales and have not resumed them yet), cutting out confusing court case. Materialscientist (talk) 12:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thank you. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have voted 'keep' above, but now I re-read it, I have two more queries, on which I would welcome other editor views.
1) Should not "Production" (including the controversial sources subsection) come before uses, rather than after? That would seem a more logical sequence.

Yes, this is how we usually lay out elements articles. Moved. This also puts industrial diamonds next to the synthetic diamonds (next section). Materialscientist (talk) 04:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2) There appears to be no section on the cutting of the gems. There is a long section on this within Diamond (gemstone), not to mention a further sub-articles Diamond cut and Diamond cutting. However, I think this top-level article should have a summary section with 'main article' links. If it doesn't have such a section, I would query whether it meets the comprehensiveness criteria for FA. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a subsection on that, but without too much detail as the article is already quite large, and this topic is vast.Materialscientist (talk) 06:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, my keep stands, I'm happy with that, and made some other tweaks myself. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have done a re-ordering of sections and a rearrangement of the heading heirarchy. Heading referred to by Dabomb has been altered. I have done alt texts for four new images, but the complicated allotrope image defeated me. Anyone else want to have a go? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks ! Images are rearranged per MoS and alt texts added for all remaining images. Materialscientist (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking good. I've asked Eubulides to put in an alt text parameter for {{Infobox mineral}} so that someone can put in alt text for the lead image. Almost there... Dabomb87 (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, there are a few disambiugation links. Two are from the hatnote, but the rest need to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I added an alt= parameter to {{Infobox mineral}}, so that can go in now. In reviewing the Altviewer output, alt text is missing for File:HPHTdiamonds2.JPG. "A world map with gray continents on white background. Yellow, green and red dots are dispersed around the continents" should be replaced by the gist of the image rather than unimportant details about colors, e.g., something like "Russia produces the most diamonds. South Africa and neighboring countries together produce somewhat more than Russia does. Other, smaller producers are Australia, Canada, China, the south coast of west Africa, and Guyana." (unless this repeats the nearby text, in case one can simply say something like "Map of producers; see adjacent text."). For the first two alt texts, which are pretty long, I suggest rewording for brevity. You can omit visual details such as positioning that are not that relevant to the gist. E.g., you might try rewording "This picture consists of four panels. The top left one shows" to "Four panels. First,". "The hole is filled with orange-red substance" needs a period after it. Eubulides (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Dabs fixed (except for the diamond symbol which I feel should be linked to the diambig page). File:HPHTdiamonds2.JPG did have alt text, but it was Alt= instead of alt=. If this is editors problem, we should keep capitalization in mind, if not, maybe script needs a tweak. Other alt texts changed as suggested. It takes practice to learn writing them, and the patient help of Eubulides is very much appreciated. Materialscientist (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, the alt text is looking good now. I tweaked the alt text a bit, mostly by adding a description of the schematic diagram. Eubulides (talk) 08:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What makes the following sources reliable?
    • http://www.mindat.org/min-1282.html
    • http://webmineral.com/data/Diamond.shtml
      They are the most comprehensive (web) databases on minerals. We use their data in WP mineral articles, because they are well cited and detailed. There has been no suspicion so far (contrary to other databases like webelements.com). You can consult Vsmith, he is a professional geologist and uses them on WP for years. What I also find good is that they are two "monopolists" - their competition improves quality ;-). Materialscientist (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Ball was a Geologist in British service.", why is "Geologist" capitalized? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a misprint. Corrected. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2009 (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 21:33, 13 August 2009 [5].

A. E. J. Collins[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket, User talk:Brookie.

FA from 2005, some minor referencing/1c issues - however this one is actually not that bad, and the issues could be remedied relatively easily. Some issues however with images, which also should not be too hard to fix:

  1. commons:File:AEJ Collins.jpg - would be helpful to know the actual source for this image, instead of just "a picture in the public domain on the internet".
  2. File:Aejcollins rpkeigwin lr.jpg - could use standardization with the template {{Information}}.
  3. File:Collinsplaque.jpg - Also could use standardization with the template {{Information}}. This one claims to be "issued as fairuse", but is concurrently licensed with free use licenses?
  4. File:Aejcollins.jpg - For this one, a fair use rationale is given, but the image may actually be free use.

Cirt (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside the statements that need citations and image concerns, this strikes me as being in decent shape for an article that was promoted over four years ago. One thing that confused me was the brackets around most reference access dates. Were these common back then? Giants2008 (17-14) 03:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, unaddressed issues. Cirt (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove – Due to the referencing and image comments that haven't been responded to, I'm forced to move to the delist camp. Truly a shame, as the problems are relatively mild by FAR standards. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep – I'm happy to see that YM made the necessary fixes. Since I don't know anything about Collins other than what I've read in the article, I can't speak to whether or not it is comprehensive. In the absence of evidence that it isn't, I'm willing to say that it should remian featured. Giants2008 (17–14) 16:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have done the "alt" text (honestly, how difficult was that, hmm?) and found some sources for the three {{citation needed}} queries (but it would be nice if someone with a hard copy of Christie's History of Clifton College could confirm the bits I can see at Google). Someone more knowledgeable than me will have to opine on image issues. -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the alt text. I'm afraid it still needs some work, though, as alt text is not supposed to duplicate the caption: it is supposed to describe only visual appearance that is obvious to a non-expert reader who sees only the image. The current alt text in this articles contains many phrases that should be reworded or moved to the caption. These phrases are "A. E. J. Collins", "R. P. Keigwin", "Clifton College", "1902", "1962", "(circa 1900)", and (now I'm getting picky, but might as well get them all) the possessives "their" and "his". Could you please reword these? For more on this, please see WP:ALT #What not to specify and WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples, example #3. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two other minor cleanup issues: the toolbox I just inserted at the top of this subpage reports that there's a link to a disambig page, and that there are five 301s in the citations. Eubulides (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What a lot of rules!
Let me get this clear: the alt text for a photograph of AEJ Collins at Clifton College in c.1900 must not state that it is a photograph of him at the school in c.1900, but something like "photograph of schoolboy at a school" instead?
OK, having started, I have done my best to address these exceptionally serious faults (although I suspect it took you longer to write that out than it would to have done it yourself).
Would anyone like to request any additional shrubberies? -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've got it right about the alt text, except the "photograph of" is unnecessary. Describe what you see (from looking at the image), not what you know. Eubulides is an expert on alt text. Yes, he could have easily inserted it himself, but the point is that now you also know how to write alt text (many times the best way to learn how to do something is to do it). Dabomb87 (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for writing that alt text. I tweaked it slightly by removing an unnecessary "photograph of a". Eubulides (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, now I feel ashamed for snapping. Sorry. Thank you both for your assistance. As you say, Dabomb87, I am now fully equipped to add "alt text" as and when required in the future.
I wonder - have any visually impaired readers been asked whether this "alt text" (for example, "Schoolboy with short hair in a white shirt") enhances their experience of the encyclopedia to any significant extent? Wouldn't they expect an image captioned "A. E. J. Collins, aged approximately 15 (c.1900)" to show him as a schoolboy? On the other hand, transcribing the text on the plaque strikes me as a good idea, although I suppose that apporoach could eventually cause copyright concerns. -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Visually impaired readers read both the alt text and the caption. Incidentally, you might ask Graham87 (talk · contribs); he uses a screen reader. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a sentence that vanishes into midair: "All hits to the long boundary, down the slope, had to be all-run, but the three short boundaries only counted for two runs.[7] stumps were [unfinished sentence?] The match commenced on Thursday, 22 June, " Dabomb87 (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was my fault. Sorry. I added the detail about the stumps earlier and somehow left that fragment. -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can we have an update here? There's one citation needed tag, but otherwise this article is in good shape. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the cite tag, the infobox photo has a deletion tag on the description page and the last photo is questionable fair use (though the summary claims it may in fact be PD). If these can be fixed, I would be inclined to change my 'vote'. Giants2008 (17–14) 00:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed these. Don't know anything about this fellow, no further comment. Standradised the refs etc YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Templates aren't needed on the image page YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 05:20, 7 August 2009 (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 21:33, 13 August 2009 [6].

Macedonia (terminology)[edit]

Toolbox

FAR commentary[edit]

Notice to the nominator: Please notify relevant parties (editors and projects) per step 6 of "Nominating an article for FAR; otherwise your nomination is incomplete".--Yannismarou (talk) 08:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now notified all four wikiprojects, and the only two original main authors who are still active, NikoSilver (also the original nominator) and Francis Tyers. Anybody else? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think that's fine!--Yannismarou (talk) 09:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current problems with this article:

  • Etymology section: was an amateurish and redundant mix-up of actual etymology and mythology. Partly cleaned up now, by importing text from elsewhere, but may need further scrutiny.
  • History section: far too wordy and far too much detail. This is a complete fork of a "History of Macedonia" article. It needs to be reduced to those bits that are actually necessary for the article's task: making the terminology understood.
  • Linguistics section: account of Ancient Macedonian is confused, making an ad-hoc distinction between "sister language" and "cousin [language]" (which doesn't exist in linguistic terminology), also stylistically awkward.
  • "Ethnic Macedonian nationalism" section: unnecessary POV editorialising about "extremist ... nationalists". Overlong block quote, of a size that makes it a fair-use / copyright problem, should be removed, paraphrased and/or broken down into smaller units. Same for the overlong block quotes in the following section.
  • Geography section: needs better maps/graphics to illustrate the various different boundary lines discussed
  • Demographics section: problematic POV statement that "As a regional group in Greece, Macedonians refers to ethnic Greeks (98%, 2001)". This specifically Greek meaning (as opposed to one that covers all the ethnicities including the Greeks and the local minorities) seems barely existant in English.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close.This is a WP:POINT nomination just on the eve of the Macedonia arbitration by an involved party, with a direct objective to undermine the featured status of this article, which elaborates on the ambiguity and complexity of the issue.--Avg (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close: The nominator is most obviously not acquainted with FA criteria, and the relevant procedures. Thus the above nomination fails to explain why the article in question should be de-featured. As I can also notice, another FAR nomination was filed, which was recently closed. In such a short time from the previous one, I see no grounds for the current FAR. In addition, taking into consideration the weird coincidence with the Macedonia arbitration (filed by me by the way), I am wondering if the reasons for this FAR are spurious. In any case, I would like to remind to the nominator that FAR is not a place for the resolution of content disputes among editors. You should thus raise your case in the article's talk page, and not here.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty obvious from my nomination which criteria are not met, isn't it? I said: "History section: far too wordy and far too much detail". That's obviously criterion 4 ("stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail"). I also said: "account of Ancient Macedonian is confused", and: "etymology section: was an amateurish and redundant mix-up". That's obviously criterion 1c ("well-researched"). I also raised concerns over copyright/fair use problems. That's the spirit (though not the letter) of criterion 3, which deals with "acceptable copyright status" and "non-free" content problems (it is ostensibly only talking about images, but of course NFC problems related to text are no less serious.). As for contacting people, how many would you deem necessary? As for the Arbitration case, it has nothing to do with it, except for the coincidence that I saw an arbitrator recommend reading this article, which I then went to do, surprisingly, for the first time, finding the article in the state it is. As for the previous review, it dealt exclusively with an entirely different set of concerns, and was speedy-closed on the grounds that those other concerns were baseless, so I dare say that's pretty irrelevant to the validity of the concerns I am raising. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fut, read step 6, and you'll see that it is pretty clear which are the parties you should notify. I do not intend to do your job! As far as to your remarks, let me just notice that, when a FAR nomination opens, the reviewrs do not focus solely on the nominator's arguments, but evaluate the article themselves. At the time, distinguished FAR reviewers concluded that the article adhered to FA criteria. You argue that, in the meantime, suddently something changed. Let's see; you may be correct, while I may be wrong. Nevertheless, I still believe that these are issues which are mainly content-focuses, and should be thus raised in the article's talk page; not here. I stand by my opinion that this nomination should be speedy close, and I keep my doubts about your weird timing despite your explanation.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the previous review including all the responses to it dealt exclusively with the issue of whether or not an article that dealt with the meaning of a word was legitimate in principle. Apart from that, the discussion only has vague assertions that the content was overall "good". Nobody ever dealt with concerns of the sort I'm raising. BTW, at the time of the original promotion, the overlong quotes (which are directly in contravention of any number of rules and guidelines) weren't yet there. But the etymology section used to be even worse back then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fut, if the problem is the quotes (I also do not like them, but this is not a reason strong enough to defeature an article), raise the issue in the talk page, and split or remove them, or turn them into proper prose. Whatever! I haven't yet read in detail the "Etymology" section, but I honestly don't see any major problems; in any case, I'll look closer to it. As far as the "history" section is concerned, I dont's see why both "Early" and "Modern History" do not adhere to WP:SS. They are indeed summaries of the main articles (which are much longer), and I think that this history summary is very useful for the reader, in order to grasp the theme. If you disagree, again go to the talk page, and say why the history section souldn't be like that. I continue! You say the "Ethnic Macedonian nationalism" sections is POV. Why? Because of the quote? I answered before to that. By the way, I also see a "Greek nationalism section", so isn't that balanced? If you disagree, and you think that there should only be a "Greek nationalism section" (?!), then again go to the talk page. In any case, I can't keep wondering: what are you doing here?--Yannismarou (talk) 09:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the two sections are both bad. The one is tendentiously worded, and the other is non-existent, because if you take away the block quote there's nothing left. That's why I'm finding the block quote issue hard to fix, too hard for me to fix it without more time and appetite. If we wanted to take them out, we'd be left with an asymmetrically empty ruin. We'd have to re-write the whole section. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, if you take away the quotes (after you summarize them of course) in both sections, still more than something is left. Shorter sections, but they will continue to exist with good content. I see no empty ruins! By the way, I am not sure if the quotes from the Greek nationalism section should be removed. They are excellent summaries of the Greek nationalism and wrongdoings, dealing also with the use of nationalist and scornful terminology such as "Skopians". Yes, long but indeed very accurate and useful. I still fail to grasps the POV problems (probably you sole real argument concerning the article's FA status) concerning these two sections. Both sides' nationalisms are presented in a detailed and sourced way, and I think quite balanced. You do not like the quotes? This is another issue! So, I'll keep asking: what are you exactly doing here?--Yannismarou (talk) 10:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes are non-free content. They must be removed unless the their precise wording is an object of critical analysis, on the same criteria we must remove non-free images that are not the object of such. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm doing here? I'm doing precisely what the FA process says I ought to be doing: discussing "possible improvements" with the aim "to improve articles rather than to demote them" in a situation where they would otherwise fall short of the FA criteria. What do you think I'm doing, please? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agree more or less with what Fut.Perf states, it would certainly be good to paraphrase those large blockquotes. - Francis Tyers · 10:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quotes in the Greek section already paraphrased. If you like my "job", I'll do the same with the Ethnic Macedonian nationalism as well. Of course, "it would be good"! I did not say the opposite. I just said and I insist that this is no argument for de-featuring.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. But for my taste that's still a good deal too long and wordy. In fact, your summary of Danforth repeats things that I'm sure the article is already saying elsewhere (e.g. that Greeks say "Skopje"), and it's generally just following the progression of ideas too slavishly. I think this could easily be cut back further to no more than half the size. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Updating: Possibly, but there are definitely no copyright problems now (and I believe no POV problems as well). "For my taste", as I said above, this long expose is not necessarily wrong. There may be some repetitions, but sometimes this is inevitable in an encyclopedic article. And I am not sure it is treated before in the article why Greeks say "Skopje" or "Skopjans". And, even if it is, it is this sections which provides the necessary in-depth analysis. So, I am not sure it should be trimmed.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The other section paraphrased as well. "Extreme" POV terms removed; references to the language trimmed (they look to me as the standard ethnicMac position, and no "nationalism"); shorter quotes fully in accord with WP:QUOTATIONS kept. Any further real FA concerns?--Yannismarou (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And, by the way, any (serious) criticism I hear until now about the article is a classic {{sofixit}} case.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't because the problem of the overlong history section concerns a radical change to the whole scheme and scope of the article, which I would neither want to push through without prior discussion, nor do I have the time and inclination to fix it. I just feel that it isn't FA stuff. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I just feel that it isn't FA stuff" is not good enough Fut. When the article was promoted and kept the overlong history section existed. Unfortunately, my concerns about the reasons this FAR was initiated are reinforced by the vagueness of your arguments. In any case, even under these circumstances, I am happy to see you at last at a FA-related page. We both made our cases; let's see what other experienced reviewers shall say.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, when it was promoted the history section was a lot more concise. That old version was actually quite readable [7]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are only partly correct (again!). I now checked it in detail, but the longer version existed indeed when it was kept. The only serious difference I see comparing the current version, and the version of the article when it was promoted, it is the first quite long and uncited paragraph of "Early History". Personnaly, I won't disagree to remove it (and I may even do it per BRD). Now, the rest of the two history sections have minor differences. Yes, some minor details have been added, and the bullets have gone, but the focus remains on the terminology (with the exception I repeat of the first paragraph of the first sub-section). In any case, a problematic paragraph is not a reason strong enough to defeature an article.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would go a long way if we could get the "early history" passage back to the way it was around the time it was featured. I can try and find when the expansion took place and identify the best prior version. As for the thing I mentioned initially about needing better maps, I seem to remember we once had one where different versions of "geographical Macedonia" from the 19th century were compared. Perhaps we can exchange that for the one historical map we have in the geography section now? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
for the "geography" section?
Hey I found it. It's pretty good, I think, only that it would be even better if it also showed the modern country boundaries for comparison.
Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Added.--Yannismarou (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, balance, comprehensiveness, clarity. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you be a bit more specific, so that I can try to address your concerns?--Yannismarou (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1c issues throughout. If you like I can tag these parts of the article with {{fact}}, so it is more clear where the article is lacking. Cirt (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate that.--Yannismarou (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added some. Cirt (talk) 06:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. 3 out of 10 gone. Give me a couple of days to go through the remaining ones.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 or 3 still left I think.--Yannismarou (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. One tagged sentence which for me was not accurate enough, it was removed. In all the other cases sources provided.--Yannismarou (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems by the discussions above that many of the major concerns have been resolved. Everything now looks to be cited to reliable sources and it presents a clear overview of the subject. The maps are clear, and the history section has been pared down to a version that the original FAR nominator seems happy with. I'm not a content expert here, so I'm not best placed to judge what exactly might still be POV or undue weight; for that, it might be worth getting the nominator to revisit. But in most other respects the article seems strong enough to keep. The prose could do with a light brush here and there (e.g. "Loring Danforth, a professor of anthropology at Bates College asserts that ethnic Macedonian nationalists, who are concerned with demonstrating the continuity between ancient and modern Macedonians, deny that they are Slavs and claim to be the direct descendants of Alexander the Great and the ancient Macedonians"), but not to an extent worth delisting over; I advise badgering a good copyeditor to give it some TLC to be sure. Any remaining content issues should be minor enough now that taking them to the talk page first would be the prudent course next time. Steve T • C 12:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the most immediate concerns have been met – the biggest one being the overlong history section. I think there are still a few details that deserve tweaking, and I'm not overall entirely happy with the general impression of wordiness – I do believe the whole thing could be slimmed down quite considerably, but I haven't got the time and energy for it now, so at present I have no objections against keeping it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Some prose polishing would help indeed, but I agree with Steve that the problem is not to an extent worth delisting over. Fut. has an excellent grasp of the English language, and, it would really be helpful, if he could offer some copy-editing, when he fings time.--Yannismarou (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • YM asked me to comment on the sources here.
  • Dead reference link
  • Ref consistency Inconsistencies in date formats, of the language tag, and the pp. etc whether to use a space or a full stop. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should be fixed, along with a host of other MOS niggles. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • MoS is mostly something made up in school one day; we have policy on that.
      • The substance of the article has improved, distinctly (if marginally), since this FAC was started. The areas about which I know something are really better; at least the vacuous eponym Makednos is not being asserted as history. (It would be nice if we could phrase the likelihood that Ancient Macedonian was Indo-European in such a way as not to assert the debatable claim it was Greek.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep MOS, prose, and content issues seem to be mostly resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, changed to Keep, positive improvements to article since nom. Cirt (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait A couple issues remain. There are several dead links, dabs, and the images in the templates need alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can see only two dead links, and two dabs; one of the dead links (CIA Factbook) had been fixed by me days ago; I don't know what is going on with it. I'll fix them again later tonight, and I'll also try to further back the two sources mentioned by Matisse, especially the second one, which is indeed problematic.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had fixed most of the dead links a couple days ago, which is why there are only two now. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! I removed one dead link, and the "symprwtevousa" thing per my comment in the edit summary. I also provided another source for the administrative organization of Greek Macedonia.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's in Danforth's book, which should probably be used more widely. Danforth implies that it's unofficial, and lists it, like the Vergina flag, in his discussion of Greek Macedonian nationalism - which he seems to view as almost a separate movement from Greek nationalism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem with that. But do you have the relevant page(s)? The problem with google book is that it offers you a partial reading, and, if you don't find quite fast what you want while searching, you suddenly come along a polite announcement that unfortunately you can no more see any other page from the rest of the book!--Yannismarou (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to. It's p. 83 in the Google Books edition, paperback; I think I've added the hardcover to the list of references. The link should now work better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well written; sorry to be lazy, but I'm commenting only WRT 1a. Pity if this can't be saved. Tony (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Citation 101 is showing up as dead. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • True. Now that you draw my attention to that passage, I'd like to question the whole structure of the double notes system: a separate set of footnotes numbered "N-1", "N-2" etc., which contain additional content and in turn point to other, normal footnotes for referencing. For one thing, this strikes me as highly non-standard in formal terms; but additionally, this material is also rather questionable in content terms. These notes seem to have been used systematically as a way to push borderline OR material of a speculative nature out of the main body of the text. All this speculation about what is "offensive" to whom should either be integrated in the main text – if we are confident about the sourcing – or removed. Note N-1 is pure OR (citing a primary source and drawing interpretative conclusions from it); N-2 is drawing interpretative conclusions from two sources (one of them dead) by way of novel synthesis; N-3 is a redundant re-statement of the Macedonia naming dispute and as such redundant with the section on "politics"; N-4 is entirely unsourced speculation; N-5 has more or less acceptable sourcing, but could easily be integrated in the main text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The distinction between notes for citation and notes for commentary is not novel; this is the original divergence between footnotes and endnotes. In Wikipedia, compare the FA Pericles. I don't use it myself, but it is permitted by WP:FOOTNOTE and seems well-intentioned. PMAnderson 22:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I regret disagreeing with FP on this, but this seems ungrounded. N-1 describes a primary source; that cannot be pure OR if the book exists. (If it doesn't, we have much more serious problems.)
      • N-2 contains an assertion that Pirin Macedonia has been used by Bulgarians, but some Bulgarians now find it Republican propaganda. I see no synthesis, although I wouldn't mind breaking this up into two assertions.
      • N-3 is a statement of the Greek POV, from an official source. If FP wants to break this up, fine - but describing the various POVs here is the point of this section of the article, and I see nothing wrong with doing so in the parties' own words. In text it might be undue weight; but down here?
      • N-4 is unsourced, but asserts that FYROM can be offensive to both sides (extreme Greeks object to the use of Macedonia at all). This seems obviously to be the case; we have anons replacing FYROM with Vardaroscopia, don't we; but I'll see if Danforth says so.
      • N-5 could be incorporated, but then we would lose the quote. Why? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I maintain my objections. Note N-1 isn't just "describing" a primary source; it is very explicitly interpreting it ("Contextually, this observation indicates [...]"), without the guidance of a reliable secondary source. That's the very definition of OR. N-2 clearly "synthesises" the two assertions, and again interprets the result ("..., thus,..."), without guidance from a reliable secondary source regarding the notability of the claims and the representativity of the primary sources exemplifiying them; moreover, the last part of the claim ("many people in the country also think...") is entirely unsourced. My objection about N-3 is not so much about its content, but about the fact that it duplicates something that already has its own section in the body of the text, the "politics" section. – The more I think of it, the more I am also generally dissatisfied with the whole idea of having such footnotes dedicated to the topic of what might be "offensive" to whom. It smacks of context disclaimers, which we don't do. Either the "offensive" nature of this or that term is notable enough to be made an explicit object of sourced analysis; then it can and should go into the body text; or else it should simply be ignored. – Finally, about the issue of double footnote systems, you may well be right about wiki precedents, but still, in half a lifetime of academic reading I cannot remember having ever seen anything in print that does something similar. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read it differently. This is an international dispute; people may well want to know what words and terms are causes of offense in that dispute. These are facts, and non-trivial facts, about the dispute; as useful as other articles about ethnic slurs.
The argument that we should pussyfoot around offensive language on this matter has just been rejected by ArbCom; we were both there. That should suffice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closest parallels I can think of in academic publishing are book-length; but it is not uncommon to move long notes to the end of the volume, and keep the citations on the page. If I run across one before this is resolved, I'll note it here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Compare Zimmern's Greek Commonwealth or on a much larger scale, the two dozen appendices to Tarn's Greeks in Bactria and India.
    • But I cannot address FP's complaints about what these imply, because I don't see the implications myself; if he wants to modify them while keeping the (non-synthesized) content, I would like to see the result. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:15, 13 August 2009 [9].

Bernard Williams[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy, User talk:SlimVirgin.

FA from 2004, referencing/1c issues but these could be addressed without much problem as there is not an overwhelming amount. Could use an image review of the 4 images used in the article. Also could use a once-over from some fresh eyes for things like flow, small subsections, and short paragraphs. Cirt (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are some things I noticed:
  1. None of the cited sources in either the notes or ref sections are archived.
  2. There are some duplicates between the notes and ref section. If this is intentional, it might be advantageous to switch to a shortened footnote style.--Rockfang (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've tidied the refs. I'm not sure what's meant by "archived." SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks a bit better, nice job SlimVirgin (talk · contribs). Only needs a little more work actually. Cirt (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This talks about the archive parameters when using a cite template (cite web in this instance).--Rockfang (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think a couple are archived, but I can check the rest. Cirt, what else did you have in mind? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I merged a couple short paragraphs, and added three {{fact}} tags that can easily be addressed, other than that I don't think there is much else. Cirt (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll add the extra references within the next day or so. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay sounds great. Cirt (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added sources where you requested them. [10] I removed two things: first, that he wrote the entry for opera in the Grove Dictionary of Music. I think it was in one of the obits that is no longer online, so I can't currently source it. Secondly, I removed an unsourced paragraph about thick and thin concepts that someone else wrote. I'll restore it eventually, but I may have to get to an academic library to do that. Otherwise, it's all done, I think. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I found the source for the two things I'd had to remove (the "opera" entry, and the thick concepts),[11] so that's it all done now. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, those issues for me are done. IMO, only thing left to address are the images. Cirt (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images
  1. File:BernardWilliams.jpg = could use improvement with {{Non-free rationale}}
  2. File:KingsCollegeChapel.jpg = could use improvement at Commons, with commons:Template:Information
  3. File:Nietzsche1.jpg = could use improvement at Commons, with commons:Template:Information, also Missing: Name of artist, date, source name of the artwork, brief description, etc.
  4. File:Immanuel Kant.jpg = could use improvement at Commons, with commons:Template:Information

Cirt (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a rationale for Williams, which I uploaded. I didn't upload the others and don't know anything about them, so I'm not sure what I can add to the image pages. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, what I've done instead with the others, is replace them with images that have more complete descriptions on their image pages. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, for the File:BernardWilliams.jpg, I meant to link to Template:Non-free use rationale, it would be most helpful to standardize the image page with that. Cirt (talk) 01:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed this myself. Cirt (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. File:Nietzsche1882.jpg = Unfortunately this one lacks source information.
  2. File:Immanuel Kant (painted portrait).jpg = This one lacks author/artist information, but has a source - it would be preferable in the future to get that info, but this one is probably okay.

Cirt (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the Nietzsche image with File:Friedrich Nietzsche drawn by Hans Olde.jpg, which is fully appropriately sourced, so I think I'm done. Cirt (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The one that was in the article did have a source. The image page said it was Nietzsche by Walter Kaufmann, Princeton Paperbacks, Fourth Edition. ISBN 0-691-01983-5 SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added the source more clearly to the Nietzsche page on the Commons. Thanks for fixing the Williams image page. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see that now - and I've undone my image replacement. All is well. Cirt (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I noticed first- and second-person pronouns in the reasons for action section. Much of this sounds encyclopedic when taken out of context; is there anyway it can be quoted/rephrased? I understand that it's hard to summarize this material in an "encyclopedic" way. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this one sentence? "If I feel moved to do something good, it is because I want to. I may want to do the right thing for a number of reasons. I may have been brought up to believe that X is good, and I may wish to act in accordance with my upbringing, or I may want to look good in someone else's eyes, or perhaps I fear the disapproval of my community."
It could be rephrased, sure, though this is the way philosophers write, so I personally don't see it as a problem. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's what I thought; a good time to ignore the rule. The article looks fine; I've made a couple cosmetic changes, but I think it's FA level. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done anyway. :-) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nitpick: In the "Early life and education" section, three consecutive sentences begin with "He"; can we change it up a bit...? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, MOS. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources and a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature ". YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, positive improvements. Cirt (talk) 05:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd feel better if this sentence had a reference: "Williams's last completed book, Truth And Truthfulness: An Essay In Genealogy (2002), attempts to defend a non-foundationalist attachment to the values of truth, which Williams identifies as accuracy and sincerity, by giving a vindicatory naturalistic genealogy of them." Dabomb87 (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't write that sentence, so I don't know what the source was. It was a little repetitive of what follows it, so I've removed it and lightly copy-edited the section. [12] SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed two of them. [13] The meaning of the third, synthesis, is referred to on the dab page, but has no article, so I left it as it was. The dab page says, "In philosophy and science, a higher a priori process than analysis," which isn't quite how I'd describe it, but it's the closest to the meaning I was using. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other alternative would be a link to Wiktionary, if you just want a simple explanatory definition. Wiktionary has an entry for synthesis, but lacks an entry for "synthesist" - which I assume is what is really required. You could just create that entry and make the link to it. --RexxS (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for adding that alt text. It's almost done, but it needs a bit more work because it contains proper names that a typical Wikipedia reader cannot verify by simply looking at the image. Could you please reword the alt text to remove all the proper names like "Cambridge" and "Nietzsche" and "Kant"? For more, please see WP:ALT #What not to specify paragraph 3, and WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples example 3. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this what you're looking for? I have to wonder what the point is of making the descriptions less informative. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is that visually-impaired readers hear both the alt text and the caption, and are not helped if the alt text repeats the caption. For them the "description" is the combination of the alt text and the caption, not the alt text alone; see WP:ALT #Difference from captions. The changes you made to the alt text were an improvement, thanks. If the removed details "The Backs, looking east across" and "which is the style in Cambridge" are important, they should be resurrected in the captions. Can you please also reword the alt text to remove the proper names "Kings College Chapel", "Gibbs", and "River Cam"? Also, please remove the wiki markup, as it's ineffective in alt text (see WP:ALT #What not to specify). Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 05:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those points aren't important to the article, but people can see them in the image. I was thinking for the visually impaired they might like to know the punter is on the back, which is the Cambridge style (as opposed to Oxford where they punt from the front). But it's a minor point. How should I describe the image without naming King's College Chapel and the Gibbs building? "A very old building that people pray and sing in, next to a newer white building that people have offices in?" :) Seriously, I'm at a loss. Would you mind doing that one for me, so I can see what's needed for the future? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, much better, thanks. Ordinarily I'd stop here (except for the dates, see below), except that while you were doing that I was drafting alt text with more detail. Rather than discard my draft I just now merged it in. The only problems I found in your latest version were dates like "15th century" and "1882" that a casual reader can't immediately verify from the image. My version had considerably more detail; alt text is supposed to be brief and is also supposed to cover all essential detail, and it's a judgment call as to how to satisfy these competing objectives, so please feel free to remove detail you think is too prolix. One trick I've learned is to describe the image's features in the order that I first noticed them, a trick I tried to use here. Eubulides (talk) 06:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, got it, I think. Thank you! It's surprisingly difficult simply to describe what you see, without making assumptions. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Could you cite the second sentence of the Royal Commissions section, please? That specific sentence isn't backed up by the citation at the end of the paragraph. A citation in the "posthumous works" section also would be good. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Substantial improvements have been made since the article was nominated at FAR. It has appropriate citations, and the prose meets FA standards. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Keep
  • There is (excellent and well-written) material in the lead that is not covered in the body (eg. his feminism).
  • There is nothing else to say about the feminism that I'm aware of, but it's an important point for the lead. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may be right, there may indeed be nothing more to say about feminism. But something cannot be "an important point for the lead" yet not covered in the body. The point is that, per WP:LEAD, the lead is a summary of the article - everything covered by the lead should be covered in the body text. It doesn't have to be in more detail; on the contrary, the lead would usuall have less detail on each point in the body text - which indeed suggests that Williams' feminism is being given too much weight in the lead.hamiltonstone (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it regarded as acceptable not to have page number refs to book-length works, even when providing a direct quote? I'd have thought not.
  • Yes, there are 11 references to Jeffries book, including several quotes, and none have page references.
  • <slaps forehead> Homer Simpson moment. D'oh. OK I think that shows I was searching for nits. I'm done here. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Williams 1973 is in the notes but not in the references.
  • Foot 1978 is in the references but not the notes. Likewise Williams 1985 (it is mentioned in a note, but not as a citation, so the inclusion in his list of works is adequate)
  • The "Truth and Truthfulness: An Essay in Genealogy" reference is incomplete.
  • It lacks author name, date of publication, date of retrieval, and city of publication if relevant. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not following what you mean. It isn't used as a reference. It's in the publications section as Truth and Truthfulness: An Essay in Genealogy. Princeton University Press, 2002. It doesn't need an author, because they're all his. It doesn't need a retrieval date, because it's a book. Or am I missing your point? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See footnote 19. Actually, a similar problem applies to footnote 21. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 19 is a reference to a review of the book, not the book itself. Same with footnote 21. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent). Actually, there is a more serious problem here. The quotation that is cited as footnote 19 is not only incomplete as a citation format, it is actually not from a review of the book. It is from the publisher's spiel about the book on the publishers web page. As such, i would suggest it is not a reliable source and should be deleted. However, that same page contains some quotes from reviews in reputable sources. One of these could be quoted instead. When doing so, the footnote citation should look something like this: 'Truth and Truthfulness: An Essay in Genealogy (review)', Kenneth Baker, The San Francisco Chronicle, cited in Princeton University Press, The Sense of the Past: Essays in the History of Philosophy, retrieved 2009-08-11.
Note how in this case Princeton University Press is not positioned in the citation as the publisher of a book, but as the author of a website, which is the appropriate approach in this particular case. A similar principle needs to be followed in footnote 21 - that is, indicating that one is citing a publisher's webpage, not a book. I have gone ahead and made the changes for footnote 19. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton, I'm not following what you mean exactly. Would you mind going ahead and making whatever changes you'd like to see? That can include removing Nussbaum's view from the lead if you think it best, or expanding it elsewhere as you prefer. I'm not likely to object to any changes you make within reason. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW thank you for your further improvement on the book review. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are inline cites to Sen and Williams 1982. This is an edited volume and the cites must surely be to individual chapters. It is particularly important in this case as the authors have significantly different perspectives. To me this is a crucial point.
  • I am perplexed. I'm not suggesting removal - on the contrary - the difference of views between Sen and Williams appears an important vehicle for explaining Williams' philosophy; and as two of the leading figures of their time, a debate between them should be covered. I'm indicating that the article should cite the individual papers / chapters / pages where each expresses their position. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was no debate as such. They edited the book together. There's no need to mention Sen to explain Williams's views. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (shrugs) OK, but if there's no need to mention Sen, why did the FA article originally do so? Plus I didn't mean debate literally. As an outsider who has never seen the book I had formed the impression it was an edited collection deliberately designed to set up a discussion / debate / whatever between philosophers of different views on a particular topic. If it was such a thing, I'd say it was notable and should be covered. But if I'm wrong, then the removal is fine. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, looks like it might have been close paraphrasing of Nussbaum anyway, so never mind. It is better now anyway. :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More generally, the article lacks a section on legacy / impact / evaluation of his work, drawing on the comments and discussions by third parties of Williams' philosophy and its impact on the field, on the work of other academics, its practical effects etc. To me, as a lay reader, this appears a serious omission that leaves me wondering whether, apart from a debate with Sen and his colleagues, any notice was taken of his work. Yet the lead says (and I accept that) he "became known internationally".

The issues with the references are easily corrected by anyone with access to the hard copy sources; the final issue is more substantive. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I haven't seen a lot about his legacy outside the obits, probably not enough for a section that wasn't repetitive of the rest of the article. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Again, great work and SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) deserves a good deal of credit for addressing these issues so quickly, well done. Cirt (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Cirt, and your efforts on the legacy section are fabulous, removing my most significant concern with this article. I have one remaining concern, and one new one. The remaining concern is ensuring the lead is summarising text that is in the body of the article. The new concern is the removal of the debate between Sen and Williams: as a non-expert, my intuition is that this would need to be retained in some form to ensure a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". However, I am also open to pursuasion by other editors on this point. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hamilton, I disagree with that interpretation of LEAD, and in fact have several times intended to go in and clarify it. We often want to refer to something in the lead—some small but interesting issue that's worth pointing out, but isn't developed enough to say much else about it, and this is a case in point. LEAD doesn't actually say that everything in the lead must be developed later on.
  • Well you've been around for a lot longer than me, but I thought the guideline on the lead was pretty unambiguous, and from memory I've seen editors / reviews get stuck on this point. I have to say I have never seen a lead that so pointedly addresses an issue that is then not covered in the body text as is the case in this Williams article. I do not think there is anything "small" about a philosopher of international reknown being "as close to being a feminist as a powerful man of his generation could be". But if it is small, then how does it fit with the principle that "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic"?
  • It's an example of the difficulty of having guidelines that give too much advice. We end up with people trying to write by algorithm. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. It seemed like pretty good advice to me. But i'll leave that there. I am aware of the growing concern about policy creep around WP, and I have some sympathy with that concern. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get stuck on this, and I like your style, but this just seems beyond any normal interpretation of the guideline on the lead. I also think it may be possible to work this material into the text, through the fact that Williams supported his wife's rising ambitions. Indeed Nussbaum appears to make this link. The full text of her passage on the subject:

Throughout his career Williams gave evidence of being a really serious feminist. He not only defended women’s equality in politics and employment, and later their right to be free from sexual harassment in the university, but he also saw the importance of acting in ways that supported women’s aspirations. During both of his marriages, for example, he provided a lot more child care than was common among men at his level of success, and he always supported the careers of his wives, both women of immense achievement. I am grateful for his advice concerning an instance of sexual harassment in my own career. His advice was both sympathetic and tough: he insisted that women should not put up with anything that compromised their dignity.

Anyway, a thought. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By all means develop it if you'd like to, but it's not something I'd see a need for. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I'll try and get around to doing something with this. It may need a slight restructure of the "Life" section, which may in any case improve the article. Currently under "Career" there is actually quite a bit of text that is strictly about his personal life, such as the long quote from his ex-wife. But I'm happy to let it go unless I put my editing where my mouth is and get to revising it. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amartya Sen wasn't in any way central to Williams. They edited one book about utilitarianism together. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:02, 7 August 2009 [14].

The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified User:Theleftorium, User:Gary King, Wikipedia:WikiProject Strategy games, Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth, Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, Wikipedia:WikiProject Xbox

Violation of 1.C.

Citations do not match the content provided in the article from top to bottom. Issue was first raised by myself here with follow ups here. I have performed a cursory check of -every- cited section and have found inconsistencies and statements that are far from what the sources state. The most egregious comes in the form of this:

Electronic Arts added new battles to the story, and introduced original characters to the game, such as Gorkil the Goblin King. Some characters were altered in their appearances, abilities, and roles; for instance, a combat role in the game is given to Tom Bombadil, a merry hermit from The Lord of the Rings.[9]

which is cited to: "Tolkien, J. R. R. (1954), The Fellowship of the Ring, The Lord of the Rings, Boston: Houghton Mifflin (published 1987), "The Old Forest", ISBN 0-395-08254-4". It is 100% unacceptable to think a 1954 book is a reliable source for information on Electronic Arts or that such information would not fail WP:V and WP:OR. The whole article is contaminated and every single line and source will need to have to be rechecked and compared to the original language to ensure that the citations actually match everything cited. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I concur with OR's assessment after looking at the article. This issue appears to have escaped us at FAC. It is quite serious and an audit of each source is going to be needed. --Laser brain (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for bringing this up. I don't really know what I was thinking when I added the sources, but I certainly did not just "randomly" threw them down. I will do my best to address your concerns (I've already started, as you can see). :) TheLeftorium 11:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations/accuracy of source agreement. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The offending material listed above has been removed, but a more thorough check would have to be made to see if everything is clean. This suggests a set of new references for the more detail list of problems that was provided to Theleftorium before. My opinion is neutral as of this moment (it was previously de-list). Ottava Rima (talk) 04:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to try and take a look through at least some of the new refs and see if they match up. Hopefully I'll be done by tomorrow and will fill in here. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Discrepancy: "Some characters were altered in their appearances, abilities, and roles; for instance, a combat role in the game is given to Tom Bombadil," is sourced to [15], but no mention is made anywhere in the document. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • My bad. As you can see, ref #9 and #10 are duplicates. I was actually supposed to used this to source the Tom Bombadil statement, but I mixed up the links when I was adding them article. It's been fixed now. (Note: I will be be gone tomorrow and won't be able to respond to any comments until Friday.) Theleftorium 19:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What's the status of this? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will go through the article again today to see if there's any original research left. Theleftorium 09:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found some more original research but I added sources to back it up. I've checked pretty much the whole article now and I can't find any more problems with it (though it's possible I might have missed something, so feel free to check). :) Theleftorium 14:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest asking David, Ottava, and LB to check to make sure their concerns are resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava has indicated that his concerns have been resolved. I left a message at David Fuch's talk page, too. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From my checks I believe the concerns about OR and citations have been addressed. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Alternative text for images has been added. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Let me state outright that I've never been a fan of video game articles because they're forced to rely so much on non-objective reviews and possibly unreliable Internet citations. That said, this article appears to follow the FA criteria. It's adequately cited, and while a quick copy edit fixed a few things, there's no big problems with article prose. I'd suggest someone do a detailed cleanup of any remaining elements of BritEng (the majority of the article was written in AmEng, so that's what I edited to). Other than that, the pictures are adequately backed up, and everything looks OK to me. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Original concerns have been addressed, and nothing else has arisen. Besides the now-resolved OR, I'm fairly confident this meets FA standards in other areas, as this was a late 2008 promotion (disclosure: I reviewed and supported this at the FAC). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:02, 7 August 2009 [16].

Attalus I[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Classical warfare task force, User talk:Paul August, User talk:Sj.

FA from 2004, referencing/1c issues. Article seems to rely way too heavily on primary sources as opposed to secondary sources. Could use an overall copyedit pass and review for flow. Image review and cleanup/improvement of the individual image pages would also be helpful, images include: File:AtaloPergamo.jpg, File:Dying gaul.jpg, File:AttalusICorrected.jpg, and File:Attalus I coin depicting Philetairos.jpg. Cirt (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeap, it relies mainly on primary sources, although secondary sources are also used. It was one of the first FAs I read before my own ventures, and almost 3 years later I still regard it as FA quality. I am willing however to help adding secondary sources (through googlebooking only), if that is ok with Paul.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. Paul August ☎ 04:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll start working, maybe as soon as now (!); definitely during the weekend.--Yannismarou (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, copyrights. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 07:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any suggestions for changes to the article? Paul August ☎ 18:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Main concern iterated above is heavy usage of primary as opposed to secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • O! We are fast here. As I understand the main argument for delisting is citations. I'll express my opinion about copy-editing as well, but, allow me to tell you, that, if somebody argues that the prose is not satisfactory, he/she has to present some concrete examples to support his/her arguments. Otherwise ... In the meantime, I'll start adding secondary sources. As I have made clear, I still believe that this is a FA, and for the time being I am weak keep.--Yannismarou (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On this subject, from these sources, secondary sources are more likely to summarize Livy than emend him. Most of the obvious secondary sources seem to have already been listed; I would also look at the first chapters of Magie's History of Roman Asia, for an idea of what is important enough to list in comparable space. It would be a virtuous act to check them thoroughly; but it's unlikely to change the text much. Justin (for what he is worth) should also be a primary source, IIRC. Weak keep Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turn to full keep. Most primary sources are now backed by secondary ones; and I don't think that any event still cited by only prim sources has been ever questioned. Agree with Sept: secondary sources don't add much; they just summarize Livy without amending him. I promise I'll check Justin.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, by the way, the copyright status of the photos mentioned by Cirt looks to me fine.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - there are paragraphs and sentences that are missing citations and {{cquote}}s where {{quote}} or no block quote at all should be used. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely not-too-far-off-keep (?) - I changed the cquotes to quotes, and tweaked a bit of prose here and there, but this subject area is not my forte, and I feared intorducing ambiguity with too much reduction of repetition. Surely the basic biographic details in Early life are easy to source (?) Please keep this open a bit longer and I can see what I can find. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps some of the present tenses in the verbs should be past tense. Shouldn't there be a source for the conjectures in "Early life"? "twenty decked Rhodian warships" could be unclear to some: 20 decks or 20 ships? I think I would prefer the Magna Mater cult to appear in chronological sequence between the First Macedonian War and Macedonian hostilities of 201 BC rather than at the end. DrKiernan (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tweaked to Rhodian decked, although any reader who can conclude that the Greeks built warships larger than the Titanic is probably hopelessly lost anyway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist (but obviously willing to change in response to edits) Neutral (for explanation see below Paul August's summary comments). The heavy reliance on primary sources itself requires commentary early in the piece. A section is needed along the following lines: "Attalus life is known primarily from Livy, while his blah blah. Scholars' analysis of Livy... (explain what the secondary sources say about Livy's historiography etc)" etc Livy wrote two hundred years after Attalus's time. This could also open a debate about the definition of a primary source, but leaving that aside, the extensive reliance on Roman/ Greek sources requires serious discussion before they are then effectively adopted as reliable. I would also recommend the text be re-styled to occasionally remind us of the basis in sources. "Livy reports that.."; "Polybius's report of the battle described..."

:Other issues:

  • Early life is either seriously under-referenced, WP:OR, or both.
  • Is there really no archaeological research at all to contribute to a contemporary analysis of this historical figure? I find the lack of archaeological research strange.
  • Occasional clunky prose: "The spoils from Oreus had been reserved for Sulpicius, who returned there, while Attalus stayed to collect the spoils from Opus." 'Spoils' used twice, and not felicitous phrasing either. Better might be "Sulpicius returned to the spoils reserved for him from the sacking of Oreus, while Attalus stayed to claim those from Opus" (or similar). "Attalus, with his fleet at Aegina, received an embassy from Athens, to come to the city for consultations." Better might be "Attalus, with his fleet at Aegina, received an embassy from Athens inviting him to consultations in the city." There are others that could be improved.
  • Why is the section "Introduction of the cult of the Magna Mater to Rome" tacked on after the family section, which reads as though it should be the conclusion to the article, with its final lines about succession and death? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've just got my hands (again) on the most authoritative work on the subject, Esther Hansen's The Attalids of Pergamon (1971). I'll try to review the article for accuracy, giving more granular citations, where it seems appropriate. Paul August ☎ 16:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added several cites to the "Early life" section, which I think is now well sourced (if not over sourced). With this and the sourcing that Yannismarou has done, I think the article has adequate sourcing. If other editors think that more sourcing is still required, please say so, and I will try to provide it. Thanks to all for trying to improve the article. Paul August ☎ 18:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must say Hamiltonstone raises some interesting poitns above. Kudos on the early life sourcing. Is there anything in the book about archaeological evidence? I am not familiar with doing ancient hsitory articles, so I could imagine this might vary tremednously from figure to figure. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hamilton raises indeed some interesting points, but I cannot agree (and I did not agree even before Paul's further citing) with his first remark. His second remark is interesting, and I also want such a section (an overall assessment of the x personality) in the articles I write, but I do not believe that such an analysis is a prerquisite for FA status; and it is not a standard for biography articles. In any case, such a section should not be necessarily based on archaelogical evidence, as Hamilton seems to imply. Prose issues should be taken care (and maybe they have already been; I did not follow the recent edit history of the article), but, as far as the last remark is concerned, I am also not sure I can agree. In terms of structure, if an important aspect in a person's biography cannot be related to the linear narration of a biography, then it can be placed at the end of the latter; and I can't see any wrong in that, unless something better can be proposed. About archaelogical evidence in particular, I'll contribute in case I find something in the net, google book etc. In any case, keep in mind that the article has already more sources than the average FAs!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would not be surprised if there were a serious absence of epigraphical evidence. Pergamum was a capital for a century after Attalus, and a provincial capital for centuries thereafter; Attalus' monuments are likely to have been rebuilt. If secondary sources have nothing to add to Livy, it is likely that there is no evidence on which to base it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some responses.
  • Paul's intensive work in the last couple of days is improving this greatly, and yes, early life is now sorted.
  • I am not sure whether Yannismarou is counting my intro text as my first remark (about the need to discuss the primary sources in the article), or is referring only to the bullet points. Based on Y's reference to archaeological evidence in Y's text, I am assuming s/he has counted just the bullet points, in which case I am very surprised at these observations. Y's own essay on FAs talks about in-line cites being better every sentence than every para: the early life section had only one in-line cite when i viewed it, and that was at the end of the first sentence. Y concludes his/her remarks by saying that this has more sources than the average FA. I don't think that is relevant - this is a matter of being, per FA criteria, "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic". If the literature is there, it should be covered. I'm not an expert, hence my query (rather than statement) re archaeological evidence - if it isn't there, then fair enough. Interestingly i note from the footnotes that "inscriptions are the main source of information on Attalus' war with the Galatians", suggesting that archaeological evidence (and i mean not only epigraphical) may be relevant, even important, to the subject. BTW I didn't think this article had many in-line cites by FA standards, so I mustn't be reading the ones that are 'lighter on'.
  • Finally, I would again emphasise my point about a need to discuss the sources in the article. If we are relying heavily on Livy, I would suggest an analysis of the implications of such reliance is essential. Otherwise the article may not meet the FA criteria of being comprehensive in "placing the subject in context". It doesn't have to be a huge deal, but it should be there. For examples, see some of the material in the 'background' section of Walter de Coventre (FA), the 'historical record' section of Theramenes (FA), or the 'sources' section of Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick (current FAC). hamiltonstone (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that note on Theramenes adds much; it omits the minor details that Lysias, Thucydides and Xenophon are contemporaries and that Diodorus is an unreliable compiler of some four centuries later, who may be copying a good source on this subject. Quellenkritik should be done right, or not at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed - I wouldn't know my Gaius from my Julius, so I was oblivious to any issues in the Theramenes text - sounds like a reason to either improve it or bring Theramenes to FAR as well. I just wanted to give illustrations of what kind of text was needed - i'm taking it as read that Paul Agust would do it well, particularly with Septentrionalis cheering him on :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Septentrionalis commented "Quellenkritik should be done right, or not at all." This is FA: it should be done right, I would not have thought 'not at all' was an option.:-) hamiltonstone (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I'm continuing to work through the article, checking sources, and adding, or increasing granularity where appropriate. I've done so through the section "Macedonian hostilities of 201 BC". I'll attempt to address other concerns above when I've completed my review. Paul August ☎ 15:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope this will be kept as an FA. Tony (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note:Continuing to work on the article, but I will be away for the weekend, so nothing more from me till Monday. Paul August ☎ 16:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note for closer - I think this is progressing steadily in the right direction. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noted YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've completed a detailed review of the article. Some comments:
  • Acurracy: I have (I believe) checked every assertion of fact in the article, and I can write with some confidence that each is well supported by the cited references. If anyone has any concerns about any of the assertions in the article I urge them to please say so and I will attempt to address them.
  • Quality of sources: Esther Hansen's The Attalids of Pergamon (531 pages), is by far the most comprehensive work on the subject (for example her chapter on The Reign of Attalus I runs to 44 pages), and while perhaps a bit dated (1971), remains authoritative, particularly so for the purposes of an encyclopedia article (rather than say a research paper). The other secondary sources (mostly provided by Yannismarou) -- all of very high quality -- mostly serve to corroborate Hansen.
  • Reliance on primary sources: I believe that those editors who have expressed concerns about the possible over-reliance on primary sources may be misapprehending the situation. Although by glancing through the "Notes" section, one can see many citations to Livy, Polybius, etc, — except for the handful of places in the text where direct quotes have been used — there has been virtually no reliance on primary sources at all. Rather it has been Hansen's work which has been almost universally relied upon. As far as I can tell the article contains no "original research" and no interpretations of primary sources independent of the secondary sources.
  • Granularity of sourcing: There are various opinions on how granular source citing ought to be. Should each paragraph have it's own citation?, each sentence? each assertion? In my view no universal rule like this can make sense. This must be judged on a case by case basis, and only by reading and understanding what is being written and its context. You most certainly can't simply scan your eyes down an article and judge the adequacy of sourcing by the density of citations (no offense meant to anyone, and I'm not saying that anyone on this page has done that).
  • Commentary on primary sources: hamiltonstone, has suggested above that "the heavy reliance on primary sources itself requires commentary early in the piece". I'm not sure that such a thing would be a particularly useful addition to the article. The primary sources used here are the standard ones for this period and locale. Their idiosyncrasies are well understood, and have no particular significance for this article. Most of what might be said about these sources in relation to this subject would pertain to any article concerning this period and locale. Moreover as I've written above, there has in fact been little reliance on primary sources, and then only to augment and flesh out a bit the secondary sources. Whatever issues there are concerning the primary sources have presumably already been taken into account by the secondary sources.
  • Archaeological evidence: hamiltonstone has written: Is there really no archaeological research at all to contribute to a contemporary analysis of this historical figure? I find the lack of archaeological research strange. There has, of course, been significant archaeological research pertaining to Pergamon and the Attalid period. And bits of this research can be seen explicitly in the form of epigraphical evidence in three places in the article, (see notes 10, 48 and 53), although such epigraphical evidence underlies and supports other content in the article. Otherwise, as with the proposed commentary on secondary sources, there is little of particular significance to this subject and the secondary sources have presumably made appropriate use of all relevant archaeological data.
  • "Magna Mater" section: Two editors, DrKiernan and hamiltonstone, suggest above that the section on the "Magna Mater" should follow (chronologically) the section on the "First Macedonian War". I have moved the section accordingly.
  • Tense: DrKiernan has written above Perhaps some of the present tenses in the verbs should be past tense, but having reread the article, I find no use of present tense at all.
Paul August ☎ 20:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Paul for your excellent work. I have no problems with the article now retaining its FA listing. I am describing my position as 'neutral' because I am undecided what to think about the lack of explicit treatment of primary sources. On the one hand, I think Paul's point, that "whatever issues there are concerning the primary sources have presumably already been taken into account by the secondary sources", is well made. That is indeed a very good reason to ensure the text is fully referenced to the secondary sources, as Paul has done here. It incidentally also takes care of my query about the archaeology. On the other hand, I don't accept the comment "The primary sources used here are the standard ones for this period and locale. Their idiosyncrasies are well understood". To those familiar with the field, maybe. To a wikipedia reader, that would certainly not be the case. Does that mean these points would need to be raised in every article that relied upon them? Perhaps, but only briefly. I was never suggesting an entire essay. However, I think the fact that the Livy article, for example, does talk about the nature of his writings, together with the citation of secondary sources throughout the current article, ensures there is not a significant problem. Probably I am thinking that if FA is the very best that WP has, then it might indeed go as far as discussing the sources. But no matter. The article is very good, and I am clearly in a minority on this. Thank you Paul and others for their efforts here. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My comments on primary sourcing may reflect an over-acute awareness that the primary sources for this article are (as classical history goes) unusually sound: Livy has no axe to grind, and is confirmed in essence by Polybius; to make a point of their flaws is undue weight. The modern historian's expectation of contemporary unbiased sources, compounded with documentary and archival evidence, is (for almost all of ancient history) starkly unrealistic; it may be sort of true for a few years in Athens and Rome, and for a narrow level of information (ruler's epithets, but not dynastic politics) in Egypt. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - hahaha, reminds me of reading latin and greek texts at school :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
? Paul August ☎ 03:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three more comments:
  • Thanks: To everyone for working to improve the article. Special thanks to Yannismarou for his work on the article and comments above, and also to hamiltonstone and PMAnderson for their thoughtful remarks.
  • Unsastisfied conserns?: Some editors who have expressed concerns above with the article have not commented upon the subsequent changes and discussion. I would appreciate knowing if their concerns are still unsatisfied.
  • FA status: I don't understand how the FA process works, but to be clear, I have No opinion as to whether this article ought or ought not to be an FA.
Paul August ☎ 18:32, 8 August 2009 (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 03:03, 3 August 2009 [17].

Cane toad[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, LiquidGhoul

I have split out Cane toad (Australia) since it was a large part of the article (and is also deserving of its own article). Having split out such a large amount of content a FAR is probably needed. I had also found a number of other issues that should not have occurred in a FA. There was a lack of punctuation and poor structure, and before I split out the information about cane toads in Australia the article lacked balance. I have corrects some of these issues. On a minor note I created the Cane toads dab page to get rid of the two links and explanations in the hatnote. Makes it look a little nicer! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article gets stubby towards the end. Single sentence sections are not good. Jay32183 (talk) 09:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article size should not have anything to do with FA status. Splitting out Cane toads in Australia is surely a requisite for the ability to retain the FA status. The info I split out gave the article an imbalance toward Australian info - especially with the large "In popular culture" section. It is interesting to note that the new article has already been rated as C Class. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course it'd be rated C-class as it was well referenced and comprehensive. My point is that the rest of the article probably needed expanding, not the aussie bit needing contracting. There is also a guideline not to make radical changes to Featured Articles, and also some form of adequate summary should have been left on the article page. I am sad as I have seen many of these daughter pages receive little traffic compared with the mother article, even when the link is very obvious. As the article is now unstable, its Featured status should probably be revoked on the spot. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Aussie info is not contracted - it is simply moved. I suspect that the info about other countries is not likely to be expanded and the Aussies stuff may be of a higher notability (I will expand the summary at cane toad at some stage). I don't think the traffic difference is a valid argument. Cane toads is of interest to a wider sector than cane toads in Australia - and that is another reason to split the article. I was not aware of a FA guideline re splitting but I guess being bold can override a guideline. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion this FAR was a bit premature since the FAR was opened moments after the split was made. Discussion in the article's talk page would be better to avoid redundant discussions. Joelito (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The FA was not justified before the split IMHO. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article was in overall better shape before the split. You've left the article with stubby, single sentence sections where previously there were fully fleshed out paragraphs in a single section. Although, Joelito's point was that there should have been a discussion about the split on the talk page prior to an FAR. Jay32183 (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Aussie stuff was spread throughout the article and giving it its own article cleaned it up. The stubby section I left can be expanded and I will do it as soon as possible. I saw no need for a discussion on something that looked like it needed doing. It was hardly a case of being overly bold. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now is not a good time to review this article, given that major changes to the article have been attempted in the last few days, but not completed, and there is a current discussion about the split/merge on the article's talk page. Apart from this, there has been little change to the article over the past year, so I think it's a bit premature to strip it of FA status on the basis that it's unstable. Doing that would set a very bad precedent, in my view. To avoid wasted effort, let's put this review on hold until the talk page discussions and any action resulting from them are complete. -- Avenue (talk) 09:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this. I had intended the original as a rhetorical question and hope it keeps FA. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the Featured article criteria "A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing, presentation and sourcing." Even before I split out the Aussie section the article should not have fitted that description. WP can do much better than what was on offer in the article. Also, article stability is but one of the FA criteria. A few points to justify remove of the FA status (in no particular order):
    • A lengthy hatnote that should have only been one link
    • lack of punctuation
    • Presence of redlinks
    • A lengthy "in popular culture" section all about Australia yet the sections on other countries were very short and generally lacked references.
    • Poor article flow in the "Introductions" section. It should at least have Level 3 headers for individual countries
    • Unsourced statements since April 2008
    • The Notes and References should be one section (I notice that the References header has since been removed. Not all the References are linked to the article text. It should therefore be in a Further reading section. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree on many points in the preceding - there needs to be more detail on the native range in the Distribution section, and the Poison section is small. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the refs are not linked to inlined refs as they predate a big move to inlining. So are probably relevant to the text. Hopefully, they can be accessed and we can determine which references what and help get the text inlined. I don't think a further reading section will eb required. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist for the following reasons:
    • presence of redlinks
    • references that could be inline rather than listed after the refs section
    • lack of info on the introductions to the different countries
Note that I had split out the info pertinent to Australia to the Cane toad (Australia) article. See the discussion at Talk:Cane toad#Merger proposal. I had also fixed a number of glaring reasons why the article should not have had a FA status. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am thinking probably Hold for the time being as from the discussion above, there appear to be a few issues left to resolve that have attention from editors that could potentially address them. I agree with Casliber (talk · contribs) that instead of spinning out material, it may have been best to instead expand the other subsections. However, there do appear to be some 1c issues that should be addressed. Cirt (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm currently working through the article to address the referencing and comprehensiveness issues. It should take about a week to see that complete. On the plus side, there are sufficient references available to meet any 1c concerns. - Bilby (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
In the description section, it's unclear to what the length is referring to in the first sentence: the male or female toad.
The tadpoles' length mention needs an Imperial conversion.
done YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toadlet size (in mm) needs an Imperial conversion.
done YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snout-vent length needs an Imperial conversion.
done YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Eat widely" is unclear ... is that area or the variety of their food?
done YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The cane toad" and "cane toads" are used interchangably throughout the article. I'd suggest picking one style and sticking with it.
It adds a bit of variety I guess, but as it isn't the same as using different common nouns or formats, but just a plural/singular is it a big problem? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I've changed most of the instances of "cane toads' to "the cane toad", as the former suggests more than one type of cane toad, while the latter is clearer. I've left "cane toads" only where the discussion seemed related to individual instances of the cane toad, rather than the species. - Bilby (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a citation needed tag at the end of the predators section.
Bilby got rid of the sentence YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you add a citation for the thought that it was introduced to "most Caribbean islands"?
done YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Martinique, what does it mean that the toads were "successful"?
done YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bad idea to start a sentence with a numeral, as in 1884.
done YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Fiji, "the government of" what?
done YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How were toads used in human pregnancy tests? It's not mentioned until the New Guinea section, when it's thrown in casually, even though that prompts strong questions.
It is explained in the "uses" section at the bottom. It's hard to fit it in the intros part without doubling up YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I've added a little bit of context to the pregnancy testing reference in the New Guinea section, and extended the material in "Uses" for balance. (I found a really cool source, so it made me happy). - Bilby (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's about it from me. Fix these, and I'll support its keep. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One final thing ... that last sentence of the lede seems a bit awkward. I don't understand the use of "farmers" since other people's pets also are apt to eat the toads, and livestock are herbivorous. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern is comprehensiveness as a result of section split. Joelito (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Moving to FARC since no progress was observed to resolve the split. Joelito (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm on them. :) I'm marking missing ones as I go, but given the topic citations won't be a problem. There's sufficient, readily available material to source each statement, although it will take a few more days to be done. - Bilby (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not worried about the citation for Chaunus marinus, I can see that this name is used in more modern literature on cane toads. It's the identifications that confuse me. The rococo toad is given an unfamiliar Latin name, surely it should be Bufo paracnemis? I'm inclined to think that Schneider's toad is something else. I think this section is rather confused, and should be removed until something better can be written with verifiable sources. DrKiernan (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - I've removed those sections, as they don't seem core and I've been unable to find any support for them in the literature. - Bilby (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While I'll probably make a pass to ensure WP:MoS compliance, at this stage I think referencing and expansion should be pretty much done. Every claim has been referenced, and where possible I've double checked any existing references. - Bilby (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close The single remaining "fact" tag is trivial. DrKiernan (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - I had missed that fact tag. That's a tad embarrassing. It should be covered now. - Bilby (talk) 10:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. I considered using the convert template, but found it read better if done by hand. - Bilby (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Close etc. Great work. Prose might need a little massaging but not a deal-breaker. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm onto it. Yes I think the prose could be improved quite a lot. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. And thanks - I didn't realise that the wiki supported alt tags, and I'm really pleased to find out that it does. - Bilby (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold for the moment. There's still a few things to clear up, but nothing major. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My comments have been addressed, and with a coterie of editors repairing other comments, I'm confident this article should remain featured. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. DrKiernan (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose is mostly OK, but needs attention in quite a few places; I've done a little cleaning up. But I haven't fixed multi-bloopers like this: "... it was introduced to Puerto Rico in the early 20th century in the hope that it would be more effective against a beetle infestation that was ravaging the sugar cane plantations. It was, and following the economic success of the toad in negating the beetles ...". If this FA retained, I think the authors should locate copy-editors who will spruce it up. ... or now? Tony (talk) 10:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did a round of full copyedit YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 07:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will copyedit more this weekend. Awadewit (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some copyediting now - it looks good to me. Awadewit (talk) 01:20, 2 August 2009 (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 03:03, 3 August 2009 [18].

Lake Burley Griffin[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lakes, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australia, User talk:Ta bu shi da yu.

FA from 2004, referencing/1c issues throughout. Could use copyedit/review for flow, check for comprehensiveness, and review of images (14 images in article). Cirt (talk) 12:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article has comprehensiveness issues which I wasn't aware of at the time, but picked up in later research. There needs to be an entirely new section of the history covering before it was built - there were quite substantial political battles over the design of the lake, and the entire basin near the museum and the university was nearly not bueilt so as to save the sporting fields and racecourse that were on the site at the time. (The article doesn't even mention that they were there.) I also think the layout of the article isn't great - some strange sections, some quite short sections, and lots of dot points. It doesn't flow all that well either. Rebecca (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dot points all gone YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the long list and templated it. The list looks ridiculous YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice work with the template - that would be a good addition to all the articles linked within. Rebecca (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. Perhaps you could write a list of things that are missing... Bilby (talk · contribs) completely rewrote two things on the run while they were on FAR last year. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Things that the article really needs to mention:
The early proposals for the lake: the Griffin plan, and how this was altered to form the current one. This would probably require hitting up books on Canberra history.
What was on the site of the lake before it was built (among other things, sporting fields, the first Canberra racecourse, I think it may have also flooded part of what was the suburb of Westlake.)
The political battles fought over the final design. There was serious opposition from within parliament about everything that was to be flooded, and the entire basin over near ANU and the Museum was very nearly removed from the plan. The NLA's online newspaper archive would be okay for this I think; the Canberra Times of the period covered this in quite some detail.
How this was resolved - unfortunately the disputes ran past the end of currently public domain newspapers at the end of 1954 so this isn't online.
The lake naming issue (which is referred to in passing in this article at the moment).
Development along the shores over the years (High Court, Royal Canberra Hospital, National Museum, etc.); fit the implosion in somewhere
Most of these accounted for. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Modern-day development - the Kingston Foreshore (which has actually altered the shape of the lake)
Besides history, it strikes me that a section about the lake and surrounds for public events might be warranted too. Rebecca (talk) 06:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The book by Eric Sparke that I cited in Canberra and this article has about 20 pages on the planning and changes, but not so much on the local amenities type stuff, which is why I could only cite a few things with the current focus of the article when I tried to change it last year. It should be useful and more than thorough enough, I checked ANU, Melb, USyd, UNSW, Adelaide they all have it and chances are every other uni has it as well YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 06:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sparke, Eric (1988). Canberra 1954–1980. Australian Government Publishing Service. ISBN 0-644-08060-4.

Other things that need fixing:

  • The safety section needs to be put into prose, and quite possibly shortened; it's a little bit irrelevant compared to much of the other information
Shortened by removing repetition and merged into recreation as it relates to swimming/boat accidents not crime or water poisoning YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "lakeside recreation" section needs to be cleaned up - the subheadings don't work well, and it should integrate public activities on the lake shore
  • "Captain Cook Memorial" should be in a "Features of the lake" or similar section, along with islands, bridges, the Carilion, etc - this would eliminate a lot of the article's flow problems caused by all sorts of random sections
  • "Water quality" is a stub of a section, and looks messy. Perhaps this could form part of a broader environment section, and be mixed with information about fish and bird life in the lake
Fish/aquatics and water pollution are together YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is also quite short for featured articles these days
Expanded a bit YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Design" could do with a paragraph or so on the final proposal for the lake, and a description of the various basins, etc.

If these more stylistic problems were dealt with, it would start to look a lot more salvageable in terms of featured status. Rebecca (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on this round of changes - the article is much improved.

  • Under "Walter Burley Griffin's design", there's mention of a casino. I have no idea what this is referring to - the wording is a bit vague.
  • Where would the removed eastern lake have been in terms of modern-day Canberra?
Added Fyshwick YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to see some more sources used for the history. While the basics are generally covered, it feels like there's a fair bit of potential detail missing - that only one source has been used shows.
  • From "Construction" down, the organisation of the article is very strange. It integrates the sections describing what is there now, with new information about their construction, and it doesn't fit together well. I still think "Bridges" might be better off in a "Lake features" section, along with the former Captain Cook Material section, which seems to have mostly disappeared. This would leave what's left more tightly focused on the actual construction.
  • Not a big fan of the remaining list. This feels like engineeringcruft to me.
Prosified. It is discussed in detail in the official governement report, so I think it should be mentioned YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the "Dam" section should be merged into "Final layout", and that this section should be emphasisised a bit more, considering it is the design that actually got built and now forms the basis for the lake.
  • I think the "Lake as city centrepiece" section is a bit odd - the title implies that it's describing the lake now, but it's really a history section. I think calling it something like "Recent history" or "Modern history" might be better. I think this section could be fleshed out more. It also doesn't mention the Kingston Foreshore, which in turn doesn't make much sense unless you mention the almost industrial area that was there before it.
Evolved into history. Kingston added. Nick-D added stuff on the Immigration bridge YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked to "Later development into...."

In spite of all of this, much improved - nice job! Rebecca (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of article structure, my suggestion would be:

  • Design - take the final layout section, blow it up, so it doesn't immediately launch into history - same was it was before the latest rewrite
  • Design history
  • Construction
  • Modern history
  • Features of the lake
  • Recreation
  • Environment Rebecca (talk) 07:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is mostly the way it is now. Still hoping for more comments. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox: I tried to complete it from the article: catchment area (1865 km² according to [19][20] or 2100 km² if Molonglo catchment of 78,000 ha is 37% [21]) and residence time (0.2 years [22]) are still missing. I'm sure better references are available. -- User:Docu 14:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC), updated 14:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


One further thing - what happened to the images? The tiny image in the infobox looks awful, all of the new content is bereft of images, and then there's a cluster at the bottom, none of which are all that great general views of the lake. Rebecca (talk) 12:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image in the infobox is probably better in the panoramic images section (File:Twilight canberra as seen from telstra tower observation deck.jpg). It's too wide for the infobox. Maybe a cropped version of File:Canberra view from telstra tower.jpg would fit the infobox.
There is a discussion on Talk:Scrivener_Dam#Which_image_where about the images in that article. -- User:Docu
I'm not a fan of that image either. Of the ones in the article, either the one of the Commonwealth Avenue Bridge or the Captain Cook Fountain would be better. The article could do with some pictures taken from less strange locations, though - from the National Capital Exhibition across the lake, or of the National Museum from the other side, or from the Commonwealth Avenue Bridge, would be much better photos. Would also be nice to have a picture of the Kingston Foreshore. Rebecca (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at an old version of the article ([23]), all of these images were originally a lot larger, and they, and the article, looked much better for it. Even fixing this up would help things a lot. There's also a dumped image [24] which looks better, IMHO, than several of the ones currently there. Rebecca (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did some sorting over at commons (Commons:Category:Lake Burley Griffin and Commons:Lake Burley Griffin). As commons seems a bit slow today, I didn't categorize more of the available images [25].
A few larger panoramas are now at Commons:Lake Burley Griffin. Now that there are imagemaps, we could probably make one that replaces File:Lake burley griffin from telstra Tower2.jpg.
Any selection that illustrates the article's sections and gives an overview of the various parts of the lake and its surroundings, .. is fine with me.
Some of the differences in size might come from the removal of the image sizes from thumbnails. Normally, one would use "thumb" and leave the scaling to the individual users preferences. -- User:Docu
All of these photos are pretty rotten. The larger pictures are really amateurish and taken from too far away, and the close-up ones don't show anything significant of the lake. They're of random stretches of water, and despite living near the lake for four years, I have no idea where they were specifically taken. There's so many good scenic vistas there, but even if we can't get new ones, we have the larger ones that were there before. I have no idea if the change you suggested caused the tiny images, but any image formatting that makes them look like crap in an ordinary browser is probably not good in a featured article. Rebecca (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can take some pictures at specific points you might like to nominate, perhaps waiting for a sunny day.--Grahame (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fantastic if you could. We just need a couple of good shots of the lake that aren't taken from somewhere Mt Ainslie, or closeups of some obscure point on the lake. The points I suggested might be useful, but anywhere where we can get a decent shot with a few landmarks would be great. Rebecca (talk) 04:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a map of images at commons that have been geocoded. Not too many based compared to the number of images available at commons and compared to the number of Wikipedia articles listed. -- User:Docu
Thanks for this - that's a great little resource. This image was, I'm sure of it, in the original nomination, and it's the sort of one we should have in the infobox. Rebecca (talk) 04:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a stack of photos on related articles that you can plunder. To be honest I don't care about picture quality much (or lack of pictures full stop) YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some pics at commons, some are a little dark, but there are a couple of cute pics of black swans feeding at the SIEV X memorial.--Grahame (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update All information accounted for. Some small snippets had to be killed off, but the majority were sources found or info tweaked to fit. Cites should all be consistent now. Remaining issues appear to be structure/posibbly missing hiostory and polishes. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of the reasons the layout is a bit "short" is because the layout is already discussed in terms of alterations to the original plan, which is all in the history. Reiterating it all could be a bit repetitive YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt refs added side by side YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Article looks much better, great work on recent improvements. Might be worthwhile for someone to stub the redlinks and make some of them blue with a couple WP:RS/WP:V sources:
  1. Immigration Bridge
  2. Acton Peninsula
  3. Royal Canberra Hospital
  4. Kings Avenue
  5. Sullivans Creek
  6. Jerrabomberra Creek
  7. Kingston Foreshores Development
  8. Kingston Powerhouse
  9. Regatta Point, Canberra
  10. Black Mountain Peninsula
  11. Yarralumla Yacht Club
Just a suggestion. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 08:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Immigration Bridge, Acton Peninsula, and Royal Canberra Hospital could all do with articles. Kings Avenue should be at Kings Avenue, Canberra. I think Sullivan's Creek probably warrants an article; raised quite a few engineering challenges in the early days and has been the source of pollution controversies more recently; not sure about Jerrabomberra Creek. The Kingston Foreshore link should be titled either Kingston Foreshore or Kingston Foreshore Redevelopment (actual names). Someone recently wrote an article on the Canberra Glassworks; I'm not sure if a seperate article could be written on the Powerhouse, so a piped link might be okay there. Regatta Point and Black Mountain Peninsula need articles; Yarralumla Yacht Club is probably non-notable. Rebecca (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All created. Except Regatta Point, it's just a thing inside Comm Park unless I am mistaken but some Canberran intervene as I don't know. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that was a quick response, awesome! Cirt (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They were mostly a bunch of mickey (monkey) mouse 3-liners. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I also think that the article is now up to scratch, and the 1c problems raised at the start of the review have been addressed. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is immensely improved over where we started out. It still has problems with not seperating history from describing the current state of the lake very well; the bridges and dam sections, despite being in the middle of the construction section, arent really about the construction, and some important lake features, like the Captain Cook Memorial, are only mentioned in the context of stuff-that-was-built-in-the-70s. This means that key landmarks adjoining the lake which aren't necessarily necessarily notable in a historical sense - like the National Capital Exhibition, or on the other side of the lake, that it practically fronts on to Russell Hill, are not mentioned. Speaking of things adjoining the lake, it mightn't hurt to work Blundell's Cottage into the early history somewhere. I still think a "features of the lake" section would make all this a lot more coherent. Rebecca (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other niggly things: The couple of sentences describing the criticism of the lake's construction are a light on detail, generalising and only use one source. "Later history and development of the lake into a city centrepiece" is an awkward title.

shortened YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of this is now solved. I'm still a bit unsure about the way the article mixes history and lake features, but in its current state, I think it works okay. Rebecca (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph - Government House and the newly-built Australian National University, on the southern and northern shores of the West Lake, both gained a waterfront. The National Museum was later built on the former site of the Royal Canberra Hospital. The public were encouraged to watch the controlled demolition of the hospital, but a girl was killed by flying debris, leading to criticism of the ACT Government. - jumps from 1966 to 1996 without really any implication that three decades has passed, and that the first half of these paragraph occurred chronologically before the previous paragraph in the article (which refers to the Captain Cook Memorial in 1970). I'd be surprised if there was really nothing that could be said about historical developments in a 30 year period there; either way the text needs to be clarified.

Clarified I think. hopefully rearranged better. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good job with this - nicely solved. Rebecca (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Lakeside Recreation" section still isn't stellar. Still of its use for major public events - Skyfire and Floriade are the big two that come to mind, but there are others. The water sports section is a little bit strange; no mention of paddle boating (seen on the lake every day), but windsurfing (which I never saw in four years) is popular? "Opportunities for swimming have decreased"? I'd like to see a source for it ever having been a particularly common activity.

Added info on Floriade and pedalboating, windsurfing is in the book; tweaked to say that swimming has often been banned, although it is already noted that the water is cold. But the book said that swimming occurred without specifying numbers YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely superb job. The only quibble left is the "...crowded area in terms of swimmers and vessels being in the water" - one thing Lake Burley Griffin will never be is crowded with swimmers! Rebecca (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The recent history section could do with a bit more work, too. One thing which I totally forgot to mention before was the huge controversy over the National Capital Authority's now-axed plans to develop the Albert Hall precinct, which could have seen developments right on the water. The Kingston redevelopment is missing mention of other urban renewal there; the Old Bus Depot Markets and the Canberra Glassworks. The intended expansion to demolish the somewhat historic Causeway neighbourhood next door might warrant a sentence. I think the weight placed on the Immigration Bridge proposal is possibly a bit high; it gets as much article time as the far more notable Kingston changes. Finally, "...luxury apartment complexes were built in the suburb of Kingston, turning into a upper-class area" is a bit strange; Kingston was already an upper-class area.

I thought Kingston was an industrial area.... please fix as required. Added into on powerhouse and glasworks YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Albert Hall mentioned. Help with some of thsi Kingston thing requested YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've done a really good job here. The one remaining issue here is the Albert Hall redevelopment; the significance of this is that it would have led to shops/bars/etc on the shores of the lake in the central area (and wasn't just heritage activists; was generally very controversial) - a couple more sentences here would be good (though the refs you've already got there should be enough to support it). As for Kingston; it's an upper-class suburb - it's where the pollies hang out at night when parliament's sitting, but there used to be a strip of industrial facilities along the edge of the lake, which is what's currently being redeveloped. Rebecca (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And as noted above, the article has a fair few redlinks. I've noted above that some could be delinked or piped to existing articles, but there's still a fair few that need writing.

All in all, it's hugely improved, and its already an excellent article. But it could still do with a bit more work to really bring it up to top standard. Rebecca (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah the tough workout will be good in the long run. Ideally people within a wikiproject know more so they can scrutinise more properly. WP:AUS is better than some others with 100% pile on supports of any old article, that's for sure. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work on the stubs (although I'm still not sure that at least the Yacht Club is notable), but could you please write an actual stub about the Royal Canberra Hospital? The Royal Canberra Hospital was a separate hospital serving Canberra along with the Woden Hospital for a quarter of a century before it closed and the Woden Hospital changed name; it really deserves an article of its own. That, and the one other slight quibble above, and I think we're done here. I'm really impressed with the job you've done here - I've been a damn hard critic with a fair bit of background knowledge, and you've turned out the sources and put together an article many times better than the one you started with. Rebecca (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RCH has its own now. Also, Albert Hall is a bit bigger. Found a bit more ref diversity. Tweaked a few more things. No pain, no gain. Thanks again for your help. A check for typos/copyedit/consistent formatting should suffice now. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Superb. No further objections, well deserving of featured status. I'm very impressed. Rebecca (talk) 07:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've gone through the article and corrected several typos, grammar problems, and general overlinking. The flow seems fine to me as currently written. --Laser brain (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, quality of references, comprehensiveness. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - all referencing/citations and MoS of a high standard. Well done, YellowMonkey! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Satisfied that it once again meets the FA ctieria. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Others have done the dabs, I have fixed the deadlink. Let's close and move on before some other government department changes its name and gives us more links to fix :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2009 (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[edit]

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 Marskell 09:40, 21 August 2009 [26].

Music of Nigeria[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Wikiprojects notified. Author inactive, < 10 edits this year

2005 promotion. The article has a strong lack of citations. The citations that are already there are too reliant on teritary sources, such as the Stern work, which is an introductory guide and only glosses over all aspects of African music. The article has also apparently attracted vanity edits; people adding examples of their favourite bands YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 07:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow why File:IKDairo.png and File:FemiKuti.jpg are GFDL but used with courtesy from a web site which claims copyright. The fair use rationales for the clips are very weak. "So-and-so is very popular." isn't an adequate reason. There should be critical analysis, explaining why this music is different from other genres or musicians and how this particular clip captures the style of music or the key features of the genre, etc. DrKiernan (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, quality of sources, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:39, 3 August 2009 (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 Marskell 09:40, 21 August 2009 [27].

History of Arizona[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Wikiprojects notified. Author inactive for 3 years

2005 promotion. The article has a strong lack of citations. Infoplease is not a relibale source YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 07:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Limited selection of sources has produced an unbalanced selection of information that ignores many important political and demographic events in Arizona's history. Some examples of this are:
    1. Except for a short mention in the "Recent events" section showing authorization of the Central Arizona Project, the article completely ignores the long running battles between Arizona and California over Colorado River water. As the dominate political issue in Arizona's history (with the possible exception of the fight for statehood), this issue deserves better mention.
    2. There is no mention of the post-World War II immigration to the state that changed Arizona from a largely rural population with strong Democratic leaning to a Republican majority state with the population clustered in the state's urban areas.
    3. Selection of listed political leaders outside the "Recent events" section shows a strong emphasis on national instead of state-wide impact. While Barry Goldwater and Sandra Day O'Connor are have had clear impact at the national level, persons such as Carl Hayden, Ernest McFarland, and George W. P. Hunt have been more important to the development of Arizona.
    4. There is no mention of the movement of the capital from Fort Whipple to Prescott, then to Tucson, back to Prescott, and finally to Phoenix.
This problem would be best addressed by incorporating material from one or two additional historians to help minimize the personal biases of any one author. --Allen3 talk 09:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unfortunately, this is a wide miss. The "history" stops dead at the time the sources were published, in the mid-nineties. Hence, not a fart about Arizona's most active period beginning with the massive influx of residents in the late nineties through 2005 or 2006. There are many influential sources missing. Even if the whole thing was cited, it's poorly researched. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Massively under-cited, with many paragraphs having no citations at all. As stated by the two previous reviewers, the article seems to cherry pick (probably unintentionally) portions of Arizona history. The last section ends at an odd spot because of when the article was promoted. There's no information about the last three years of Arizona history, which have seen a presidential candidacy and a governor promoted to a presidential cabinet position. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, comprehensiveness, quality of research. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per my comments above. JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. I've looked into obtaining books to work on this, but it's a massive project and it's not clear what the best sources are. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 03:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per criteria concerns, particularly the part about recent history. Too much work to fix this one. Eubulides (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per JKBrooks85, Eubulides and Andy Walsh. No one is working on the article. No serious edits since the FAR nomination. —mattisse (Talk) 15:47, 17 August 2009 (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 Marskell 09:40, 21 August 2009 [28].

Triumph of the Will[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

author retired. WikiProjects notified


Article about the famous Nazi propaganda film. This article fails 1c because it has unsourced sections, and it fails the need for high-quality sources. As it was one of the most famous propaganda films of all time, it should use academic references, but most of the citations are to websites. Many of the citation websites are dead, and some of the sources are questionable, eg 1971films.com redirects to a broken youtube, Butcher is a geocities website, historyplace and so on YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 14:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whew, this is an old Featured Article! Looks like it was promoted around December 2005. I agree with YellowMonkey's review. The "References" section mentions some useful references, but readers don't know which parts of the article body the references are tied to, if at all. The footnotes that are tied to the article body could be a lot better; since this is an old and significant film, there should be greater focus on print resources. This can't be done overnight, though brave souls are welcome to try. This is an excellent page of resources to use as references. We should also consider the need to draw upon German-language resources since German academics have surely commented on this film of their country's origin. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 07:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, reliable sources, quality of research, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 00:46, 30 July 2009 (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 Marskell 09:40, 21 August 2009 [29].

Microsoft Data Access Components[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

WikiProjects notified

This article was passed almost four years ago and a large majority of the paragraphs have no citations at all. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 15:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. This is for WP:ACCESSIBILITY to the visually impaired. Eubulides (talk)

My opinion is it fails on citations straight out, it appears quite a few of the references that are used are dead as well (or as least for me). Also there is only one image there should be quite a few more. Personal i say it might fail GA never mind FA. The table has no references to where the information has come from i am pretty sure it would be on microsoft website somewhere. Other than them i would say it is of FA status, but i am not going to review it throughly because of the above problems.--Andy (talk - contrib) 15:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just reviewed the sources and maybe 3-10 of them are possible unrealible well 2 are certainly are as they are blogs.--Andy (talk - contrib) 18:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, reliable sources, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 00:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:27, 21 August 2009 [30].

Blitzkrieg[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified: Piotrus, Dapi89, WikiProject Germany and WP:MILHIST

The article fails the featured article criterion in several ways. The lead is excessively long and does not summaries the article (2a), several sections lack citations (1c) and I also find the structure weird. How can an article about a military doctrine start with a section called "Interwar years"? --Peter Andersen (talk) 06:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 07:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already made some (I hope acceptable) changes. The intro has been shortened and its text moved to a more appropriate place. If the editors involved would like to add their citation needed tags to the text that requires citations I'll see what I can do to cover them and save the article from losing FA. Dapi89 (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Can you please write some alt text too? You can visit "alt text" in the toolbox at the upper right hand corner of this subpage, to see what's missing. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that alt text has been written, thanks; but it still needs some work. The alt text typically makes claims about images that cannot be immediately verified by non-experts. For example, a non-expert can't look at the image and tell that it's a Jagdpanther. Generally speaking, all the proper names should be removed from the alt text. (That info should appear in captions.) For more, please see WP:ALT #What not to specify. Eubulides (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images The fair use rationale for File:PanzerInfantryAdvance.jpg is too weak; there must be free-use images of tanks available. File:Il2 sturmovik.jpg: licensing may be invalid as there is no information on first publication or date of the image. DrKiernan (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Dapi89: The "Limitations and countermeasures" and "Operations in history" sections are largely uncited. This should be dealt with. But first of I'm more concerned about structure and the actual content. I'm not convinced that the present structure is ideal. I'm thinking something like:

  • What is blitzkrieg
  • Development of blitzkrieg
  • Use of blitzkrieg
  • Legacy

Comments?--Peter Andersen (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well I'll ry to introduce a section entitled "the popular perception of Blitzkrieg" first. And see if that gives some initial context. Dapi89 (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'd second the need for a "Legacy" section. So many things both in the military world and out of it have been derived from the Blitzkrieg tactic and from the name itself. The blitz in American football might be one of the best-known examples in the United States. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've written a better intro, introduced what Blitzkrieg is, added the cites. I have yet to fix the captions or write a legacy section for which I will need more time. Dapi89 (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The entire article is rather hopeless. I like Peter Andersens structural layout. Would probably make it much more readable, not to metion relevant. My current critizism of the article:
1. In general, the article is one long critizism of the concept of Blitzkrieg, it's proponents and the armed forces of WW2 in general.
2. The lead suggests, that German military operations were more or less accidental - without aim or purpose and hopelessly uncoordinated. It then shortly describes Blitzkrieg (with one source - an excerpt from one page in one book!!!) and then proceeds to a lengthy critizism of the blitzkrieg interpretation (the section is 4-5 times larger than the subject of it's critizism!). Much of that ctitizism is repeated in the bottom, under "myths and realities".
3. "Alledged beginning of "Blitzkrieg"" - What kind of headline is that? Words like "alledged" are hardly needed. This segment develops into a critizism of Fuller and especially B.L. Hart. I see little relevance of BLH's manipulations in this segment.
4. "Guderian in the Wehrmacht" - What? Who is Guderian, and what is he doing in the Wehtmacht (or more interestingly - what did he do OUTSIDE the wehrmacht)? Guderian although mentioned earlier (rather out of context BTW), is referred to as a person everybody knows. The brief description of him hardly helps very much. After all, he is percieved by many, as a very important person in the development of armoured warfare. Instead, the sement goes on to critizise Guderian for HIS critizism of other German generals (i.e. Beck). I don't know what that entire section is there for. It suggests that Guderian lies, and that Beck is some overlooked person in the development in Armoured warfare. I only know of Guderians characteristic of Beck in this regard - but if anyone can enlighten us, please do so (in the regard that Guderian is wrong about Beck). Under all circumstances, it has no purpose in an article on Blitzkrieg, as it involves, at best, petty rivalry, jealousy or animosity between two generals. (From here on, the article more and more takes the form of a book review).
5. The next section "methods of operations" seems to be the strongest element of the article. The only problem is the mentioning of Soviet soldiers starving to death as germa POWs. While the matter is surely serious, it has no relevance in an article on Blitzkrieg.
6. The segment about Limitations and countermeasures are also rather strong - if it wasn't for the rest of the articles insistence that there is no such thing as a Blitzkrieg. What influence does environment have on a non-existing doctrine? What influence does air superiority have on a non-existing doctrine? What countermeasures can be employed against a non-existing doctrine? Does logistics really matter to a non-existing doctrine? What I'm trying to say is, that if the article insists on Blitzkrieg being fictional or, at best accidental, then it is completely irrelevant, what circumstances were present or what countermeasures could be employed.
7. The historical operations are a very relevant subject. But it's riddled with oddities. First of all, it claims that Poland wasn't an example of Blitzkrieg. If not, why mention it? That particular subject also develops into a dubious analysis about the Germans being able to win, if the war was slightly prolonged. Regarding France, this statement is made: "Overall, Yellow succeeded beyond almost anyone's wildest dreams, despite the claim that the Allies had 4,000 armored vehicles and the Germans 2,200, and the Allied tanks were often superior in armour and caliber of cannon." - Yellow succeedes "despite the claim"? Despite a claim? How can anything succeed despite a claim? Did the allies have armoured superiority or not? I think this should be examined closer - or perhaps change "claim" to "fact". It goes on: "the "Blitzkrieg Myth" was more palatable for public consumption than the notion that they had simply been outfought" - Is there a difference? Isn't the appliance of Blitzkrieg supposed to outfight your enemy? Regarding the Soviet union, the segment hardly mentions blitzkrieg or blitzkrieg-related words. It's more a brief description of the war in the east until 1944. This is also the case regarding the western battles 1944-45.
8. Then comes a really horrendous segment - the "myths"-segment. First of all the "myths and realities"-wording it wierd. Second, it's first part (oppossition) sounds like an excerpt from a book-report on the subject. Third - BLH fabricated his involvement in the development of a theory that didn't exist! Is that a critizism? If so, of who/what? Again, it is claimed, that the Germans had little grasp of what they were doing (though this time not limited by a time frame, as in the lead - another flaw). Even if there wasn't a "coherent theory" (who decides?) several German generals had a pretty good idea of what they were supposed to do - this includes both the strategical, operational and tactical level (from Manstein, over Guderian to Rommel - and many others). I'm not an expert and I've never read any of the books in this segment - but it seems that the authors of the references material doesn't consider that German doctrine or espirit du corps (in lack of better words) prescribed "thinking on your feet" - a de-centralized command structure. And Blitzkrieg was developed in that spirit - not so much as a manual to be distibuted. Then the article moves on to critizise the lack of the word "blitzkrieg" in german pre-war litterature. This can hardly be a critizism of Blitzkrieg as a concept. Regarding Blitzkrieg economics, the article states that Hitler reduced the army because he wanted to win the war in the factories. It is sourced, so there's nothing to do there. I would however, argue that Hitler would not do what he did, to win the war in the factories. First of all, Germany wasn't interested in a winter campaign. There would be little reason to remain mobilized, if you don't think you want to fight. More importantly, though, Hitler still believed he could talk the French and Britis out of it (if not, he surely made a big mistake, as French and British blocades kept him from vital ressources). Anyway, the sourced analysis seems deeply flawed or, at least, incomplete. Then the article tries to tear down the Wehrmacht as a Blitzkrieg force. The analysis is a listing of facts that doesn't try to address the issue, really. The idea with Blitzkrieg is not to have a larger, armoured/mechanized army than your enemy, as this segment indirectly argues, but to employ this, smaller force, in another way that before. This is the whole idea in the Schwerpunkt concept. Apparantly, once you reach 40, you're no longer able to fight a blitzkrieg. "Legend" becomes an argument against reality. The allies had more motorized vehicles than the Germans. How is that counter-blitzkrieg? The rest of this segment is a general critizism of... I guess the French, as they were soundly defeated by a semi-modern army, consisting of what must be described as militia-forces, equipped with inferiour weapons, using a doctrine developed in the late 1800s (as the next paragraps boldly establishes). What doctrine did the French use? Thou must not kill? Then there's the segment "was Blitzkrieg new?" - who asked that question? It consists of two paragraphs that more or less repeat each other. And the fact that Germany prefers short decisive campaigns hardly disables Blitzkrieg as concept (BTW - what nations prefer drawn-out indecisive campaigns?) "It was just that they could not generaily manage to achieve short-order victories in First World War conditions." Oh. And how is that a critizism or rejection of Blitzkrieg? Blitzkrieg was developed to avoid fighting another WW1. "What made the difference, transforming the stalemate of the First World War into tremendous initial operational and strategic success in the Second, was partly the employment of a relatively small number of mechanized divisions, most importantly the Panzer divisions, and the support of an exceptionally powerful air force." But isn't that EXACTLY what Blitzkrieg is about?
Those were some of the problems with the article, as I see them. This article should have it's FA status removed immideately. I'd rate it as a B article at best--Nwinther (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're analysis is appalling. You obviously don't under stand the subject, so I'm not going into here. Blitzkrieg didn't exist, the campaigns were improvised up until the attack on the Soviet Union. The operational histories are important to demonstrate how much of the classic interpretation was employed in subsequent campaigns.
If you bothered to follow the citations, almost every source does not except the Blitzkrieg myth - most of it comes from a German historian - Karl-Heinz Frieser, among others Richard Overy - heavy weights.
Your rant has not addressed anything useful. I particularly take issue with your misinterpreation of the German fighting style - namely And the fact that Germany prefers short decisive campaigns hardly disables Blitzkrieg as concept. The Germans WERE NOT preparing for a Blitzkrieg war in 1933-39 - THATS THE POINT.
The rest of it is just speculative rubbish which has been exposed as myth for a good 30 years. Dapi89 (talk) 13:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What subject don't I understand? I would like to know what you understand by the word "improvise" and how FoF was more improvized than Barbarossa. I realize, that the sources don't accept Blitzkrieg, but I'm not sure what to make of it. Especially in the wordings provided, such as "myths and reality". One could argue that Blitzkrieg was "the type of operational warfare employed by the German army in the years 1940-1942" (and btw the 6-days-war). The lack of some published manual doens't, to me anyway, seem as a valid premise to dismiss blitzkrieg on. The sources seem to define a doctrine existant, only when the entire army and the national economy is set up accordingly. The timeframe whitin Blitzkrieg was developed taken into account, suggests that it would be natural for only the armoured forces to be "Blitzkrieg-ized". If one looks as the armoured divisions actions in FoF and later, they seem to have operated by a rather agreed-upon method, if not a doctrine. Blitzkrieg was perhaps in its infancy in 1939, but some concepts that were to be developed (or survive) into Blitzkrieg were already employed, mainly the massing of armour and coordination with dive bombers. Improvisation, I believe, is very much within the Blitzkrieg concept. Why you take issue with "And the fact that Germany prefers short decisive campaigns hardly disables Blitzkrieg as concept" I can't understand. That the Germans were not preparing for blitzkrieg in 1933 can hardly be an argument against the doctrines being (besides, it was still being developed in those years). German mobilization was not only a question of military doctrine - but more that of economic doctrine. German economy had other considerations than how the next war might be fought. What "rest" are you refering to (your last line)? Most of my points aren't regarding the Blitzkrieg-denial, but the structure and composition of the article. I find it odd you hardly address ANY of my points, like the almost complete lack of presentation of Guderian, references to dying soviet POW's, the lengthy critizism of "classic" Blitzkrieg as concept compared to the very brief definition of Blitzkrieg (taken from a single page in a single book) - that is sadly as close as the article gets on atually trying to describe Blitzkrieg - myth or otherwise. My "rant" points to a series of problems in the article, that has to be addressed - from my POV. I'm not sure what you mean by "anything useful".--Nwinther (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find it odd you hardly address ANY of my points - because they are already dealt with in the article. With the exception of James Corum, who has been thrashed over this, there is hardly any worthy historian that accepts Blitzkrieg as a coherent doctrine. In Poland it was the infantry and artillery that won the campaign. The initial plan for France was nothing more than a land grab. It only involved into a risky pincer plan later on. And even then it relied far more on what the Allies did (or did not as was the case) do than what the Germans did.
As for operational art it was not one. The Germans practised operational improvisation which handed down operational level responsibility to Division, much less Corps commanders. This is NOT an operational system. It is a tactical method of operating which is pretends to be operational. The scope of the forces involved has enabled Blitzkrieg to be passed off as such. Such a method works only against an enemy that does not know what its doing, which is why it failed after 1941.
Using the word doctrine when dealing with Blitzkrieg is dangerous. It was not a doctrine. The points you are trying to raise about the economy have already been raised in the article and explains itself. Interestingly enough most of the sources these guys use are German. And Karl-Heinz Frieser has taken the lead in debunking the Blitzkrieg myth.
Why you take issue with "And the fact that Germany prefers short decisive campaigns hardly disables Blitzkrieg as concept" I can't understand. That the Germans were not preparing for blitzkrieg in 1933 can hardly be an argument against the doctrines being (besides, it was still being developed in those years). German mobilization was not only a question of military doctrine - but more that of economic doctrine. German economy had other considerations than how the next war might be fought. ? Of course it can! Jeez. If the Germans were not streamlining their economy to fight a short war, but instead were preparing for an all out war, it hardly makes sense they would be developing a strategy for achieving their total aims based on a doctrine of short sharp conflicts. Dapi89 (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I also find the structure of the article odd. There is not a straightforward history of the origins of the word (that could include any alternative explanations) and followed by its history. Rather the headings and their order do not follow a typical encyclopedia format:

  • What is Blitzkrieg?
  • Classic interpretation of "Blitzkrieg"
  • Problems with the interpretation
  • Alleged beginning of "Blitzkrieg"
  • Development of German tactical methods
  • Alleged foreign influence
  • Britian
  • France
  • Russia
  • Guderian in the Wehrmacht
  • Guderian's armored concept
  • Spanish Civil War
  • Methods of operations (with subheadings)
  • Limitations and countermeasures (with subheadings)
  • Operations in history (with subheadings)
  • "Blitzkrieg": Myths and Realities
  • Opposition to the existence of a "Blitzkrieg" theory
  • The Myth of the Blitzkrieg Economic
  • The Wehrmacht: A "Blitzkrieg" armed force?
  • Was "Blitzkrieg" new?
I would favor the outline suggested by Peter Andersen above as allowing a clear presentation of the information in reasonably chronological order. "Alleged beginning of "Blitzkrieg" gives the reader the idea than there are few accepted facts about its origin. The "Blitzkrieg": Myths and Realities" section seems like it could be original reasearch. Also, the headings violate the MoS guideline to avoid repeating the title of the article in the headings. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, structure, original research. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 11:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. The idea that blitzkrieg was a post hoc myth or legend is well-supported among reliable sources, but the current article gives the idea too much weight and veers off into advocacy of it. Agree with comments re organization. The alt text problems remain. In rereading the article, I noticed a major topic missing: what happens after blitzkrieg? E.g., resistance, relationship to Nazi planning for extermination of the Jews and others, etc. Eubulides (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Per the above concerns, including Eubulides's comments. Although the lede is relatively clear, there seems to me an intermingling in the article body of the history, origination etc. of the term "Blitzkrieg" and the history, origination etc. of the military tactic retrospectively labelled "Blitzkrieg" in a particular war, but actually "an old method of fast-paced encirclement battles using new technology". —Mattisse (Talk) 16:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:27, 21 August 2009 [31].

Whitstable[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified Epbr123 major contibutor and nominator.

I have read this article a couple of times, and have each time been disconcerted by some of the inaccurate claims, such as Whitstable having the world's first passenger railway. I have also felt that aspects of the town have been left out (such as Tankerton/Whitstable Castle), and that the prose was rather hurried and choppy. The history comes in rushed bullet points (By 1413, the three manors had combined, forming the Whitstaple manor, and had been sold to a religious foundation in Essex. In the 1500s, the manor was seized by King Henry VIII during his suppression of the church, and was given back to the nobility. In 1574, a Royal Patent was granted to the manor owner for the fishing of its oyster beds. In the same year, the lands at Tankerton were incorporated into the manor. A copperas works was established at Tankerton in 1588 which operated until about 1830.[5] By 1610, the name Whitstaple had become Whitstable.) and largely ends in 1793, whereupon we get the history of the railway company rather than the town. I note that there are a couple of comments left on the talk page with similar concerns.

So I feel the article fails:

1 (a) as it is not well-written

1 (b) as it is not comprehensive

1 (c) as there are sections unreferenced, and the bulk of the railway claims are sourced to a fan site - http://www.crabandwinkle.org/About_us.htm

I had considered tidying it up, but I feel there is too much work to be done in the history section to hold my time. SilkTork *YES! 21:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Images (including infobox image) need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article some copy editing/cleanup. For example, under "Education":

  • there are six external links in the body of the article to The Community College Whitstable
  • "Canterbury College @ Whitstable is a branch of Canterbury College in Whitstable town centre which provides a range of short information technology courses to adults."
  • "The Community College Whitstable will be starting their school rebuild as part of the Building Schools for the Future program as part of the Governments plan to rebuild all secondary schools in the United Kingdom within the next ten years." (next ten years from when?) (This is also an example of the generally poor prose.)
  • Question: Do the references cover the 1c requirement, as most seem to be government and news websites? All the historical references are referenced by a time line provided by the city council website. Is it not possible to reference the work of historians?
  • Also, references need updating, as many were 404 errors. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, reliable sources, comprehensiveness, quality of research, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above concerns. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:27, 21 August 2009 [32].

Black Seminoles[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified Austinbirdman (major contibutor) Kitch (nominator), Wikiprojects: Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, Wikipedia:WikiProject Oklahoma, Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora

  • Concerns: Criteria 1a, 1b, 1c, 3
  • A 2005 promotion that is sparsely cited, per criteria FA criteria 1C. The article is somewhat confusingly organized and disjointed, with clumps of history mixed with a little bit of description of the Black Seminoles themselves. There is not a clear definition of who they are. One source says "The Black Seminoles are a small offshoot of the Gullah who escaped from the rice plantations in South Carolina and Georgia." http://www.yale.edu/glc/gullah/07.htm
  • The article does not seem comprehensive. It mentions many bits of information but does not unify into a cohesive whole.

Example: "The community in Nacimiento, Coahuila, persists on lands adjacent to the Kickapoo tribe. Yet another Black Seminole community resides half a continent away on Andros Island in the Bahamas. Here refugees from 19th-century Florida wars found a sanctuary from American enslavement." This paragraph does not relate well to the rest of the section.

  • Other concerns are prose issues, choppy, short paragraphs and failure to follow WP:LEAD.
  • "See also" needs pruning or removal.

—Mattisse (Talk) 17:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with all the above concerns, and I wish I could overhaul it myself right now. It might take me a few weeks to get to if I can... --Moni3 (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, comprehensiveness , prose, lead. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 03:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist for lack of inline citations. JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per the problems outlined above. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:28, 17 August 2009 [33].

BBC television drama[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified: Angmering, WikiProject England, WikiProject BBC

2005 promotion. Major concern is lack of citations, and other concerns include prose, especially in "The modern era" section, and comprehensiveness; cursory Google searches turn up several potential sources of information, such as this, this, and this collection of books. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I created this article back in the day, but I agree that it is nowhere near the modern featured article standards. I am afraid that I don't really have the time to improve it at the moment, so unless someone else is willing to take on the task, I doubt it will be salvageable. A shame, but I think it's too nebulous a topic to make a Wikipedia article, really, on reflection. Nobody would be screaming out for it to be created if it didn't exist. Angmering (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, comprehensiveness , prose. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Per my above concerns. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per the expressed concerns. Plus no one has worked on the article for quite awhile and there is no sign anyone is going to. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per concerns and lack of progress toward FA status. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 03:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:28, 17 August 2009 [34].

Sikhism[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

I would like it if this article was (still) of featured-article quality, but I think that it is lacking in some featured-article criteria. E.g.:

  • (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
Portions such as "the Sikh Nation/Community" and "Basing its conclusions on a study of the old handwritten copies of the Dasam Granth preserved at Sri Takht Sahib at Patna and in other Sikh gurudwaras, this report affirmed that the Holy Volume was compiled at Anandpur Sahib in 1698[3] ." appear to have been copied and pasted into the article from outside sources.
  • (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
The history section gives a decent overview of Sikh history through the time of the Gurus (1708), but then gives less than a dozen sentences on the period up through the partition of India (1947) and stops after Operation Blue Star (1984). This is not comprehensive, even for an overview in a main article on a topic.
  • (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section that lists these sources, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;
It has tags for citations.

These are emblematic of the problems with composition and focus for this article, but are not exhaustive of its shortcomings. This is certainly better than most Wikipedia articles, but I do not think that it is fair to say that it is of featured article quality. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 06:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


It was much better around the time it was featured: [35]. Unfortunately, it appears as if it's not been that greatly looked after since. Regarding the history section - not much has changed regarding the "religion" since the beginning of the 20th Century. I think a lot of the more recent stuff is related more to Sikh people than the Sikh religion (and I think this is a valid distinction). 93.95.122.2 (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, comprehensiveness , prose, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 03:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above concerns and no apparent attempts to bring this back to FA status. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. The concerns are valid, and no work has been done to address them. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:28, 17 August 2009 [36].

Voter turnout[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

User:SimonP notified

I believe this article no longer meets the following criteria:

  • 1(a) - There is some of unnecessary self-reference in the article (e.g., "Much of the above analysis is predicated on voter turnout..."), as well as some commentary (e.g., "Confusingly, some of the factors..."). Additionally, some of the writing just doesn't flow or is in poor tone/style. For example, I was lost by the section "The significance of voter turnout", which to me reads as "X, for example, x. Y, for example, y. Z, for instance, z." Also, some time-specific words (like recently) that are probably in fact four years old. (Not a comprehensive list of prose issues.)
  • 1(b) - this article is a textbook example of systemic bias: practically an entire paragraph of the lead is about US voter turnout, while there is no mention of the entire continent of Africa whatsoever within the entire article.
  • 1(c) - there are many sections that are totally unreferenced. Additionally, there are some weasel-words or non-NPOV words (like "However", "Several scholars have noted", "such-and-such is believed to be..." To be honest, I think this is the biggest issue.
  • 2(a) - not a huge issue, but the lead could be a lot better. It doesn't really summarize the contents of the article that well, and, as previously stated, the long example of US voter turnout is inappropriate (and not particularly informative, either).

Perhaps I'm being nitpicky, but I think that this is probably one of those articles that passed FAC in 2005 but doesn't pass now.– DroEsperanto(t / c) 15:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source of the data in File:Turnout.png should be specified. DrKiernan (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images and the equation all need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of statements given as fact but not sourced. Some are confusing in their wording. Examples:
"The salience of an election, the effect that a vote will have on policy, and its proportionality, how closely the result reflects the will of the people, are two structural factors that also likely have important effects on turnout."
"Wealth and literacy have some effect on turnout, but are not reliable measures. Countries such as Angola and Ethiopia have long had high turnouts, but so have the wealthy states of Europe. The United Nations Human Development Index shows some correlation between higher standards of living and higher turnout."
"Some nations thus have rules that render an election invalid if too few people vote, such as Serbia, where three successive presidential elections were rendered invalid in 2003."
"However, socioeconomic factors significantly affect whether or not individuals may develop such habits. The most important socioeconomic factor in voter turnout is education. The more educated a person is, the more likely he or she is to vote, even when controlled for other factors such as income and class that are closely associated with education level. Income has some effect independently: wealthier people are more likely to vote, regardless of their educational background."

—Mattisse (Talk) 20:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, prose, systematic (geographic bias),lead. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 03:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above concerns; doesn't look like anyone has been working on this. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. The article does a pretty good job of giving an international approach to the subject, but I'm concerned about the low number of citations, particularly with the potentially controversial nature of portions of this topic. Some paragraphs are uncited, even some that contain information that might be challenged by a reader. If anyone is interested in improving the article, I'll tag it up. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:28, 17 August 2009 [37].

Pneumonia[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

  1. Large sections of this article remain unreferenced.
  2. Management section needs more details ( different treatments for different subgroups )
  3. No section on the social implications such as economics
  4. Public health measures

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Referencing is inadequate (in my opinion, not even adequate for GA standard). The x-ray in the "Investigations" section looks more like a pleural effusion rather than pneumonia. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, comprehensiveness, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 00:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per Doc James. Grossly inadequate citations. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 03:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. The lack of citations is the biggest concern. It'd take a lot of work to fix that. Eubulides (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Agree --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above concerns. No one is working on the article. It is not being actively edited. —mattisse (Talk) 17:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Raul654 21:33, 13 August 2009 [38].

Vancouver[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified: Portal talk:Vancouver, Portal talk:Canada, Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board, ‎Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities, User talk:Emarsee, User talk:Bobanny.

At its current state it's neither well-written, comprehensive or well-researched. Its lead has 7 paragraphs, the media and to a large extent Transportation section are both unsourced. Demographics are a mess and many sections have "citation needed" templates. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 10:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Comment: Also at least 6 refs are dead. [39] Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 08:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for identifying these problems. I've started to fix some of them - reduced the number of paragraphs in the lead, moved some material that didn't fit in the "Demographics" section. I will continue working through the article and fixing problems as I spot them. In the meantime, any further specifics you can give would be most useful. Sunray (talk) 07:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, structure, comprehensiveness. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)FAQ?[reply]
  • Delist needs a lot of work. The stubby paragraphs in Demographics could be conflated, and "According to Statistics Canada, Vancouver is the least obese metropolitan area in Canada, with only 11.7% of the population obese." doesn't seem to be well placed, although I don't see any "Health" section to transfer it to. There are unsourced mini-sections that should be merged into the parent sections. What makes http://www.vancouverhistory.ca/chronology1958.htm a reliable source; I'm sure there are better ones out there. http://www.vancouver.com/about_us/ seems to be questionable as well. The prose isn't bad, although it's not "brilliant". "even amongst the artists themselves" ("amongst" is unnecessarily archaic); "Vancouver has over 1,298 hectares (3,200 acres) of parks, with Stanley Park being the largest at 404 hectares (1,000 acres)." (the noun + -ing problem, and "with" is usually a bad logical connector anyway); "The diverse ethnic make-up of Vancouver's population supports a rich range of multicultural media." ("rich" is unnecessary flourishing language ("diverse" says it all), and as opposed to what? no citation either). In fact, the entire Media section is unsourced, and needs a rewrite. The primary problem is citations (1c), followed by organization in prose and article structure (1a and 2b). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delist. I don't see any problems identified above that some sustained editing couldn't fix. City articles need a great deal of patrolling because so many people want to add their little factoid. It is evident that the article hasn't been tightly enough patrolled and has suffered somewhat. How about giving the regular page editors some time to work on the problems? A comprehensive list of issues needing attention would be most helpful. In any case, I've begun working on it and will enlist others to join in. Sunray (talk) 07:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's only been two days since the FARC segment was started; I wouldn't imagine this would be closed anytime soon. As long as you are working, they won't close this. As for a comprehensive list, I'll see what I can do in the next few days. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've contacted some of the main editors of the article. If there is some support for an editing blitz we should be able to get this puppy into shape! Sunray (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Work automatically slows down teh clock YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per FA criteria concerns, as well as comments by Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) and by Aaroncrick (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delist (yet, anyway). Somehow few people seemed to notice the article was up for review - but are now working on it. The concerns can likely be addressed within a week. There are about 15 <citation needed> tags - nearly ALL of which were added just today. None of these appear to be in dispute, they just need to have a source added (such as a source that says what nearly everyone knows - that "the city is named after George Vancouver") --JimWae (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, Even though there finally appears to be some action on the article, it's in such a bad state I can't imagine all issues being fixed for a while yet. Also the page is 111 kilobytes long and yes, New York City (133 kilobytes) amongst others are longer, but shouldn't sections only include important information with the rest placed into a specific article on that particular topic? In saying this, the Media section and Fitness and health sub-section need expansion and refs. Do we really need two panoramas? I suggest keeping the image taken during the day, and deleting the one taken at night, but that's just my opinion. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 03:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Large cities that have received FA status tend to have relatively large sizes. Comparably-sized cities clock in at about the same length (e.g., Belgrade (105 kb), Manchester (128 kb), Minneapolis (112 kb) and Seattle (126 kb). Not that that is justification for sloppiness. I would anticipate that we will be cutting it down considerably in the course of this review.
I agree that we don't need two panoramas. Of the two, the night scene is a featured picture and has considerable support from the page editors. I removed the second panorama. Sunray (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:Featured article statistics. The prose size is what counts, although obviously if book sources are used they take up less space and are more user friendly from the POV of download time. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article's prose size is 50 kb. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a comparison, Detroit is 52 kb, New York City is 51 kb, Manchester is 48 kb, Boston is 47 kb, Houston is 45 kb Cleveland, Ohio is 45 kb, Minneapolis is 38 kb and Belgrade is 38 kb. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think everyone involved here should look at the bigger picture. Vancouver is the host city to the 2010 Winter Olympics in 6 months. Over the past 6 months we have seen a decline in the quality of the article due to its increasing popularity. If internet browsing history is any indication of trends on Wikipedia, Vancouver will be the most visited article for January and February in 2010. Other than a single post on the talk page, none of the major editors or its corresponding WikiProject were notified; I mean unless you had the talk page on watch and were checking every day you'd miss it and if you're anything like the many long time editors that were involved in its featured article process, you'd know they edit over a broad spectrum of hundreds of articles. It is likely that writers and editors of the various related WikiProjects such as WikiProject Vancouver, and WikiProject Canada, will be interested to clear this article up in time for the Olympics. The technical problems such as only 6 dead references out of 152 wouldn't take it very long would it? Long sections can be shortened and moved to sub articles in relative ease. Personally I think this nomination should be removed and in a few months time no motions to improve this article are well under way, then you have reasonable cause. I also believe Wikipedia has been long striving to place itself as a usable and viable resource for knowledge and information, and that removing this article as a featured article and making no attempts to improve it would be showing of how Wikipedia is not any of those things. Seems foolish to me to spend all this time analyzing a couple references when a stronger effort could be made to get people to improve the article or do it yourself. Inputting and review the meta data for the references seems like an equal amount of work than removing the references since most of them are news links that would be impossible to replace. Mkdwtalk 10:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Fair enough, but the article probably would even pass a GAN in its current state. Also 7 links point to disambiguation pages [40]. If anyone has knowledge of the area, it might also provide useful to create articles that have red links. Have a looks at other FA on cities and see how this article compares. FA Cities You'll probably notice that the majority of them would also more than likely fail FAC but at least it gives an idea of structure. Don't take much notice on articles such as Kochi, India as they could soon become FARs. Possibly check out the Dhaka article. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 10:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Citation needed tags from December 2008 and March 2009. Short paragraphs should be merged. External jumps should be removed or formatted as references. Dubious notability/relevance of some portions, such as Frisbee in the sports section, which indicate that the article is off-focus in parts. DrKiernan (talk) 11:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist. There are a large number of citation-needed tags, and the entire media section is uncited. I also echo DrKiernan's concerns about coverage. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hold, please This article obviously needs work, but there is active work going on, and this FAR shouldn't be closed yet. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason the history stops at 1930, more or less? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Raul654 21:33, 13 August 2009 [41].

Eurovision Song Contest[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified: User talk:Eurosong, User talk:Jess Cully, User talk:AxG, ‎Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Europe, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision.

FA from 2006, referencing/1c issues throughout. Lots of unsourced info, wholly unreferenced paragraphs and subsections, in addition to multiple violations of WP:NOR. Cirt (talk) 09:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. Since the article was featured, it has been subject to a lot of unreferenced - and sometimes P.O.V - additions. I have been meaning to go through it and clean it up, but haven't yet got around to it. Thanks for the nudge: I shall do this in the coming week or so. Of course, Jess and AxG are welcome to share the task! :) EuroSong talk 10:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks, keep us posted. :) Cirt (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to bring this up this weekend at WT:EURO, you have only just beat me to it. I agree that the article does not meet FA at present and needs a complete review. I will bring up the topic of reliable sourcing again however after an article was quick failed GA for containing ESCToday and Okiotimes sources, something that effects this page as well. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is something strange going on with the esctoday and oiko refs. It isn't clear if they should or should not be used and there hasn't been enough input in the discussions started. Esctoday IMO is a lot more reliable than oiko, but i think we should avoid using them if possible for this page in the meantime unless there is a concrete consensus. (Hint for someone to establish one) Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, quality of references, POV. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't what needs to be fixed try to be addressed first instead of delisting? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I have done lots of work on the article since the FAR was initiated: I just have not had time to clean up a couple more things and then write a comment here about it! EuroSong talk 16:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: References are in a mixture of styles - not consistent. Some do not support stated facts. The prose style is not good enough for current FA standard. Many of the cites do not meet the higher FA standards, certainly not blogs, or fan sites.
    • Ref #3 (http://english.aljazeera.net/} does not support number of viewers, it just redirects to the frontpage of Al Jazeera.
    • Ref #30 redirects here {http://www.ukraine-observer.com/articles/208/655}
    • Ref #28 {http://www.doteurovision.com/1993/green.htm} returns 404
    • Ref #23 cites a Swedish ESC fan site, surely the official Swedish viewing figures should be sought out?
    • Ref #27 is to a private tourist accomodation booking aggregator, not a RS
    • Ref #29 cites various sources - why not get the information from Finnish Tv or the Finnish press?
    • Ref #57 cites Bubblegum University which describes itself as a kinderpop think tank.
    • Ref #53 cites the EBu so the information should be found there.
    • Ref #48 cites Des and Mick online!!
    • Ref #45 ESCToday no sources cited.
    • Ref #36 ESCToday cites ERT, which may be the official broadcaster. Surely that source shouldbe used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jezhotwells (talk • contribs) 17:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC) [forgot to sign before - sorry. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)][reply]
Note. ESCToday is a full service news website which gathers its own information in addition to sourcing it from other articles. If ERT and the EBU are the sources, then they had contact with them, there is no article that they are reproducing. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, well that is just an opinion. Other reliable sources describe ESCToday as a fan site, not a full service news website. What matters here are the criteria at WP:FAC, specifically 1c; Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: FARC is too hasty, and the process is unfair: points have been made in this section which were not made in the original FAR, thus giving editors no opportunity to address them. Needs more time. EuroSong talk 13:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nothing unfair about it. Standards and criteria change, both for FA and GA. Further and wider reviews of articles often bring out stuff missed in older reviews. All reviews may be fallible, FA are higher standards and involve more editors. If delisting is done, articles can be brought back to FAC. No one dies. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you do work it will still be here. People can insert new queries at any time as the nominator may miss things. Time will be given for anything so it's not as though people can succeed by making a quick ambush criticism late in teh piece YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on there!

I think that the FARC process was started too soon. Since the FAR was initiated, I have made some dramatic improvements to the article. There were just a few more things for me to review before posting a lengthy reply here, but unfortunately I have been busy in my offline life recently and have not had time to do so yet. Now I notice that, since the original review proposal, a FARC section has been added, listing a whole lot more things wrong with the references. This is unfair, because these points were not brought up specifically in the original FAR, and more time needs to be given for them to be addressed. In addition, with regards to the reliability of sources from ESCtoday, no firm decision has been yet made on that, and it would be improper to de-list this article on that basis. Now hold on a while, and I will find time to address everything - and to give a more full reply here. EuroSong talk 13:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It won't get closed while steady work is ongoing YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 00:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • YM asked me to comment on the sources here.
  • Delist per source concerns, listed above. I'm open to being dissuaded that ESCtoday and the like are reliable at the RfC, but as of this point I don't believe they meet our standards for high-quality sources. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get why people are voting. Improvements are being made and the votes will shortly become outdated. Observations such as those of Ealdgyth should be made in order to improve the article. We are not discussing its suitability as an FA "as is". Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is the voting stage, and we do judge the FA as is. If improvements are made, we will amend our recommendations accordingly. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Indeed - please improve the article. At the moment the referencing is a serious issue, as per concerns stated above and the fact that little is being done to address these concerns first mentioned on 17 June 2009. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a general note that acceptance of a source at RFC does not necessarily mean it will get the same approval at FAC/FAR. eg, at WP:SLR, Tamil editors are in the majority (including contributors to Tamil Tiger websites), so they decided that Tamil Tiger websites are RS simply by weight of ethnic numbers, but when they got to FAC they got told off because Tamil Tiger supporters do not have a majority. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC is not for this FAC/FAR, it is just a coincidence that is happening at the same time. It is for all articles for the project and for a draft project guideline for which sources to use. This is exactly what other projects have done, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. Project members come from many different countries and have many different views, and this is not a religious, political, or ethnic dispute, so I do not see any analogy to the Sri Lanka disputes. If this about the straw poll, like any, it will not dictate the results of the RfC. Camaron · Christopher · talk 08:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the start of July, the only substantive changes have been Grk formatting some cites. Is anyone still planning to work on this? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking into it, but I'm still tracking down sources to determine what can be done. - Bilby (talk) 03:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think the problem is that many of the Wikiproject Eurovision editors are wedded to the belief that ESCToday and other fan sites are WP:RS despite all indications to the contrary. I have had it expressed to me that it would be hard to find many sources related to a 2000/2001 article compared to one for 2008/2009. In many occasions websites delete articles/information after a year or two, and so it can be difficult to source information from those years. There are only two or three editors working consistently on these articles and they don't seem to be able to find other reliable sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few published histories on the event, along with some academic works and a book collating a number of chapters by different academics/researchers. I'm not convinced that everything can be sourced better, yet, so I'm not inclined to make any bold claims, but I'm going to do some more digging over the next week or so to see what is around. Maybe there's enough. - Bilby (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing work

OK, now I have a little bit of time, I'm going to start work on the article. I guess Jezhotwells' list of criticisms of references as above is as good a place to start as any. Some of the reference numbers have changed since that list was posted, but for ease of reference I shall keep the same numbers so we know what I'm referring to. I will list work done here as I go - for my own reference as much as for anyone else's.

  • Ref #3 (at the time of Jezhotwells' review). It now links [here http://english.aljazeera.net/archive/2006/05/2008410141723346664.html], which is an article which corroborates one of the Eurovision viewing figures as mentioned in the article. No further work necessary.
  • Ref #30 (at the time of Jezhotwells' review) Thank you for pointing this out. How odd that that website used the same story ID for a different page. I have retrieved the correct article from archive.org. Work completed.
  • Ref #28 - has now been corrected. Work completed.
  • Ref #23 - Changed ref from ESCtoday to official eurovision.tv site, which states Melodifestivalen as the top-rated show on Swedish TV. Work completed.
  • It was a swedish fan site when I looked. ESCToday is not RS. No-one has brought any evidence to the debate that it is. WP:Burden applies. See Ealdgyth's comment above. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Correction they were citing a Swedish fan site, so their source is unrealiable as well. I found an artcile at Nexis, which suggests that the Swedish Tv ratings company Mediamatningar i Skandinavien got it seriously wrong by not counting people who watched outside of their own home. I have cut and pasted the article into my sandbox as unless you have access to Nexis, you probably won't find it. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #27 - I thought the Irish tourist site was fine - but I found a better reference from the Irish government about the population of Millstreet. Thank you for prompting me to do so. Work completed.
  • Ref #29 - Replaced ESCtoday source with article from the EBU regarding the things that need to be considered when choosing a venue. Work completed.
  • Ref #57 - Replaced "Bubblegum University" source with one from Reuters. Work completed.
  • Ref #53 - Found original EBU source to replace ESCtoday. Much better now. Work completed.
  • Ref #48 - Replaced "Des & Mick Online" with EBU site which explains about the 1996 preselection, and the financial issue regarding Germany. Work completed.
  • Ref #45 - Found EBU source from official eurovision.tv site to replace ESCtoday. Work completed.
  • Ref #36 - Found EBU source from official eurovision.tv site to replace ESCtoday. Work completed.

Now to address Ealdgyth's concerns (written above on 10th July - not with bullets):

  • There are no mentions of "EBU.com". However, one mention of "European Broadcasting Union" in the text has now been changed to "EBU", as the abbreviation is addressed at the beginning of the article. It is now consistent. Work completed.
  • "Bare URL" reference - was removed earlier...
  • But you're right, this fact should still have a ref - Done. Ref added from EBU site. Work completed.
  • "http://www.esctoday.com/?section=home" is not presently in the article. No (more?) work necessary.
  • "http://www.cork-guide.ie/millstreet/town.html" has already been replaced with a RS as above. No more work necessary
  • "http://www.doteurovision.com/1993/green.htm" was replaced by official EBU information page. No more work necessary
  • Re: page numbers for ESC book. I lent my copy to a friend, so don't have the page numbers at this time. Can someone else who has the book please help? I will try to get my copy back. In the meantime... Work pending.
  • "Current ref 41 is lacking publisher and last access date" - Information added. Work completed.
  • "desandmick" - already addresses as above. No more work necessary
  • Ref #49, blank URL: I have removed completely the information about Italy in the possible Big 5, because of the RS issue with Oikotimes. I have been unable to find and other source for it which was not written on a fan site. If it is later decided that Oikotimes is RS, then it can return. Until then... Work completed.
  • Ref #63 - Access date has already been added. The publisher is "Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation" (JASSS) - same name as the "Journal" name, which has already been mentioned. No (more) work necessary.
  • "bubblegum-music.com" has already been addressed and replaced, as above.

Work completed from Jezhotwells' bulleted list. Work completed from Ealdgyth's unbulleted list, with the exception of the page numbers. Pending: Someone to add page numbers to ESC companion book ref; go through whole article with fine-tooth comb to clean up anything else. EuroSong talk 10:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • A section heading "Other" is just begging for a "Trivia" tag; try to re-organise the section into prose or disperse the content to other appropriate sections. The short paragraphs in the "Parties and Euroclub" section should be merged. DrKiernan (talk) 11:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold. The prose isn't bad, but I've just added a load of fact tags that I'd like to see addressed. I've never seen Eurovision, so I placed them at places I think need explanation. Some of them can be fixed by duplication of existing citations, while others might be covered by one or two citations applied in multiple places. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: references #34, #35, #36, #37, #38 say what happened in Belgrade and Moscow - they do not support the general assertions about the Mayor's reception, night club, press, parties, etc. Reference #39 reports on teh voting system in 1975 - nothing about that still being in use. Reference #42 dows not support the statement "Since 2006, a separate draw has been held....", it just reports what happened in 2006. Reading over the artcile the prose is very poor in parts, not even up to good article standards. I recommend a thorough copy-edit. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The RfC has concluded. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I have time I will continue to address the issues, but I am very busy at the moment. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - and I intend to comment on some of the things said on this page as well. I have the day off tomorrow, so hope to have some time to edit then. EuroSong talk 11:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am on holiday at the moment and I cannot do anything substantial on a laptop both as it is not as easy to use as my computer at home and as others also wish to use. This will remain the case until the 9 August. Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist The article is filled with {{citation needed}} tags. No one seems to be actively working on the article. It has been at FAR almost two months. —mattisse (Talk) 13:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I posted above a month ago this article is not at featured article standard. No-one seems in a hurry to sort it out. It is not the end of the world if it is delisted - it just loses a gold star, no one is going to die. Currently I am more worried about people seeing that gold star and saying So that's what Wikipedia thinks is worthy of being a featured article. Delist and bring it back to WP:FAC when it is fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - It is probably going to be a while until this is back up to featured status. I would suggest delisting for the time being, working on it, taking it through GA, and then think about FA after that. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:17, 10 August 2009 (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 Marskell 17:27, 12 August 2009 [42].

Suburbs of Johannesburg[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

wikiprojects notified. Author has retired


This article has a severe lack of citations, and many subjective comments describing schools/places as "prestigious" etc are not cited. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 14:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, alt text, POV. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:59, 20 July 2009 (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 Marskell 17:27, 12 August 2009 [43].

Algerian Civil War[edit]

WikiProjects notified

Review commentary[edit]

This article fails 1c due to a strong lack of citations and is not formatted consistently. It also fails BLP because a lot of the unsourced information is about the complicity of current warlords/terrorists/politicians in dubious activities like rape/slavery/fraud/terrorism etc. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 07:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per myself YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - needs many more citations to retain the star. —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 19:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - per above and difficulty in assessing whether it is NPOV. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per Yellow's concerns. This article strongly violates BLP and is potentially libelous. At the very least, massive numbers of citations need to be added. I also have some concerns about NPOV and adequate coverage. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2009 (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 Marskell 17:27, 12 August 2009 [44].

Frederick Hamilton-Temple-Blackwood, 1st Marquess of Dufferin and Ava[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Listed parties notified.


Article was promoted four years ago. There is a strong lack of citations, and those that already exist, only list the book, without specifying whereabouts in the book the information is from. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lord and Lady Dufferin in Manitoba.jpg: PD of course, but source and author missing. DrKiernan (talk) 09:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, image copyrights. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per opening statement YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above FA criteria concerns. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. The prose isn't horrible -- it's rough in spots, but adequate -- but the citations are few in places and nonexistent in most. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 03:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain. Having looked at the article, the only sentence I would have difficulty attributing to a source is the death of Dufferin's oldest son, which is neither challenged nor likely to be challenged. Those who want more should tag. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per FA criteria concerns. It seems like a fine article, but being able to supply sources is not enough to satisfy the criteria: the article must actually cite the sources. Also, the image concerns raised are valid and have not been addressed. Eubulides (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:23, 11 August 2009 [45].

Woody Guthrie[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified User talk:Dannygutters, User talk:Kmzundel, User talk:Jeremy Butler, User talk:Hertz1888, User talk:Karanacs, User talk:Gaff, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oklahoma, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Roots music, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maritime Trades.

Fails "well-written:" This was on the front page yesterday, linked through the featured picture section. I often read Wikipedia's featured articles and they are usually quite good but I was rather shocked at this particular one's listing. The writing is slipshod, even sophomoric in many places. I left comments on the talk page regarding a missing word in one sentence. Thereafter I decided to talk about the global issue of demotion and detailed multiple problems in just the first section following the lead. Thereafter I discovered this process. I will repeat what I said on the talk page (with some modifications) and expand.

  • "who lived across from Guthrie and his family in Brooklyn in the 1940s"
    • Across from him how? Across the street? Across the hall? There is an indispensable word missing in this sentence. It can say she lived "nearby to" but it can't say "lived across from Guthrie" as if "across" is a specific thing in and of itself.
A citation would clear this up. Add a citation needed flag to this paragraph.
I don't see how flagging it as needing a citation would clear up this issue, detail the issue or even speak to the issue, though as a separate issue, the paragraph probably should have an inline citations verifying it.—68.237.250.190 (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two issues, (1) the statements in this paragraph are uncited. They need to be. (2) The above note, the across statement is ambigious. (I would guess they mean across the street as the mermaid avenue apartment was a walkup rather than a many unit building. This is just a guess. A citation is needed to clear up both these issues.) If it can't be cited it should be removed. --Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 16:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Inline citation is useful, but I think unnecessary in the case of this rather minor point. [Wikipedia:Citing_sources] says cite inline for 'likely to be challenged' items. IMO, this paragraph is kind of trivia-ish. Footnote citation should be sufficient, if one can't be found it should just be removed. --Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 16:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First section problems

  • "Guthrie was born in Okemah, a small town in Okfuskee County, Oklahoma, to Nora Belle Sherman and Charles Edward Guthrie."
    • Needs a date in relation: "Guthrie was born ON DATE in Okemah..."
  • "...judging from the circumstances surrounding his death by drowning, suffered from the same hereditary disease."
    • Why? What is it about Huntingtons that makes it likely. What were these "circumstances". Why is the mother suspected in the preceding paragraph? It's all very insinuating and muddled and unilluminating. Possibly what's needed is something like Guthrie's mother suffered from Huntington's disease which is know to cause _______. Scholar/in (NAME OF WORK), it is speculated that the multiple coincidental fires were the result of ________."
Many of these complaints are handled by the superscript citations and the convention suggested is inappropriate for wikipedia. the Huntingtons article describes huntingtons and the quote is verbatium from the bio. The circumstances of Ma Guthrie's death ARE muddy and speculatory so the attempt here was to make refrence to avaliable bio work. Um I will respond in the summary area, some of these errors and suggested updates are not addressable in terms of wikipedia convention. --Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 18:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to one story, Guthrie made friends with an African-American blues harmonica player named "George", whom he would watch play at the man's shoe shine booth. Before long, Guthrie bought his own harmonica and began playing along. But in another interview 14 years later, Guthrie claimed that he learned how to play harmonica from a boyhood friend, John Woods, and that his earlier story was false."
    • "One story" is poor; the source of this "story" should be attributed in text; the "story" is referred to later in the paragraph by relation to "another interview", but we never knew the earlier "story" was an "interview".
  • "He seemed to have a natural affinity for music and easily learned to "play by ear". He began to use his musical skills around town, playing a song for a sandwich or coins."
    • "Seemed" is waffling; "began to use" should be rethought if you aren't going to provide a time period in close proximity; "a song for a sandwich or coins" is awkward.
  • "Eventually, Guthrie's father sent for his son to come to Texas where little would change for the now-aspiring musician."
    • "Eventually" sounds like a stand in for not having a date; "now-aspiring musician" should never be said without a date or age provided in close proximity; what does "now" refer to? Maybe the move to texas but that is prefaced by the vague "eventually." It doesn't work.
  • Guthrie, now 18..."
    • Poor. "Now 18", like the previous sentence, invokes a specific time that has been reached after somethimg transpired; some event just told which relates to reaching "now". Here, we are provided nothing, so "now" attaches to nothing. It should say "At 18" or "By 18" or something similar.
      • It's not just these specific errors that need to be addressed. The section doesn't flow well. We aren't looking for error free prose; we're looking for compelling prose, and this section is not that.

Next section:

  • "Robbin, who became Guthrie's political mentor, introduced Guthrie to Socialists and Communists in Southern California" and later "Guthrie requested to write a column for the Communist newspaper"
    • Why are Socialists and Communists/Communist capitalized?
  • "...with Germany in 1939 KFVD radio owners did not..."
    • There probably should be a comma after 1939 as a a natural break point, and it's "KFVD's owners" or possibly "KFVD radio's owners", though that does not really work for me because radio is not part of the name of the entity.
  • "the wanderlusting Guthrie"
    • Wanderlust is a noun. I know what is meant but the construction is outré.

I'm not going to go through the whole article but it is a long way from brilliant prose.—141.155.159.210 (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me highlight a few more:

  • Please review the numerous uses of the word "eventually" throughout, and where appropriate affix an exact time period or span of time in its place.
  • I forget to mention earlier, in "1939 KFVD radio owners did not want its staff", "its" should be "they" using that construction, even if the construction should be changed as a I noted earlier.
  • "Without the daily radio show, prospects for employment diminished" should read "Without the daily radio show, Guthrie's prospects for employment diminished"
  • Although Mary Guthrie was happy to return to Texas, the wanderlusting Guthrie soon after accepted Will Geer's invitation to come to New York City and headed east." besides the wanderlust problem noted earlier, "headed east" is redundant, it should be "thereafter", not "after", and it should be "accepted an invitation from Will Geer to come..."
  • Woody G., N.Y., N.Y., N.Y.". should not have the trailing period
  • Guthrie was paid $180 a week, an impressive salary in 1940. (should be a semicolon)
    • It should not be a semicolon, as semicolons are used to separate two independent clauses. I do wonder if the claim that the salary was "impressive" at the time can be supported. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The reunion represented Woody's desire to be a better father and husband." The reunion represented a desire? I think I know what was meant. No, upon further reflection it's just a mess. Maybe "the reunion offered an opportunity..." Not sure. Rewrite or get rid of it.
  • Unfortunately for the newly relocated family, Guthrie quit after the seventh broadcast, claiming he had begun to feel the show was too restricting when he was told what to sing." (poorly constructed and passive voice; missing a hyphen after newly, "unfortunately" presents as editorial opinion). I suggest: "Guthrie chaffed under the radio show's restrictive format which dictated his song choices. Despite the recentness of his family's move, he quit Pipe Smoking Time after only seven broadcasts."
  • "Disgruntled with New York..." Wrong vocabulary choice. We don't get disgruntled WITH something; we are disgruntled BY something. Consider disgusted, fed up, disenchanted...
  • "The original project was projected" this would be great if you were teaching homographs and wanted a sentence example usage, but is frowned upon in formal writing.
    • Still not halfway through the article, and I want to stress that fixing these is not the real issue. Fixing every grammatical mistake, syntax problem, punctuation error, etc. and it still won't turn mediocre writing into compelling prose. What I have highlighted is just a symptom of the root problem.—141.155.159.210 (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: This article appeared on the main page January 10, 2009. I do not know where the "yesterday" factors in here. --Moni3 (talk) 12:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: It was on the main page yesterday June 2, 2009. It may be that it was on the main page AGAIN at that time—141.155.159.210 (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Clarification. We're both correct. It was not the featured article yesterday, it was linked through the featured picture that was of Guthrie. So it was on the main page yesterday, but not as the featured article.—141.155.159.210 (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see one problem that goes towards criteria B of comprehensiveness. The article is concerned primarily with Guthrie from a biographical point of view but does not deal with him as a musician - I would suggest adding a section about his musical styles and development possibly extracting some points from the historical treatment.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Woody Guthrie - This Land.ogg needs a fair-use rationale. DrKiernan (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should be provided in the ogg page, it was rationalized as 'sample' --Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 17:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A license template is not a rationale. The file page does not include any rationale. Jay32183 (talk) 00:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Updated, added fair use rationale template. --Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 20:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale needs to be about the recording not the song. This recording is copyrighted, but the song itself is public domain. Jay32183 (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not exactly true, the song itself may be public domain but reproductions of it, say as sheet music have been restricted in the past by the Guthrie family. (For example, use in Chicago's Old Town School of Folk music sheet music book was prevented). Anyway, I updated the wording a bit to refrence this particular recording. It is a sample of the most historically notable recording of this song (first with Moe Asch) and used to support decription of both this period of recording in Guthrie's career and the notability of the song itself. There are no freely avaliable recordings of Guthrie performing this song to replace with. Do you think this sample doesn't meet sample rationale for non-free material? --Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 12:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't like your rationale. Don't use the word notable. There is no "sample rationale", you have to produce the rationale. You need to explain why hearing the sample will significantly improve the readers' understanding of the topic. Simply relating it to a significant moment is not significantly improving readers' understanding. You may wish to review WP:NFCC particularly point number 8. The lyrics and sheet music are public domain because copyright was not renewed correctly. Only recordings of the song are copyrighted. Jay32183 (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is FA status review really the way to go about intoducing copyedit changes? Shouldn't the user merely intoduce the changes they see fit and followup on the discussion page? I don't really see anything listed here of note for status changes other than copyedit/wording changes and citiation needed items (all of which i agree SHOULD be updated). Plus some of the suggestions for inline citation of source material is not in line with wikipedia's citing methods. I will inline comment on these issues and welcome updates if this review request is valid, but I think redoing FA review would be overkill. Oh well, are Anonymous users allowed to initiate FA reviews anyway? This user seems unfarmilar with the process and conventions here. One thing I do take issue with is the comment 'I'm not going to go through the whole article but it is a long way from brilliant prose.' this (aside from sounding petty) makes me wonder how we can even respond the critique of the article if the questing user can't even muster up the effort to read the whole thing. Also, usage updates are warmly welcomed, but please check the citation with the assumption that quoted material is SIC. I vote Keep. and will add citation needed tags for uncited statements in the article. --Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 18:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't copyedit changes. They are various type of identified problems, which includes copyedit material. I do so to show the endemic problems with the writing throughout; I use them to typify problems the article suffers from. Some of them, yes indeed, I could fix, and others I cannot fix because I didn't write the article and don't have access to the sources, but that is not the point. I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say "...suggestions for inline citation of source material is not in line with wikipedia's citing methods" I didn't call for a single citation to be added and I am very familiar with Wikipedia's citation policies and methods. You say you take issue with the comment "I'm not going to go through the whole article but it is a long way from brilliant prose", taking that to mean I did not read the article in its entirety. You misunderstand. I read the article carefully, top to bottom and inside and out—twice. I refer in this quote to going through each and every prose problem, by listing each one on this featured article review page. The reason why I am not going to do that is the same as the reason I stated earlier. The problems I identify are a symptom of a larger problem with the prose in general. You can find wonderful prose with poor punctuation and misspellings. You can have insipid prose with no such errors. Though, brilliant prose is rarely chock full of errors, and prose chock full of errors is rarely brilliant. The problem here is that the article is not very well written. I am showing that by highlighting some fundamental errors, but if it just needed a copyedit, I would have done that. I'm sorry you take offense at my characterization of the writing. I'm not sure how it's "petty" though. I can see how easily criticism of an article can be felt as a direct attack on those who participated. I do not wish to cause hurt feelings, but I think Wikipedia's image is more important, and I am quite sure I do not know how to say this fails the well written "even brilliant" prong of the featured article criteria, without saying that it does so fail to meet that standard. I think it would set a terrible example if this FAR was discounted simply because I am not a user with an account. That would be baby-bathwater territory; forest-for-trees shortsightedness. You are correct that this critique does not follow the standard entry I see for other articles. Were I to change it to say "fails criterion 1a. Not well written. Has punctuation, syntax, grammar and vocabulary errors and many of them; many passages are confused... etc."? That would be more in line with other examples, but I think less illuminating for those reading. By the way. I don't think anyone votes keep or delist yet. That process, per the instructions on this FAR page, happens after time is given for the issues identified to be addressed.—68.237.250.190 (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: any changes have to be consistent with WP:MOS, which "Guthrie was born ON DATE in Okemah..." for instance, is not.--Grahame (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I took a look through the manual of style page and was not able to find the section stating this. I only found a section stating that the date of birth and death should be listed in the intro, but not that you shouldn't repeat the date of birth in the first section of a biography (nor the date of death at the end of a biography). It seems logical to me to include a date of birth at the start of a biography--especially when the lead of an article is supposed to summarize the body--but I can live with it. I would appreciate it, however, if you were a little more transparent, pointing me to the specific section of that many-tentacled body of pages for my own edification. I just took a look at other featured article biographies to see if they follow this convention and those I surveyed do not. James Joyce, Henry James, Virginia Eliza Clemm Poe and Edgar Allan Poe, which I clicked on at random, all disagree with this notion. You also seem to be inferring, by your use of "for instance", that many suggestions I have made transgress the style guidelines. I would also appreciate it if you stated that with more precision so that I can learn Wikipedia's style conventions better. Thanks.--141.155.159.210 (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a keep surely. I've gone through it. The prose was not in bad shape, I thought. Couple of things I need help on:

    • "in Lomax's opinion, Guthrie's descriptions of growing up were some of the best accounts of American childhood he had read"—"best" is a little vague; does he mean best-written, most accurate? Childhood in urban America in the early 20th century? You may not be able to clear this up—it's a minor point.
    • "It is a vivid tale told in the artist's own down-home dialect, with the flair and imagery of a true storyteller." Is that WP or "Library Journal" talking? I don't doubt the claim, but it is a claim, full of what functional grammar calls "interpersonal epithets".
  • "culled from dates with Asch" (is this expert talk? "dates with", I mean. And "culled" might be better as "drawn from"?)
  • Upper-case "C" for "communism"? I remember a debate about this ages ago, but not its result. "The Communist Party", yes, but "communism" is an ideology, like "socialism", "anarchism" and "free-market capitalism". I forgot to pipe the very first occurrence, which is linked using a C.
  • Point of interest: why was a communist OK in the US Army, but not in the Merchant Marine service?
  • "Furlough"—it's jargon, is it? I wonder whether a more generally understood term is available, to save our readers' hitting the Wiktionary link. Maybe not.
  • "over time they had four children" The poor woman did it as fast as she could!  :–)
  • "eventually" is usually too vague to be encyclopedic. There are still a few examples I didn't get rid of (for want of the year). Tony (talk) 08:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, prose. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources and a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature ". YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are some citations needed that should be addressed, and other places that could also use additional {{fact}} tags. I also noticed a hyperlinked external link within the article's main body text. Cirt (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are several dead links, and the images need alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist The prose is not of a comparable standard to other FAs, and I wouldn't see it as "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" Part of the problem in trying to address the issue is that most individual sentences are OK. It is the linking of them together, and the structure of the prose in the article, that i feel is its main problem. This is difficult to illustrate, but I'll do my best:
  • "He was growing as a musician, gaining practice by regularly playing at dances for his father's half-brother Jeff Guthrie, a fiddle player. At the library, he wrote a manuscript summarizing everything he had read on the basics of psychology." Unconnected points run together in one para, and whether the now missing MS is notable enough even to mention is also in question.
  • "1930s: traveling" section - begins with three short sentences, followed by the sub-heading "california", but there are no other sub-headings in the section. Why use one at all?
  • "New York city" - a very short para on his arrival in the city. Then the next para suddenly launches into a section on This Land Is Your Land, before then returning to events in New York.
  • "Bound for Glory" - this section has some sentences about meeting his future second wife sandwiched in between stuff about his autobiography
  • The section "Jewish songs", under "Legacy", begins: "Marjorie Mazia was born Marjorie Greenblatt and her mother, Aliza Greenblatt, was a well-known Yiddish poet." This is completely out of the blue and reads as though we're on some other WP page altogether.

Generally, there are continuity problems that I think arise from indecision about how to structure the article. It needs a clear distinction between a chronological account and themes, and it needs better-flowing prose throughout. For examples where a clearer structure has been adhered to (often including a chronological account), see Emma Goldman, Kate Bush or Albert Speer. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist, mainly due to citation and prose problems. I can still find writing problems ("In the late 1930s, Guthrie achieved fame in Los Angeles, California, with radio partner Maxine "Lefty Lou" Crissman as a broadcast performer of commercial "hillbilly" music and traditional folk music." and the "Posthumous honors" section is very stubby with no flow), and there are still many unsourced statements and paragraphs. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum, re Tony's note about the use of "eventually" above. It is still used nine places in the article; number of years later or dates should be used instead. —mattisse (Talk) 15:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. No one has even bothered to make the changes above where I cited garbled and awkward prose and provided suggested text for replacement. By the way, if you review the numerous problems I identified when I started this FAR, the use of "eventually" over and over was one of them, so you can see addressing that has been at issue since the start, prior to the more recent calls for the same.—173.52.34.57 (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:39, 10 August 2009 [46].

Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified .

This 2006 FA promotion has issues with criteria 1a, 1b, 1c and 3.

  • Criterion 1a issues:
    • random example: "BEST also earns revenues by way of advertisements on its buses and bus-stops, and through rent from offices on owned properties" -> "BEST also earns revenue through advertisements on its buses and bus-stops, and by renting out offices in its buildings"
    • Persistent use of "till"
    • mixture of British and American English
  • Criterion 1b issues:
    • The "culture and awards" section is pure fluffery
    • Nothing on BEST's safety record?
    • Info on governance? Board of directors? How does the government exert control?
    • Are the bus services coordinated with trains so that passengers can transfer efficiently?
  • Criterion 1c issues: Almost all sources are from BEST, giving me the feeling that this reads like an advertisement. In addition, there are a number of paragraphs without citations.
  • Criterion 3 issues: Questionable PD claims for the images in the "History" section. There's no evidence that these images were published 60 years ago.

Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, biased sources, POV, prose, comprehensiveness, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist No efforts were made to address FA criteria concerns. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Concerns not addressed. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. The concerns listed above are valid, and with only three edits in the past month, there is no sign of them being addressed during the period of this review. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Pity that people put all that work into a nomination and then leave it to the wolves. Tony (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It only takes about 10 minutes to do that review....It might take 20 hours to fix it YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 07:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:39, 10 August 2009 [47].

Whale song[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notifications complete: Main contributor and nominator User:Pcb21 and only wikiproject: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cetaceans

Criteria 1(c) - currently needs more inline citations Tom B (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images:

Replaced. ceranthor 14:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Links checked [48] all seem fine except external link "Voices in the Sea". Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 10:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm referencing the article, bit by bit, getting rid of weasel terms and fixing anything that doesn't quite comply with the sources. By tomorrow, it should be fully referenced. ceranthor 18:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ceranthor said he's working on saving this article, so here are a few comments to help along the way:
  • I've gone through and given the article a copy edit. I've also added fact and weasel word tags where appropriate.
  • One section extremely lacking in this article is any discussion of the history of studying whale song. As a reader, that's one question that needs to be answered for this to be an FA: How did the study of whale song start? What form does it take today? Who studies it? To what end?
  • What does the clause "This is included with or in comparison with music" mean? It's so convoluted that it's incomprehensible.
  • I don't know about the accuracy of the statement "Smell also is limited, as molecules diffuse more slowly in water than in air". What about the famous ability of sharks to sense blood in water at a very low concentration?
  • An explanation is needed as to why a cutaway view of a dolphin head is used to explain whale song.
  • Existing citations need to be checked for consistency in form and completeness.
  • In the toothed whale section, dolphins are used as an example. While I understand why that's the case, the article is about whale song, not cetacean mammal song.
  • The sound levels tables don't have enough standalone information and should be incorporated into their respective main sections. It's good information, but unless more prose is added to each section, it's not enough to be separate.
  • What tools are used in the study of whale song? What structure does modern scientific research take? Who does it?
  • In addition to the above expansion suggestions, I highly suggest a section covering the way whale songs have influenced popular culture and media. The most obvious example is Star Trek IV, but I know that numerous composers and musical artists also have been influenced by whale song.
  • The information about sensory drawbacks given in the lede should be repeated and expanded in the "reasons for whale song" section. Otherwise, it should be cited.
  • This article needs a lot of work. In fact, I'd venture to say that it's the worst article I've run across in my limited time here at FAC. Only a dedicated editor willing to devote large amounts of time to this article will be successful in resolving the issues I've raised and preserving the article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. Images and songs need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 08:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, alt text, structure, prose, comprehensiveness, focus. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ?
I ask for some more time. I have little time to do work right now, but I'm trying to fit some in. ceranthor 00:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Drop me a line when you've got it changed so I can remove my note. :) JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the alt text, so that's one FA concern gone (not the most important one, admittedly). I suggest giving Ceranthor a bit more time. Eubulides (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this being worked up in a hard drive? I haven't seen anything for three weeks. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 07:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above concerns. If Ceranthor gets time to significantly improve this, I'll be happy to give it a more in-depth look. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It appears there is too much for me to fix it in time, I will make slow progress, I guess, and re-nominate at FAC. I disagree with the popular culture section. Perhaps an influence section instead? ceranthor 12:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 04:27, 3 August 2009 [49].

Meteorological history of Tropical Storm Allison[edit]

I wrote this article a year ago, and it was quickly promoted to featured status; however, I'm now convinced it is an unnecessary content fork of Tropical Storm Allison. Pending the outcome of this discussion, I will either initiate a discussion to merge, or summarily preform the merge per WP:BOLD. Thoughts? –Juliancolton | Talk 01:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say merge. Eubulides (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your inclusion of {{featured article review|Meteorological history of Tropical Storm Allison/archive1}} at Talk:Meteorological history of Tropical Storm Allison doesn't make adequately clear what you're considering. A simple "new section" at the bottom might be better. Having said that, I can't see that anyone's likely to object. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review period is not relevant here so people can imagine that they're in the FARC stage already YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a merge would be good if the Nom wants it.Jason Rees (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I think the nominator is correct. The article is one of the 100 shortest FAs, and Tropical Storm Allison is just about average. Merging them wouldn't create any size issues and seems appropriate. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Raul654 03:24, 3 August 2009 [50].

Aramaic language[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

WikiProjects notified.

Fails 1c. Very few citations. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I don't see why this article passed in the first place. Hopefully the sources are in the article and the footnotes just haven't been added. I might look into it later. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The grammar part does enumerate some structural peculiarities of Aramaic, but it does not pin down the existing oppositions and their evolution into each other within grammaticalization. It does not say anything about syntactic patterns, constructions, information structure.
  • The phonological part doesn’t address synchronic phonological processes that might often be observed in individual varieties, but is restricted to the sound inventory.
  • Next to no in-line citations.
Looks like B class. The content seems to be slightly better, not yet sufficient for GA, while the in-line references lean more towards C class. G Purevdorj (talk) 09:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the original article and got it to featured status a few years ago. The article gained featured status long before Wikipedia had any decent form of referencing. Most of the historical part of the article is based on the overview by Klaus Beyer, which is mentioned as a general reference. When the article gained featured status, the main concern was with its length rather than its references. For that reason, some sections, like phonology, were kept short. If I could have a list of specific practical issues with the article, I can improve it pretty quickly. I feel it is far better to look for ways to improve articles rather than bureaucratic reclassification. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 12:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess at least every paragraph must have a reference, and more where required, including page numbers (maybe with an exemption for lexicons?!). The number of books given as references should exactly be those that were quoted in the article.

According to Wikipedia:Splitting#Article size, the size is maybe a bit large, but it is still considerably smaller than the FAs Mayan languages and Turkish language and the GA Japanese grammar, so I hope length will not be of concern right now.

If the others agree with that, I would suggest giving some more details about the function of voice, word order and its functions and the development of the aspect system. The expression of modality would be worthwhile as well. I don’t get the state thing as well. G Purevdorj (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the grammar section is severely lacking in information, presentation and sources. It doesnt give any kind of feeling for what is typical of aramaic in comparison with other semitic languages. I would vote delist on this issue alone.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern is citations. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 00:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, sourcing issues have not been addressed. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold on — I have asked for a little time to update this article and don't appreciate this being pushed through. This takes time to build, but a moment to tear apart. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Articles that meet the FA criteria are kept as featured articles; articles that don't are delisted. It's on the community to make sure articles meet current FA criteria. If you want to bring an article back to FA status, then make your intentions clear. You announced your plans to refine this article two weeks ago, but we never received any further comment from you. FAR will give time to editors who want to salvage an article, but you must give us updates of your progress. I believe everyone here assumed that the article work had been aborted. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to use my talk page rather than assume things. It does take time to write articles, and it takes time for me to take the books down from my shelves to reference everything. I have written an expanded section on grammar also. Our aim is to make the article as good as it can be. I am capable of doing that, most others aren't. To that end I expect the Wikipedia community to be supportive of improvement work rather than pulling meaningless deadlines from the air. I am grateful that a few of the above statements have been useful. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, but you must start referencing the article ASAP or it will undoubtedly be delisted. Even B-class articles need to have footnotes. Anyway, I know it might take time to find the page numbers and the specific book, but you or someone else with sources needs to at least start the footnoting process or editors will not be convinced that it shouldn't be delisted. Cheers and good luck! --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While progress is being made to address the referencing issues this FARC will be left open. Be sure to provide updates or I will assume that progress has stalled. Joelito (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun adding references to the article. Some re-editing is required as controversial material has been added. Once decent references are in place for all substantive points, I shall add a more extensive guide to Aramaic phonology that I have written. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Still many referencing issues throughout. Cirt (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of work needes still, in addition to the citation issues mentioned, there are image layout issues, a mixture of endashes and spaced emdashes (see WP:DASH), a farm in See also which should be reduced, left-aligned images under third-level headings, etc ... cleanup needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist nothing happening YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Referencing concerns remain. Prose issues, structure-related issues (stubby paragraphs and sections), the clean-up need Sandy raised. And not much improvement. I think the best thing is Garzo to re-nominate the article, when he feels ready to do so.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I would like to commend Gareth for his contributions to wikipedia. Subject-specialists and professionals prepared to use their real names as they edit here are in short supply and should be welcomed and encouraged. As he is an identifiable expert, I do not feel that his work requires the same intense verification required for contributions written by anonymous or pseudonymous contributors. I have only one particular concern with the reliability of the article, and that comes from Gareth's comment that "controversial material has been added". Can Gareth assure us that the article represents current academic thinking, and presents a balanced view of the subject area?

On the issue of prose and structure, I have a few comments:

  • "Modern Aramaic is spoken today as a first language by many scattered, predominantly small, and largely isolated communities of differing Christian, Jewish and Muslim groups of the Middle East[1]—most numerously by the Assyrians in the form of Assyrian Neo-Aramaic—that have all retained use of the once dominant lingua franca despite subsequent language shifts experienced throughout the Middle East." - this sentence is too long.
  • The use of "(see below)" indicates structural problems, as it should not be necessary to refer to information that follows to understand information that precedes it.
  • The "Geographic distribution" section includes some history, so maybe this section and "History" can be combined to avoid the short, listy introductory history section later on?
  • Please use either ndashes (–) or mdashes (—) but not both, so that the article presents a uniform style to the reader.
  • Make "The dialects mentioned in the last section were..." specific, say "The Post-Achaemenid Aramaic dialects were...".
  • The use of idiomatic phrases like "with a foot in Imperial" can be confusing to readers who do not share your particular cultural background or are reading english as their second or third language. It is better to speak plainly and use simple sentence forms.
  • I suppose there should be a cite for "Modern Aramaic speakers found the language stilted and unfamiliar."
  • There are a number of short sections in the "Middle Aramaic" section. Perhaps reviewers here would be assuaged if this was formatted as a table?
  • The "See also" section contains many links that are already linked earlier in the article. It is generally considered unnecessary to repeat links. DrKiernan (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing seems to be happening with this one. Main contributor has not edited since May 5. I will wait a few more days before closing in the hope that Gareth renews editing. Joelito (talk) 01:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I apologize for leaving you all waiting: I've been busy with publishing deadlines. I have a draft of three new sections to add to the article, mostly covering points raised above, and I have a list of references to be added to the extant article. Thank you, DrKiernan, for your points, I think most of the changes you suggest can be made without too much difficulty. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we get an update? This FAR has lasted well over two months now, and I don't see a potential for progress in the foreseeable future. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the section on nouns and adjectives, including detailed explanation of the state system, as has been requested: more soon. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, I'd say. Put it out of its misery if none of the authors cares. "Old Aramaic covers over thirteen centuries of the language." Hmmm. "Ancient Aramaic refers to the Aramaic of the Aramaeans from its origin until it becomes the official 'lingua franca' of the Fertile Crescent. It was the language of the city-states of Damascus, Hamath and Arpad." Mixed tenses. Where are the citations? Looking no further.Tony (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing particularly wrong with any of those statements; please explain yourself. I'm expanding those points that have been requested and will be adding the citations soon. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rejoinder:
    • One language "covers" another? To fix, ask why "of the language" is needed in the first place. Better something like "refers to the language in its form from the X to the Y centuries". Be specific and the logic is right, then.
    • "Aramaic ... Aramaic"—please avoid such close reps. "refers to the language of". Easy. But even in the lead, I'd still want a bit of timing ("Crescent in the blah century BC").
    • The link to "Israel" goes to "Isreal and Judea". Is this an important distinction that should not be concealed in the pipe? Unhappy about having to click on "Second Temple" in the second sentence to orient myself. The lead should be big picture and prepare non-experts for the greater detail in the body of the article. This lead creates too many questions in my mind.
  • Remove "therefore" from the second sentence? "... period and the mother tongue of Jesus ...". The second sentence is a three-item list, and the second item, without a tense, is uncomfortably hanging between the past of the first item and the present of the third.

That's the opening two sentences. I think this demonstrates that the article needs time off the list, where it can be worked up to modern FA standards in a number of respects and resubmitted. A shining article we can all be proud of will probably result. Tony (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist. I do agree that inserting references into such an article will take a while, but if one is an expert and has the relevant literature at hand, supplying in-line citations could probably be done within one day. Indeed, NONE has been supplied since this review began. But even if work was ongoing, almost two months is too long for a FAR. G Purevdorj (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, to most of those observations. Some references have been added and the grammar section is being rewritten. It seems no one else has the will or ability to edit this article, so I am doing it all. I have real work to do too. Providing the best references for an article like this isn't that easy: three millennia of detailed analysis isn't found in a couple of books, and I really want to move away from the overdependence on Beyer that the article has. So, this is not a helpful or constructive comment. Of course, if you want to delist the article I'll spend my energy on something more deserving and let you all do this rewrite. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly you are right about the time frame, but the worst problem is not the number (or quality) of cited research work, but rather the lack of linking the available information to its sources in the bibliography via in-line references. During the last 50 or so edits, about one in-line reference has been added. The problem of verifiability should have preference over sheer content matters. I wouldn't have written my last commentary if it was about 10 new in-line references. By the way, TriZ, please care a bit to hit the right tone - commends like my last one are less likely to give me a timeout than yours. G Purevdorj (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on hold. I can't believe the wiseacres here, it's un-fuckin-believable. Here we have a real expert in the field of Aramaic language, a subject that few know much about, and your doing like this? If you want some quality articles on these subjects, then have some patience and give the experts some credit. Comments like G Purevdor's should be ought to be removed and the user to be awarded with some refreshing time-out. The TriZ (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. After months original concerns haven't been properly addressed. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 07:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. A read through the history shows no organized progress toward keeping this an FA in more than three weeks. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Images need alt text per WP:ALT. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist The crucial issue of lack of citations 1c has not changed since March 23 {four months ago) when it was nominated for FAR.[51] —Mattisse (Talk) 15:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist—citation desert. Tony (talk) 10:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Gareth has not edited for over a month now. I say we bin this right now. This FAR is going nowhere. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Raul654 03:03, 3 August 2009 [52].

African American literature[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Wikiprojects and author notified

Old FAC from 2005. The article has many uncited passages, especially in the subjective parts about pundit analysis. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images: File:Color purple.jpg: fair-use rationale insufficient. As there is literature from before 1923, a free-use cover could be used. File:Frederick Douglass (2).jpg: incomplete information, no author, first publication or date. DrKiernan (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are few short stories that are discussed, and short stories make up a substantial portion of African American literature. For instance, Uncle Tom's Children is not mentioned in Richard Wright's section (and yet was very important). Thus, there is a weight issue/comprehensive issue. Also, many of the Harlem Ren works (like Wright's) discuss communism, which is not mentioned at all. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments 1a, 1c, 2b, 3
1a) There are some lingering prose issues. I found some sentence fragments as I was reading (see talk page). Also, many of the paragraphs begin with "another" or some other such weak transition. The article needs a good copyeditor. I would be willing to do this if all of the other issues are resolved.
1c) There are large swaths of uncited material. I started adding {{fact}} tags, but I grew tired. The problem is mostly in the "History" section.
2b) I find the structure of the article a problem. It is divided into "Characteristics and themes", "History", and "Critiques". The "Critiques" section, to me, should be structured and named to reflect the diversity of views about what African-American literature is rather than around the idea of criticism (we are supposed to avoid "Criticism" sections). Perhaps this section and "Characteristics and themes" could be merged into a "Definition and characteristics" section.
3) All images need alt text.

I hope this is helpful. Awadewit (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, prose, structure, comprehensiveness, image copyright. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 15:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not see any gaping holes there. Awadewit (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Raul654 03:03, 3 August 2009 [53].

Krag-Petersson[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Article fails 1c. Apart from two hobby websites, one book is cited, and no details are given wrt page numbers, just the name of the book. Images are dubiously tagged under 100 years after death but the designer died in 1916. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Commons (which the files are duplicates of), the copyright was valid during the owner's life plus 70 years, and as he died in 1916, the copyright has expired.--LWF (talk) 04:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many problems with this article; consider this to be a "delist" !vote when this moves into FARC mode.
    • There is too much of a reliance on one source.
    • Page numbers are needed.
    • Even when assuming that citations cover more than one sentence (and I'm not confident of that, with seeing multiple [2]'s in one paragraph), I still see much that is unreferenced.
    • I don't think refs 1 and 4 are reliable.
    • THis is without checking the prose... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
  • I've given the article a quick copy edit and have added citation needed and weasel word tags where the appropriate items should be added or fixed.
  • Citations 1 and 4 are not reliable.
  • "Mechanism" is used twice in the first sentence of the design section.
  • "Major" components is an imprecise term.
  • The extremely heavy reliance on just one source, particularly since that source isn't in English, makes me unhappy.
  • The photos need alt text and should be checked for fair use criteria.
  • The anthropomorphism exhibited toward countries: "France also tested" ... makes me uncomfortable, but that might be a common use in military articles. This should be checked against MILHIST style and corrected if necessary.
  • USD figures vary in style and presentation in the article. These should follow WP:MOS.
  • Was the weapon used at all during the WWII resistance? Given its age and the fact that it was sold to civilians, it seems possible.
  • Overall, this article could be kept as an FA with just a bit of work on the citations. The prose is acceptable, if not particularly striking, but there are a few weasel words and unclear spots. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, images. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:24, 3 August 2009 [54].

Names of the Greeks[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Main editor User:Deucalionite has been blocked indefinitely. There seem to be no other main editors.[55] I have notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greece[56],Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Etymology[57] and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy[58].

WP:CGR should be notified; they are likely to be the most helpful.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was promoted in 2005 and since then much text has been added to it. Currently the article has numerous citation needed tags, a POV tag, and an accuracy disputed tag. There do not seem to be editors actively interested in improving the article.

The original nominator of the article Colossus has not edited since Spring of 2008. However, one of his last edits addressed the problems with Names of the Greeks on the article talk page.[59] He agrees that the article's quality has fallen sharply, despite having many references.

I feel that the article fails the following:

  • 1a - there are questions about article quality. The article is hard to follow and varies in quality of prose. Editors appear to add and remove material without discussion on the talk page.
  • lc - it has many {{citation needed}} tags. There are uncited quotations, eg 'Cicero delivered the coup de grace by coining the truly derogatory term, Graeculi, "contemptuous little Greeks".' Some sections are entirely uncited.
  • 1d - questions about its neutrality per the {{disputed}} tag and {{pov}} tag.
  • 1e - questions about its stability as there is adding and removing of tags and material without consensus or discussion.

—Mattisse (Talk) 16:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeap, the article has great problems. And I am not sure I have the time or the material or even the appetite to work on it at this phase. I can promise I'll have a look at it during the weekend; and it is really unfortunate that both Kekrops and Deucalionite are blocked (both of them unfairly IMO). I don't promise anything, but if I do some cleaning, I suppose I can count on Mattisse's copy-editing skills!--Yannismarou (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, their absence offers some hope of making the article less like a Greek high-school textbook, of some thirty-five years ago. It is filled with nonsense and nationalist POV, and always has been. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will help in any way I can. I suggest that you remove material that is not well sourced. I am hesitant to do that myself as I am unfamiliar with the subject matter and do not know what is important and what can easily be referenced. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Mattisse, in advance!--Yannismarou (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Factual errors begin in the intro:

  • virtually all Greeks were Roman citizens and therefore considered by name to have the right to be free and own property
    The two halves of this sentence have nothing to do with each other; one never needed to be a Roman citizen to be free or to own property.

Much more could follow; but it may be simpler to add a new layer of {{cn}}. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I would do, if I were Jimbo, is to remove all the non-linguistic assertions, including the claims about what the Aetolians did in the twelfth century BC (about which we have no reliable information at all), the point-scoring about Philip of Macedon, the assertion (above) that Cicero coined a perfectly normal Latin diminutive, the claims that the Greeks felt superior to other peoples (and who hasn't?); limit the linguistics to what is plainly consensus; and then consider whether what is left would be better on Wiktionary. Whether the result would deserve to be an FA is another question; but it would meet my standard: not being a public embarassment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is full of [citation needed] tags, added some more
  • I noticed many WP:PRIMARY non-English sources are used. The author may have mis-interpreted the Greek source, at least citations to English translations needed or secondary sources. e.g.
    • Herodotus, "Histories", book II, 158
    • Saint Paul, "Epistle to the Romans", 1, 14
    • Aristotle, "Republic", I, 5
    • Homer, "Iliad", II, 498
    • Thucydides, "History", II, 68, 9 and II, 80, 5 and I, 47, 3 --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those do just as well as citations of translations; it's much easier to find Romans 1:14 in English than in Greek, and equally easy to find Iliad II, 498. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hieronymus wolf2.JPG: PD of course, but it's always nice to know the original source and artist. Otherwise, images OK. DrKiernan (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, what a horrible mess. Even the title is misleading. I went there expecting an article about names of individual Greeks, but find instead one about names of the Greek nation. Peter jackson (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, POV, accuracy, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, as the original FA criteria concerns remain. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Someone would need to step forwards and put considerable effort into this article before it might reasonably be considered to meet the FA criteria, and there's no sign of that happening. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. I think I see how to improve this (as above), but the result would be a much shorter article, which should be considered for FA on its merits, when trimmed. (And the Romioi question may require Demotic sources, which would be difficult for me.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Needs a lot of work to become an FA again. Eubulides (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. I don't have the time to work from scratch on the article right now.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:24, 3 August 2009 [60].

Rail transport in India[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified WikiProject India, WikiProject Trains, Nichalp and Dwaipayanc.

This article was an FA promotion from 2005. It was previously at FAR, but closed early on a good faith assumption that improvements would continue to be made on the article. Although some improvements were made, the article still has a number of issues:

  • More than 60% of the references are from Indian Railway Fan Club, which is quite clearly not a reliable source
  • Other RS issues – reliance on Indian Railway sources, aboutpalaceonwheels.com, triptoindia.com, self-reference to Wikipedia (!)
  • The article is not representative of the published body of work on Indian rail transport
  • Inconsistent capitalization
  • A number of unsourced paragraphs/sentences
  • This article focuses too heavily on listcruft, rather than prose
  • R&D section: What about private investment? What exactly has it done since 2003?
  • Image issues: File:Budgam Station.jpg is tagged at Commons as missing permission, File:Bholu.png does not have a fair use rationale, and File:IR sample ticket.jpg might be a copyright violation.
  • There are a number of areas where the article lacks info:
    • Freight railways in India
    • Costs? economy compared to road or water freight? pro/con of rail compared to road/water transport
    • Safety? People hanging off the trains without proper seats?
    • Train terrorism
    • Technology? Good or bad?
    • Complete lack of historical development
    • Technical specifications in lots of detail but other things are neglected

To summarize, there are numerous issues with FA criteria 1a, 1b, 1c and 3. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. How is IRFCA not a reliable source? Their content is peer-reviewed on their mailing list, and can they not be generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand ? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is no indication that there are site editors who review contributions by the fan club members to ensure accuracy, verifiability and neutrality. Some of the articles from other publications and reprinted on the site, authored by specific persons, might be all right as references. But the site is clear that it is not an "official site". —Mattisse (Talk) 17:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, reliables sources, prose, comprehensiveness, balance, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:24, 3 August 2009 [61].

Anne, Queen of Great Britain[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Messages left at Biography, Lord Emsworth, Royalty and UK notice board. john k (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article, largely written by User:Lord Emsworth, who was, at the time, a very smart high school student, I think (he might have been in college, so don't quote me on that), is not a bad article. But when I was looking at it this morning it contained considerable factual errors. It is probably also not well-enough sourced, and lacks a certain degree of comprehensiveness. In particular, I found these paragraphs problematic. I have already changed them to make them better, but I present them to indicate the sort of problems that occurred in the article:

Anne's first ministry was primarily Tory; at its head was Sidney Godolphin, 1st Baron Godolphin. But the Whigs, who were, unlike the Tories, vigorous supporters of the War of the Spanish Succession, became much more influential after the Duke of Marlborough won a great victory at the Battle of Blenheim in 1704. The Whigs rose to power on the strength of Marlborough's victory and almost all the Tories were removed from the ministry. Lord Godolphin, although a Tory, allied himself with Marlborough to ensure his continuance in office. Although Lord Godolphin was the nominal head of the ministry, actual power was held by the Duke of Marlborough and by the two Secretaries of State (Charles Spencer, 3rd Earl of Sunderland and Robert Harley).

This paragraph seems to imply that Marlborough was a Whig, which was not the case - Marlborough was, in fact, a very close associate of Godolphin, and their political views were virtually identical - the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography describes them, as moderate Tories, and Harley as a Country Whig, who together acted more as mediators between the Queen, the Junto Whigs, and the High Tories than as party politicians. The contention that Godolphin was only the nominal head of the ministry after 1704 is nonsense, and talking about Sunderland and Harley, who were great enemies, as leading the ministry together is also misleading.

Furthermore, it's not true that "almost all Tories were removed from the ministry" after 1704. The High Tories, most notably Nottingham and Buckingham, left in 1704-1705. But Godolphin and Marlborough, who led the ministry, were still seen as Tories. So was Lord Pembroke, the Lord President. While Harley himself was originally a Whig, he was at this time moving closer to the Tories, and several of his associates (notably Henry St John, the Secretary at War) were considered Tories. It was only in 1708 that the ministry became virtually entirely Whig.

The Whigs used the Prince's death to their own advantage, using her weakness to disregard the Queen's wishes and form a predominantly Whig government, led by Lord Godolphin. Their power was, however, limited by Anne's insistence on carrying out the duties of Lord High Admiral herself, and not appointing a member of the government to take Prince George's place. Undeterred, the Whigs demanded the appointment of the Earl of Orford, one of Prince George's leading critics, as First Lord of the Admiralty. Anne flatly refused, and chose her own candidate, Thomas Herbert, 8th Earl of Pembroke on 29 November 1709. Pressure mounted on Pembroke, Godolphin and the Queen from the dissatisfied Junto Whigs, and Pembroke was forced to resign after just a month in office. Another month of arguments followed before the Queen finally consented to put the Admiralty in control of the Earl of Orford in November.

These paragraphs also were problematic. Anne only retained the Lord High Admiralship for a couple of months after her husband's death, then gave it to Pembroke in November 1708. It was after Pembroke's appointment that the pressure for putting Orford in occurred, and Orford came in in early November 1709. I'm not sure where these details came from, but they seem wrong.

As the expensive War of the Spanish Succession grew unpopular so too did the Whig administration. Robert Harley, 1st Earl of Oxford and Mortimer was particularly skillful in using the issue (of the cost of the war) to motivate the electorate. In the general election of 1710, discontented voters returned a large Tory majority.[25] The new ministry was headed by Robert Harley and began to seek peace in the War of the Spanish Succession. The Tories were ready to compromise by giving Spain to the grandson of the French King, but the Whigs could not bear to see a Bourbon on the Spanish Throne.[26]

Firstly, a minor issue, that Harley was not yet earl of Oxford until 1711. But beyond that, the key issue is that this gets events reversed. The queen put Harley and the Tories into power before the 1710 general election, which the Tories won because they already controlled the government patronage. Sunderland was replaced in June 1710, Godolphin fell in August, Somers and Boyle were dismissed in September. The election did not commence until the beginning of October, and the remaining Junto Whigs, Wharton and Orford, were gotten rid of while it was occurring. The Tories got a majority in parliament because they came to power; they did not come to power because they got a majority in parliament.

As I said, I tried to correct these issues and clarify things, but I suspect there are similar issues relating to other parts of the article. I think it would be useful to look it over again - especially by people who actually know something about the subject matter. john k (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a feeling this might come up. I agree with the above, but I'm up to the gills in Anna Anderson right now, so I probably won't have time to devote to this. DrKiernan (talk) 07:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on 1c: This article is based on a single biography of Anne in addition to books covering a much wider scope (history of Britain sort of things). I checked around and there are several biographies of Anne. An FA version of the article would not present just one biographer's view of Anne, but the views of all of the major biographers. Awadewit (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, accuracy, comprehensiveness, breadth of research, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per at least 1b, 1c, and 3. Awadewit (talk) 02:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above concerns. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. The pictures are nice, at least. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Heinrichs 1990: xi–xv; Beyer 1986: 53.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/August_2009&oldid=311180786"