Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/March 2006

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the archive of Featured Article Removal Candidates for March 2006. For the active archive and list of previous archives, click here.


Kept status

[edit]

Something

[edit]
Article is still a featured article.

The article fails, rather disatrously, the well written criteria. It is very short - not nearly as long as other Beatles songs that have become Featured, such as I Want to Hold Your Hand and She Loves You. It also is poorly written, using weasel phrases (such as "according to most sources"). More importantly, it also cites practically nothing; there are even points in the article that have been tagged with [citation needed] (and not by me). Further, some citations are given using the incorrect format (i.e. embedded links). The "Explanation" section is useless and redundant. I get the impression that the Beatles fan community simply got behind this one and supported it to become Featured, regardless of the fact that it isn't a particularly good article. I can't justify this being Featured, not by a million miles, and it isn't really ready to become "Good Article" level, either. TheImpossibleMan 01:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post-closing comment: I've removed {{farc}} since this debate seems to be done. If Beatles related articles are nominated for delisting in future (as they should be if they're not up to scratch) please let the WikiProject know (WT:Beatles). --kingboyk 09:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the article could be better; however, next time, please would you raise your comments on the talk page first, or speak to the article's primary author and FAC nominator (who in this case is Johnleemk, who is still very active) before starting a FARC. Here is a link to the FAC from August 2004, which is clearly replete with such biased Beatles fans such as Taxman, Dmn and mav. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know if there would be a point to posting complaints on the talk page, seeing as there has been no discussion concerning the article. The only comments there are silly, unrelated nonsense someone decided to post. And am I suppossed to know/recognize who Taxman and those other people are? TheImpossibleMan 10:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • *resists urge to laugh*. I don't know about Dmn, but Mav is the Wikimedia Foundation Chief Foundation Officer and the main person responsible for introducing references as a featured article criterion (Something was among the first FAs to use references). And Taxman is a very active participant on FACs. Anyway, this is the usual song and dance (as with the two other recent Beatles FARCs) -- I'm aware of this and plan to work on this within the next week or so, time constraints permitting. The article's main problem is a lack of maintenance, which meant that new content is poorly integrated into the article, and that the references are a bit out of date. (They are not broken, however; the reason that the date the content was retrieved is there is so you can use the Wayback Machine to retrieve the page should it be altered, moved, or removed.) The "citation needed" tags really mean that an inline citation is needed (although I suppose that'd make the tag too verbose), because the existing references already corroborate the bulk of the article. I'm not sure what is meant by the article being short -- can you think of any further content that can be added? While the song is pretty popular among Beatles fans, it's hardly as notable as I Want to Hold Your Hand, She Loves You, Hey Jude, or even The Long and Winding Road (which was cited in a court case as one of six reasons for dissolving the Beatles), so naturally there is less published material available on Something. As an aside, I find it amusing that people tend to assume these articles should never have become featured and hold them to the standards of today's FAs, because they were quite good -- if not among the best -- in their time. Since we are no longer in that time, naturally the article should be updated. It is annoying to place this on FARC immediately, however, since it appears to be assumed that nobody is watching the article (*cough*). (Just because it's full of spam doesn't mean nobody's watching it.) IIRC the FARC instructions direct you to leave a message on the talk for a few days before nominating. Johnleemk | Talk 14:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)ContributionsContributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove, too short, few refs. -- King of Hearts talk 16:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since when was length or too few references an FA criterion? Like many, you have confused comprehensiveness with length and equated the two. And if all the references corroborate the article's content, how can "too few refs" be valid? The importance of citing sources is to corroborate the article's content, not create a further reading or external links section. Johnleemk | Talk 16:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnleemk, do you have a point to make? Or are you just here to ridicule us for not knowing as much as you? If you want to vote to keep or vote to remove this article, then do so. Otherwise, steer clear of this discussion. TheImpossibleMan 17:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the principal editor of the article he may feel it is not strictly ethical for him to vote, although strictly speaking there is nothing to prevent him doing so, but I can understand his reluctance. However, he is entitled to express his views. Giano | talk 20:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jacqui's law: the longer a user spends time in polls and/or debates, the more he or she will see each question as a binary of delete or keep or remove. I am not here to ridicule anyone (where did I do that, anyway? Is it wrong to point out how people have misunderstood FA criteria?) but to point out that the FA criteria have been confused -- length is not shorthand for comprehensiveness. Had I not completed my rewrite of the article (now allowing me to state that I am all for keeping this as an FA with a clear conscience), I would probably launch into a lengthy discussion of how and why I would not want to "vote" pending improvement in the article, but since that's done... Johnleemk | Talk 14:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I find it interesting how people are so dedicated to saying that faults with this article should have been brought up on the talk page and yet at the same time permit other articles to be brought straight to here. Somehow, I just suspect that people are saying that here because it is a Beatles song article. Had it been any other article in Wikipedia, no one would have criticized the nomination if it bringing up issues was not done. Those same people, by staying silent about other FARCs that were brought straight here are seemingly accepting those, and yet, by doing as they say, not as they usually do, are cherry-picking which FARCS they criticize. That is what is annoying. Are you people going to criticize the nominations of Radar, Frankfurt School, and Economics for the same reasons as you are over here? Had I not brought it up here, I would be very pessimistic that the same people saying issues should have been brought up on Something's talk page would be doing the same for other FARC discussions.
  • Furthermore, I like to point out that raising issues on an articles talk page does not work. Ages ago there was a formal requirement here issues had to be brought up at the talk page of an article. If that step was not done, the FARC would be speedily kept. Once, Vowel was nominated for removal through that process. Bringing up the article's faults on the talk page had no effect on the article. It was only after vowel was FARC'd that people started trying to make the article worthy of being kept, which it did become. Furthermore, several articles have had requests for references or featured article review for months or almost a year, and no significant improvements have been made. Based on the results of other articles, bringing up issues about an article on its talk page DOES NOT WORK.
  • Finally, I like to point out that if we can't hold older FA's to today's standards through a grandfather clause, there would almost no point in the existance of the FARC page because there would be almost no possible grounds for removal. Are people here prepared to propose and argue for a new criteria that says: "Today's standards are not retroactive. Do not nominate artices for removal because they do not meet today's standards. Only nominate articles if they do not meet the standards of when they became a featured article." Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For almost two years there has been a "gentlemens (and ladies) agreement" not to overdo applying newly increased standards to older FAs, especially having to do with references. Have a read through the nomination and talk page archives. There is no way they could have met standards that weren't in existence. So the compromise is to give the new requirements time to be implimented and specifically mention deficiencies on talk pages before nominating. New people to the process should make at least some effort to get to know the norms before jumping in with harsh words. I went through every FA that had no references and placed a request for references as part of that compromise. And further, it often does work to bring up issues on the talk page. Just because it doesn't always work, doesn't mean it's not the polite thing to do. People have requested many times that you do this, so ignoring that is not polite. - Taxman Talk 20:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comments have nothing to do with the subject. I couldn't care a less whether it was a Beatles song, or a battle, or a biography, or a fundamental particle, or a city, or an order of chivalry. The point is that this article is not so clearly bad that it is a slam-dunk FARC candidate (considering the nominator's concerns: this article is not particularly poorly written; shortness is not a problem, so long as the article is comprehensive; it has references for its content; there is no mandatory format for references or external links (yet); and I will not dignify the "Beatles fan community" comment with a response beyond pointing out that not knowing who the - relatively well known - FAC voters are is a good reason not to assume bad faith).
In such cases, it would be polite to raise concerns on the talk page or with the main author, particularly when, as here, the main contributor to the article is still very active. If the article was much worse, and/or the original contributor was not around - as with some other current FARCs - I agree that there would not much point in adding concerns to the talk page, although doing so would never be wrong: the worst case scenario would be that an article in need of some help would remain a FAC a few days longer.
It continues to amaze me that people are so quick to nominate FARCs and vote "remove" without lifting a finger to improve the article. Radar is a case in point - making a few improvements earlier today was easy; just do it. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming bad faith is a very easy thing to do (and apparently so is assuming the existence of a pro-Beatles cabal). For me, (assuming I regularly made the rounds of our FAs to check on how well they meet the criteria), I would give the article a couple of days' time if the problems are not totally devastating. As Giano and Taxman have noted, this article was far from beyond repair (and I have just spruced it up with footnotes, trimmed unsourced content and excess verbiage, etc.). Its scope is fairly narrow, making it easy to research and write new material if there was anything missing. (A questionable assertion, by the way; nobody has shown how this article wasn't comprehensive prior to the rewrite. Length is not shorthand for comprehensive. Anyone can write pages upon pages of meaningless prose.) Radar and economics, on the other hand, have an incredibly broad scope, making it far less likelier that anyone could fix them up without a lot of work. During the period that that work would take, it would be unconscionable to mark those articles as FAs. However, considering how quickly Something could be improved, it would not have mattered if it remained an FA for a couple of days longer than it might have been, no? Johnleemk | Talk 14:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in spite of the nominators patronising and dismissive comments this is yet another of the older FAs which met all the criteria when it passed the FA process, and is not so bad it needs a FARC today. Criticisms should have been aired on the talk page first....I'm not the least interested in the subject so I have no idea if the content is comprehensive or not, but that is not something that changes so I will assume it is. Well written is well written, that does not change - if it was so when it passed it must be now, all this talk now of compelling prose is frankly ridiculous, what compels some people makes others want to vomit. I'm glad Johnleemk "resists urge to laugh" because he has very little to laugh about, there is no reason why anyone should be expected to know the FAC commentators, and nothing to be ashamed in not knowing them. Having said that two of them are in fact highly respected Wikipedians who were refering to, writing, and referencing to suit the style of Wikipedia at the time. Johnleemk seems to be on to the subject now, so lets keep it as a FA. Finally, please Miss Madeline do not bolden and enlarge your comments, shouting is frankly rather vulgar, you should be able to make your point without that. Giano | talk 18:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Well written is well written, that does not change - if it was so when it passed it must be now" Why is that? It's been heavily edited. Here's the diff from its promotion to now. Derex 17:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not that bad, I'm sure John will fix it up even better, and objections clearly should have been brought up on the talk page to at least give a chance to deal with them first. Think civility and politeness. If that doesn't work, only then bring it to FARC. - Taxman Talk 20:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article has been revised extensively since yesterday; those voting remove based on the old version should check the new one and possibly reconsider. Phr 14:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment - I think its good that so many citations have been added, clearing up one of the major problems of the article. However, it still is not particularly well written. For example, in the lead: "After the breakup of The Beatles, it was covered by several singers such as Frank Sinatra, James Brown and Smokey Robinson, making it the second-most covered Beatles song after "Yesterday"." The fact that James Brown, Robinson, and Sinatra covered it is not related to the fact that it is the second-most covered Beatles song; they are only a few people. It was covered by hundreds, of other artists, and THAT is what makes it the second-most covered Beatles song, not the fact that a few famous artists did a version. Additionally, there are some very wonkish sentences. ""Something" was the only Beatles single in the United States to top the charts with a Harrison composition on the A-side." Maybe it would be simpler to say that Something is the only Harrison song to go #1?
Those are only two examples; the article is still poorly written. Considering that Featured Articles should feature "Brilliant prose", I still can't justify this being an FA. TheImpossibleMan 15:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed some of the most glaring examples I could find. I don't think that the sentence pertaining to cover versions is false, however. It states that the song was covered by many others, gives some examples, and then states that the former led to it being the second-most covered song after Yesterday. Johnleemk | Talk 15:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't think you guys are looking closely enough at the article. Its writing is still quite poor, even in the lead, and there are still references missing. Nevermind new standards - Featured Articles have always been required to be written brilliantly, and the prose in Something is still quite sub-par. TheImpossibleMan 18:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - this document needs a copyedit. At one point, it uses a colon to set off a quote, and then later uses a comma to do the same thing. Also, it has a section called "Awards and Accolades". *Resists urge to laugh*. It's quite funny that the primary author of this document had the chance to remove accolades and didn't, considering that according to him a review would make it non-neutral. Ditto for singling out the cover versions of one particular person. *Bursts out giggling* Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, Johnleemk said this at the FARC for Hey Jude [1]:
        "Acclaim from individuals is not really important; I find they often cause more problems than they solve, in that quoting reviews often makes the article sound POVed (just look at Anville's example, or some other stuff I've worked on like Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album)). There's no need for it."
      • Based on his own words, this article is not NPOV. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 04:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then edit Miss Madeline! We are all editors able to press the save button. If you feel there are faults - edit them, instead of just talking about them. Improve the page as you see fit, don't just sit there complaining Giano | talk 06:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That comment was taken out of context entirely. I was referring to the practice of mentioning or citing reviews to indicate critical response, not to the practice of citing a review to comment on particular features of the song (I'm presuming you're referring to the quote from the reviewer in the section on structure). Otherwise, do tell me how to describe the lyrical features of "Something" without making the article weaselly, POV or both. (Just because I think it may be a simple and straightforward song doesn't mean others will; I personally know a number of Beatles fans who either think it's a hallmark of Harrison's musical genius, or the most simplistic tripe he ever wrote.) Johnleemk | Talk 06:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So now apparently whether an article is an FA or not hinges on uniformity in how it begins quotes. And Sinatra's cover version is not given undue weight, considering that: 1) Sinatra was himself a famous singer; 2) Sinatra called it the greatest love song ever, something considered notable enough to be mentioned by two or three different sources for the article (while none of the other cover version producers' comments, if any, appear to have withstood the test of time), so all we are doing is reflecting the weight given to particular comments by our sources; 3) Sinatra's error in describing the song (which he committed on several occasions) has also been given weight by our sources; 4) Sinatra made a modification to the song which the original composer liked so much that he himself adopted it. Mentioning these facts is not undue weight. If the half the article was devoted to them, yes it would be. But a paragraph summarising what our sources have to say on this is not undue weight, especially when you consider that some of them do (namely Marck) devote half of their content on "Something" to Sinatra and his cover version. Johnleemk | Talk 06:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Johnleemk has done a great job here. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I was asked to vote on this page because the keep/unfeature vote was deadlocked. Last time I checked, however, Wikipedia is not a democracy. We discuss, but we do not vote. Anyway, as for my two cents on this article, I do agree that it is not perfect. There are grammatical issues, and the article might not be fully comprehensive, although that particular argument is nothing without example. But, seeing this discussion, I can tell that almost every person who has left a comment has a strong opinion on this article. I, however, don't know much about this article's history. I can't tell you who started it, or who its biggest editors have been, without looking at the history pages. I can't really pick out points of contention, or find problems with it. I can, however, say that if I were to personally evaluate it for Good Article status, I might pass it depending on my mood and alertness, and my sensitivity to errors and shortcomings. I can say that, if this article were presented to FAC, that I would recommend a promotion to Featured Article status based on its apparent completion of all requirements. I can say that while this article is not perfect, no article is perfect and we should never expect them to be as such. I can also say that based on what I have read, and based on what I have just said, I recommend a keep. Finally, I can say that I really need to cut back on the number of words I write; this is just a ridiculously large comment. - CorbinSimpson 03:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Crash test dummy

[edit]

Still a featured article.

Request for references on the talk page is well over a year old, yet no inline citations in the whole article and only a few references. The article appears well written and comprehensive, but this alone does not an FA make. PDXblazers 05:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There was a request for references and now there are lots of them. External links can qualify as references, they're just not formatted correctly in this case, but that's easy to fix. So you haven't made any detailed request on the talk page for improvement, which is required for listing here. - Taxman Talk 14:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To reinforce Taxman's point, the requirement at the top of this page to post a warning of an impending nomination is critical to the effectiveness of the FARC process. Please withdraw the nomination and follow the protocol. The warning should be polite and should point out, lucidly and plainly, what needs to be done to avoid nomination. Tony 06:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Nomination new inline citations satisfy FAC requirement. PDXblazers 01:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xenu

[edit]
Withdrawn / illigitimate. Article is still a featured article.

According to "Wikipedia:What is a featured article?" to become a featured article it needs the following attributes,

"It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable"

In my opinion this article is far from fullfilling those requirements. "many of the volcanoes named by Hubbard did not exist 75 million years ago" "set four quadrillion years ago (roughly 300,000 times longer than current scientific consensus holds the age of the universe to be)"

OK, so those quotes are from the article itself, but dont they support my conclusion that the overall article about Xenu is not factually accurate -- added anonymously 05:45, 14 April 2006 by user JACurran (talk · contribs · count)

  • Speedy keep. No, those quotes do not support your conclusion. They merely go to show that the Xenu story itself is not true. The Xenu article isn't trying to assert that the Xenu story itself is accurate. It merely asserts that the Xenu story is a story that is taught to Scientologists. And that fact is accurate. Vivaldi 10:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, per Vivaldi. The prose is good, though some short paragraphs could profitably be merged to avoid chopiness; the referencing is solid, though several inline hyperlinks would be better off as footnotes. Anville 11:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep next our hearts, what Vivaldi said. This listing seems to be based on a misunderstanding. A more cogent objection to Featured status would be "article can be misunderstood", then. I wouldn't advocate removing it on that score, I think it's great, but perhaps its editors would consider dotting the i's and crossing the t's a bit more in the lead section? It is a little deadpan. Admittedly that quality is also a big reason why the article is so funny. I'm not asking for the first sentence, "In Scientology doctrine, Xenu (also Xemu) is an alien ruler of the "Galactic Confederacy" who, 75 million years ago, brought billions of people to Earth, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs", to read "In Scientology doctrine BUT NOT REALLY, Xenu (also Xemu) is an alien ruler" etc. But would more focus on the fictionality of Xenu in some subtler way be possible? Bishonen | talk 11:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep: Given that this is mythos, I don't think that we can say "this is fiction" without losing NPOV. Tom Cruise thinks that this stuff really happened, and he's the Most Important Man in the World. John Travolta thinks it's true, and he is Cool. I.e. if we do emphasize the absurdity of these claims, those who accept it will have big arguments, and if we don't, we have some people who can misunderstand our position. I think the article does a good job of reporting from a distance on a set of truly silly claims. Geogre 12:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wigwag

[edit]

This is a low quality article which has no refrences whatsoever. Also, in its previous farc, it was voted to be removed but no one ever did. See: Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Wigwag Archive 1 This is the worst FA I have ever encoutered on WP. Tobyk777 05:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Taxman removed it because no time was given on the talk page to address concerns, particularly the lack of referencing. He made a so far unanswered comment himself two-and-a-half days ago. This may be summarily de-listed again, however, it is an obvious remove candidate and that's my vote. Even if you threw refs in here it is very far from exemplifying our "best work." The intro is too short, the design section is too long and "history of", "design of" and "location of" subjects are inter-mixed to a degree that requires structural revamping. There is certainly some interesting and specific details in here and I wouldn't call it "low quality." Rather I think it the sort of middle of the road article you find a lot on the wiki: info more or less in place but structure and references lacking. Marskell 09:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously? You read that page explaining why the listing was removed and you still nominated it again without following the guidelines? It also has a reference, it just wasn't listed in a references section, which I have now done. To list here, you need to detail on the talk page what you find wrong with the article and give some time to fix it. That's just polite. And I'm curious how you passed over the three times you would have had to read that guideline to make the nomination. - Taxman Talk 13:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Bath

[edit]
Listing removed because the guidelines of detailing the article's deficiencies and leaving time for them to be fixed were not followed. - Taxman Talk 14:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poor formatting, no inline references, does not follow Manual of Style. Not well written, and consists mostly of bulleted lists. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 00:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Informative, comprehensive and lists several references. Giano | talk 16:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tuberculosis

[edit]
Listing removed because the guidelines of detailing the article's deficiencies and leaving time for them to be fixed were not followed. - Taxman Talk 14:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am resubmitting this for consideration. There are no inline sitations, most of the text are bulleted lists, and there is little Wiki-linking. The quality of the writing is poor, and does not generally serve as an example of a FA. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 00:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yom Kippur War

[edit]
Article is still a featured article.

It is so sad to see such one-sided and one-dimensional article in the main page today's feature article:

FIRST: In the article's talk-pages so much has been said about what is considered an already biased TITLE of the article. A war between two parties, why be named according to the culture and language of only one?? Especially that it already has different names, notably equivalent national ones of the OTHER party! Thus, in the Arabic Wikipedia the same article is titled "the October War", which is the common name in the Arabic language and culture. No NPOV on the titling level. Please see for the debate on the talk-pages: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

SECOND: A serious deficiency in references: Even that there are a bunch of books listed in a ref. section, perhaps only ONE of them is being very particularly and frequently referred to, and seldom to other refs. Also see in the talk pages: [7] [8] [9] [10]

THIRD: Very evident and obvious lack of NPOV. It will be found that many detailed information has been given with no refs. at all. But the story of the war has been told as if the other party, here the Arab, is in the wrong, weak, or OTHER-SIDE. Thus, it is so evident, even to those who will have no passion or sentiment to the perhaps still glaring consequences of the war and the Arab-Israeli conditions of relationship, that this article is truly and quite intentionally one-sided, and far from the NPOV status. This lack of NPOV is refelected also in the Arabic version of the article, but the other way round, of course. Please see in the talk-pages: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

Having this article as today's feature article will surely upset the feelings of so many "somepeople", and quite understandably, if you look up the matter calmly and genuinely. It is possible that it be also upsetting to those who do not want Wikipedia's feature articles to be in such politicized quality.
(This page has been removed once recently without a talk!) Maysara 15:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep Numerous people have commented that this is one of the best written featured articles. Also, in regards to the naming: there were two separate polls, one of them unanimous (15 supporting the current name and 0 opposing) and the other nearly so (30-8), that the current name is fine (wherein it was shown that the current name is BY FAR the most common using any metric). Raul654 16:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Raul654, Although you have had many discussions before also with numerous people about the title-name problem, it seems that they have not been of any help as to convince you that a certain NPOV problem is quite evident in here. You say numerous people think this a feature article and you defend it as if it was a property or art-work of yours. But you provide absolutely no definition of what is sufficiently numerous for a feature article. After all, "somepeople" have to decide it to be a feature article in order for it to be displayed in the today's feature article in the main page, but this is precisely what brings us here to talk about. However, our discussion is not here confined to the title-name problem but it also includes problems of referencing and NPOV status. There might be a consensus about the first, but the later, it seems, there cannot be such consensus. It is fairly evident that these problems most seriously indicate that this article is not by any degree eligible as to be a feature article. It might not be bad, effort might have been most devotedly spent in it, but still, it continues to be problematic in many essential aspects upon which a feature article is defined, one of which is particularly the strongly disputed NPOV status of the article. I am convinced that this article might become worthy of it being a feature article if you try to cool down and think about your own contributions more genuinely. A POV template was once added by User:Unfocused, was it you who removed it? Or was it another such template that you removed it? Don't you think they can contribute a lot to the discussion about the neutrality of this article? I hope you'll more calmly think those issues over. Thank you, Maysara 17:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per Raul654 PPGMD 20:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep If you can't get support for your views on the talk page, don't bring it to FARC. - Taxman Talk 20:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But why not? I might not be able to get support on my views of the content of the article itself in its talk page, but I think if I want to debate its featured status, this is just the right space (that is, some editors might not be interested in debating my views of the content of the article itself in its talk-page, but they still might be interested in debating and contributing to whether it is worthy of its featured status or not). Also, I have provided 14 supporting links from the talk-pages, please click over them with the mouse! Thank you, Maysara 20:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Agree with other editors.--Alabamaboy 21:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per Raul654, and nice timing from the nominator. feydey 23:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)¹b[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Potentially bad faith nomination, particularly on the naming question. Batmanand | Talk 09:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Humph! How frustrating! If you don't believe it "bad faith" nomination, if you don't think it so, you then just don't say potentially! What does "potentially bad faith" matter or signify?! Humphph! Apart from that you're most probably, just used to encounter with it, and that I, correspondingly and consequently, am a person with a bad faith! It is amazing that you then link to the, "assume" good faith page. But go on, I am sorry for the wretched quality of my faith, keep keeping, speedily! Maysara 20:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per above, but the article's refs do need to be improved. (one random example: "In 1971 Israel spent $500 million fortifying its positions on the Suez Canal" is uncited). Mikker (...) 20:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see anything wrong with the article. On the contrary, it is very well written and sourced. --Jannex 13:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As for the title, there has been a lot of discussion and 2 or 3 votes. There's no need to starting another one. About the POV issue, I would like for the nominator to show me precisely which sections are having a problem so I can take a look at them. Thank you. CG 13:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just am unable to understand why so many are confusing debating the content of the article itself with debating its eligibility to be featured! I am here not asking to change anything with the article itself (such as doing more votes for its problematic title situation). I am here asking you to reconsider whether it should be featured or not, no more, no less. I personally believe it is not a horrible article. Itself is quite an informative one, apart from its very evident POV condition. But this is another matter from it being featured or not. My argument is that it is not sufficiently merited to be featured for the reasons I mentioned above. I think, and I though everyone thought, that a feature article is one that is very well referenced (especially in matters where providing no reference is totally inappropriate, such as here) and one that at least embraces lesser dispute and controversy about its very NPOV status. A bad article 'cannot' be featured. A good one 'maynot' be featured as well, if the later is still below the standards of featuring.
as for the "precisely which sections having a POV problem". I really don't know how my voluntary help to you should be helpful, if you're unable to see for yourself! However, I have given some links from the talk pages, in the THIRD argument of mine about the, POV, issue. See above. Thank you, Maysara 15:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ZZ66bgd I cannot understand how such an important event in ME history can be viewed from a single biased perspective. Is it for the lack of other more neutral resources or that the Wikipedia Community houses a Zionist agenda? Just wondering...65.186.68.236 00:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please state "remove", "keep", or explain what should be done with the article and why. Nonsense votes will not be considered in a decision. Kosebamse
That is not a "nonsense vote." This process is not a vote at all. All valid actionable objections will be taken into account, regardless of whether the person is an anon, or if they put "ZZ66bgd." That said, blathering on about a Zionist agenda will get him nowhere. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What? Didn't you know? We are all part of a super-secret Jewish cabal that will soon take over the world! <long sinister-sounding laughter here> Mikker (...) 20:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know i'm part of a Jewish cabal... And if i'm not, I ought to join it ;-). But seriously, given the very high standards of Judaism related articles on wikipedia in relation to other religions, you can't help but think that an outsider would see this as a pro-Jewish website (not that it is). For me a Keep. Thethinredline 18:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No good reason for being here. Giano | talk 16:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, however voting with the "speedy" modifier is improperly dismissive of the legitimate concerns of people who disagree with you, and only serves to create greater schism in the community, as well as greater schism between Jews and Arabs. Please allow more room for civil disagreement. People voting "speedy" should check themselves more carefully for POV bias. This is an entirely legitimate candidate for FARC discussion. Personally, I think there is obvious bias, but don't think the baby should go out with the bathwater. Problems with this article itself should be solved by discussion and editing. Unfocused 18:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User that nominated this for a FARC first posted on the talk page, he didn't get a response within a few hours and he put it up for FARC, IMO since he didn't even give it a day for the process on the talk page for people to show support, or non-support, it's a bad faith nomination, thus qualifying for a speedy modifier. PPGMD 18:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, I'm confused. If there is indeed "obvious bias" the article should obviously be de-featured. (See 2(d) of WP:WIAFA). Can you provide an argument as to why the article suffers from bias? Mikker (...) 20:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've already discussed the most obvious point of bias on the talk page. A Wikiproject group of editors who have this article on their watch list have successfully defended their POV. If the most obvious bias doesn't get addressed by reasonable discussion, why bother with the rest, especially when you know you've already stirred the supporting base of the POV currently expressed?
I'll state again here that "the rest" of the obvious bias I'm referring to isn't really all that much or that harmful, in my opinion, even though it's clearly present. This is why I voted "Keep".
However, this article's current state regarding the bias I did try to remove has clearly shown me that Wikipedia is doomed to a certain degree of uncorrectable populism. I've accepted the project as it is rather than how I'd like it to be, and adjusted my participation in response. Unfocused 16:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is as unbasied as it can be. That said, how can an article on a surpirse devastating invasion on the holiest of holidays possibly not make the defenders look like the good guys. Tobyk777 01:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Identification of one side or the other as "good guys" is a moral judgement, and is inherently flawed with POV. Please see the NPOV tutorial. Unfocused 16:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a moral judgement. If someone murders someone else, the murderer is the bad guy. It's pretty obvious. When talking about an un-prevoked invasion with no purpose. It's almost as obvious. There is no need for judgements or identification of the good guys. One side was brutaly atacked, and the other defended themselves. Tobyk777 03:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please take the time to review WP:NPOV, especially the examples of Saddam Hussein and Hitler. You are simply wrong. Identification of a "bad guy" in ANY dispute is a moral judgement that is properly left to the reader; an encyclopedia documents facts (which can be expected to clearly illustrate who the bad guy is) without including any individual moral judgements. Unfocused 17:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old Swiss Confederacy

[edit]
Article is still a featured article.

The current title of this article (Old Swiss Confederacy) suggest it is about a former state, but the structure is essentialy 'history of' (or rather two specific sections on territorial (which seems to include political among others) and social developments (economy, summary of politics)). At best, the title is confusing, suggesting it is a comprehensive overview of a former country (for good FA examples of this, see Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Indo-Greek Kingdom or Byzantine Empire). Therefore if the article is to remain in it's present state and be a former state article, sections on politics and economy have to be expanded (currently take take about 10% of article's lenght, with history being 90%) and sections on culture, administrative division and such should be added. Alternatively, a solution to address this FARC is for the article to be renamed to History of Swiss Confederacy or History of Swiss (1291–1516), as is our naming convention for history articles (FAs: History of Poland (1945–1989), History of post-Soviet Russia, History of the Netherlands, History of Russia, History of Scotland). Even if this is done, the article is below our standards: from the fact that it needs a copyedit (the section titled 'Territorial development' takes 90% of the article and should probably be renamed history), to the fact that the article has not a single inline citation and it's reference section numbers just two positions. In the current state, it is simply not up to our current standards. See also old FAC discussion from Oct'04 and my comments about the importance of differentiation between 'former state' and 'history of...' articles.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Even without knowing much about Swiss history, Strong remove for absolutely no inline citation and next to no references. Staxringold 03:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Doesn't need inline refs: it's a summary-style overview written as a summary of the two references given, which are comprehensive treatments of the subject. See the talk page. Furthermore, this part of the history of Switzerland is not controversial, so there's no need to inline ref every sentence fragment. Controversial issues are the veracity of the Federal Charter of 1291 and of the legends of William Tell and Arnold Winkelried; all three are discussed and sourced in their own articles. Now, Piotrus' other argument is somewhat better, but it seems he's just opposing on structural grounds, proposing a reorganization of the whole series. That's not a reason for removal; that'd be a reason for moving it to some other name (Forming of the Old Swiss Confederacy or some such) and then write a new article at the old title that would give a very brief overview of the federation of small independent states commonly called the "Old Swiss Confederacy" from 1291 to 1797. That would actually be a good idea. I would strongly advice against renaming "territorial development" to "history"; that's an awefully narrow view of "history". I would also advice against using hard-coded years in the article title (such as Piotrus' proposal "History of Swiss (1291–1516)"); the end date isn't that clear. Lupo 07:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Controversy isn't the only possible prerequisite for citation, it's whether something is common knowledge or not. "Two similar federations sprung up in neighboring areas in the Alps in the 14th century: in the Grisons, the federation of the Three Leagues (Drei Bünde) was founded, and in the Valais, the Seven Tenths (Sieben Zenden) were formed as a result of the conflicts with the Dukes of Savoy. Neither federation was part of the medieval Eidgenossenschaft but both maintained very close connections with it." That could be made up gibberish for all I, or plenty of people, know. It needs citation. "When Rudolph I of Habsburg was elected "King of the Germans" in 1273, he also became the direct liege lord of these reichsfrei regions. He instituted a strict rule and raised the taxes to finance wars and further territorial acquisitions. When he died in 1291, his son Albert I got involved in a power struggle with Adolf of Nassau for the German throne, and the Habsburg rule over the alpine territories weakened temporarily. Anti-Habsburg insurgences sprung up in Swabia and Austria, but were quenched quickly by Albert in 1292. Zürich had participated in this uprising. Albert besieged the city, which had to accept him as its patron." Says... who? Staxringold 11:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Say the references given, and pretty much every other text book. It is common knowledge. Lupo 13:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both of them? For every single fact? On every page? It may be common knowledge for Swiss, but it is not for 99% of the world population (and I doubt Swiss actually know their history any better than people of other nationality, meaning most it probably is not common knowledge to anybody but history fans). There is a reason why Wikipedia:Inline citations are now a FA requirement, and a good FA should have every single fact referenced, be it common knowledge to somebody or not. In my recent FA, the Katyn massacre, I referenced quite a few facts that are 'common knowledge' in Poland - but proved to be unknown and/or controversial on the international forum. As Staxringold pointed out, the same maybe true for 'uncontroversia' and 'common knowledge' Swiss history. If all of those facts are from those two book - that's fine, than just put Harvard style page numbers in text and the objection is addressed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And If the references actually provide that information, there should be inline citation linking the fact to the source. Otherwise it may just as easily have been made up yesterday. Not trying to be difficult, but that's what inline citation exists for. Staxringold 14:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry. If an article is based on a few main sources, these are given in the "references" section and implicitly act as a reference for any statement not having an explicit inline reference. Otherwise, one ends up with a ref-feast like Katyn massacre. If I had written that, I would have given Fischer as a "main source" (probably also refs numbers 2 to 4), and omitted all explicit inline refs to them. The abundance of references actually distracts from reading the text. Oh, and last time I looked, inline citations were not a FA requirement. The last time I looked was just a minute ago :-) Lupo 21:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They may not be the official FA requirement yet, but no article has passed FA in the past few months without inlince cits. Fighting against them is as pointless as fighting about references when people first started to require them: pointless. We have to make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Red herring. I'm not fighting against them; take a look at other featured articles I wrote, and you'll see that I do use them where appropriate. My point is that here, they are not appropriate as the two references given back up the article. (In fact, I just noticed that a few isolated facts came from a few extlinks; these are given as inline cites now.) Sprinkling hundreds of inline cites that all would go to the two reference books used to write the article makes no sense to me. Feel free to do it yourself, though: just replace any full stop by ".(Schwabe 2004, Im Hof 2001)". It won't improve the article, though. Lupo 07:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would if the creator(s) bothered to include page numbers, as proper inlince cits should have.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I agree inline cites would be better, I don't believe in removing all current featured articles that are referenced, but don't have inline citations. There's not much value in dropping down to 250 or 300 FA's. - Taxman Talk 13:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that inline citations are only a second, and perhaps less important of the arguments I make in the case for removing the article (bad structure, bad name, not comprehensive for current name...).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I grant the issue you've brought up about the naming more properly fitting the content is a decent one, I just don't think this is poor enough to warrant de-featuring it. The naming issue can be resolved with some consensus, not FARC. - Taxman Talk 17:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, when I'm as a knowledgable as you on a certain subject as you seem to be on this, I have been known to do that too. Try it sometime, it's very rewarding. Giano | talk 18:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since the processes started we've been accepting different standards for getting articles featured and de-featured. Instead of nominating an overall very good article, why not a) work on improving it, which yes I know is not easy, but is better, or 2) nominate some of the articles with no references and poor structure. - Taxman Talk 17:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radar

[edit]
Article is still a featured article.

I think the radar article no longer meets FA criteria, as it has sections with poor formatting, that are not well written, and merely lists of radar systems. It's no longer the quality that the article was in June 2004 [16] when it became a featured article. I hope that by listing the article here, some knowledgeable editors on this topic will work on the article and get it back to featured quality. --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ku Klux Klan

[edit]
Article is still a featured article.
Note, this subpage wasn't listed on WP:FARC until March 23 so the two week period starts from then. - Taxman Talk 16:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article no longer meets two of the FA criteria: stability and neutrality. Since the time when it was recognized as an FA, large sections have been repeatedly deleted and reinserted, and persistent attempts have been made by user User:Rjensen to push a POV that apologizes for the second (post-1915) Klan, and paints it as an organization mainly concerned with such issues as temperance. The article no longer appears to have a critical mass of editors who are willing to watch it carefully enough to maintain NPOV. In the last 3 days, for example, roughly 50 edits have been made, many of them major ones, with no serious discussion on the talk page.--Bcrowell 04:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article needs help, specifically it should probably be protected from anonymous users. It just makes it too easy for it to be vandalized when they're allowed. 65.95.229.9 06:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see a problem with things like this, and this. So much of the text (including the content) is changing with these edits. Much of the material has been omitted, including passages with citations. I realize rewriting is very commmon on wikipedia and is encouraged (I am not being "over-protective" of the article). I simply bring this up because so much has been changed that the article may not be of the same quality as before. Also, I would not be surprised if many people question the validity that burning crosses were not used to terrorize anyone, as was added in the first edit linked to above. - Dozenist talk 13:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the diff for the last week. (As the person who wrote the stability requirement) The article is clearly stable Raul654 06:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the diff from the same time frame to the current version. It looks a little more volatile. About as much as during the time of the initial nomination to remove featured article status. - Dozenist talk 04:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the article needs help. I recommend we revert the article to the version which attained FA status (with the 03:06, 9 October 2005 version at [17] appearing to be a very good choice). That wasn't too long ago and that version of the article was really good. As an admin who edits a lot of southern United States themed articles, I'd also be happy to keep an eye on this article from this point on and make sure vandalism, POV issues, and other problems don't creep in again. However, to do such a massive revert I would prefer to have some other editors back me. So what do you think? Is this worth doing?--Alabamaboy 20:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with your suggestion, since that version was very good. So much has changed since then, and it would be nice to have several people keeping an eye on the changes for POV issues and removal of relevant info. - Dozenist talk 20:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ashibaka tock 00:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the purpose of building consensus in case this stirs up trouble, I agree that the older version (now the current version) is the superior version of the article. - Jersyko·talk 01:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No the old version was full of serious mistakes and bad sources. For example it says there were 1300 murders in 1868 (source was an anonymous website that had no sources). It had a serious misinterpretation of the 2nd KKK -- putting emphasis on 1915-20 period when it had few members and ignoring enoromous growth after 1921. It did not discuss leadership of 2nd Klan. The original was not based on recent scholarship that has revolutionized the field. So keep the current version. Rjensen 01:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for my POV: there is a large new literature on the 2nd KKK that represents the consensus of historians. The old version was simply unaware of the field. To call that an "apology" is not being very kind to the several hundred scholars working in the field. Rjensen 01:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would the scholarly consensus include, just as an example, deleting all information describing the Leo Frank incident from the text of the article? Your edits go beyond consensus to POV. - Jersyko·talk 02:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But that's merely your opinion of the Frank incident, a majority of the sources I'm seeing are expressing a view of the lynching that is quite different from your own. If, as you say, you're merely attempting to reproduce a newfound historical consensus (revisionism, one might say) regarding the Klan, then why are the sources I'm seeing still citing the Frank incident as a precursor to the founding of the 2nd Klan? At worst, the incident should still be mentioned in the article as an incident that is *possibly* related to the founding of the 2nd Klan. - Jersyko·talk 02:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes agreed the Frank episode can be mentioned. as possibly related. What sources are you looking at? Rjensen 02:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Online sources. I cannot vouch for the credibility of the sources I looked at. They were essentially unanimous in pointing to Frank as a KKK related topic, however.
May I ask if you consider the following to be the consensus of the hundreds of scholars that work in the field? The second KKK was a social organization active in all states in the 1920s. It demanded enforcement of prohibition and attacked sin, sexuality and foreign influences. It crashed when its own scandals revealed the hollowness of its efforts to purify society. I'd like to understand why you added it to the History of the United States (1918–1945) article, replacing a longer section that expounded on the 2nd KKK at greater length. Thanks. - Jersyko·talk 05:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's a very short, accurate summary of KKK in 1920s. The longer statement was not very good--it never even mentioned Evans who was the main leader, or the famous epsiodes in Indians. Simmons did found the group originially but it was a small local Georgia group under him with maybe 3,000 members . New leaders (Clark and Evans) took over after 1920 and it really took off nationally growing a thousand times bigger. Simmons get mentioned but not Clark and Evans, who who far more important. I think lots of people get KKK#2 mixed up with KKK#1 and KKK#3 both of which were very violent--and assume that if there was violence in the 1920s then the KKK was involved. As for KKK#1 the article has long fawning quotes from an admirer (Stanley Horn); I think they should be drastically cut. (As for KKK#3 in recent years I don't pretend to know much and have ignored that part of the article except to add some serious bibliography.) Rjensen 05:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it is absolutely false that I'm an "apologist" for the 2nd KKK. I consider the old version very poor quality history. It did not reflect scholarship of last 25 years at all. It did not even mention the basic history of the group--like the powerful leader Evans in the 1920s (it played up a much less important Simmons). As for the first KKK of the 1860s the old version copied verbatim old uncritical material (especially Horn) that was strongly pro-KKK. Likewise the article was full of KKK lore such as listings of its titles and codewords. I would say the old version was 40% pro KKK and 40% anti and about 90% out of date. (I am considering only KKK#1 and KKK#2 here). Rjensen 07:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For readability, an extensive comparison of resources and a small discussion about them have been moved to this FARC's talk page. Additional discussion about improving the article is taking place on the article's talk page. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article has been greatly improved over the last two weeks by a discussion among all of the involved editors. In my opinion, it is now even better than it was when it first achieved FA status. Even though one final issue remains to be resolved (a minor one, in my opinion) I suggest we do not remove the FA status at this point. Any comments from the other editors? --Alabamaboy 00:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten, per Alabamaboy. - Jersyko·talk 00:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHy not keep the old version and then link to a new page with improvements so as to have comparison?Ellyjelly 07:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Ives

[edit]
Article is still a featured article.

The article does not have references or inline citations (both required). There was a request for references on the talk page on Apr 22, 2005. Not a featured article review candidate (Wikipedia:Featured article review) because it never had references (did not deteriorate). Hyacinth 08:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This has been nominated only for its lack of references and inline citations. If that is the case. I think one needs to apply some common sense, it has a list of further reading, and a whole list of external links which seem to confirm the facts, and quite obviously were the references. The article makes no outlandish or controversial statements. I don't see any harm in it remaining a FA. It was supported on it's FA by one of Wikipedia's most knowledgable editors who would have spotted a flaw instantly. It also does something which wikipedia does best - gives a comprehensive amount of information on a subject often not often found in other encyclopedias. The page has also survived the ordeal of being on the main page as recently as last May with no one making furious protestations of "rubbish" or "lies". Just because the criteria for present FAs has changed since this was nominated is no reason to sweep away everything then went before. Giano | talk 10:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. No references. Even your basic college paper has references, otherwise it's considered plagerism. Wikipedia has to have a higher standard than that. Featured articles are supposed to represent that standard. Any article without proper references should not be in feature status. If references are added and/or all none referenced statements are removed, I would reconsider my vote. --Sketchee 16:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Lack of references. Comment It had ONE vote, the ONLY comment was "A really good introduction to Ives' life and work", and it was apparently added to FA by the lone voter. That doesn't seem to constitute a "review", then or now. That's the current standard for Good Articles. I'm all for being practical and reasonable and IAR and all that, but if the FAC process is to mean anything, all current FAs should have received a review somewhat approximating today's standards, else, why improve? Should the refs indeed be sufficient, and the article so good, it should pass a FAC renom no problem, and get up to speed in the process! --Tsavage 00:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Good Articles" is a daft process understood by no one especially those who seem to pronounce on it (so can be dismissed accordingly). FACs even today based on non mainstream composers or classical dead musicians seem to attract little if any attention, so are you surprised by the pages lone vote at that stage in Wikipedia's history? Of course this page in its present form would fail FAC today - but we are discussing the nomination made above not other non specified charges against it - so lets not digress. I am quite sure had the original author been clairvoyant they would have labelled the external links and further reading as references which if you look at them, or read them, is clearly what they were. Giano | talk 01:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • FARC guidelines say nothing about strictly addressing only the word of the nomination. In any case, I guess this is back to the "references" issue. Isn't this a case of "yeah, it makes sense as long as you're there to explain it"? We require inlines when necessary, but limit the "necessity" in the case of existing FAs to whether voters decide if the article is otherwise good (when any reasonable request for inlines should be supported). Now we should do the same for articles without references? If all of this means so little in practice, why not just change "Further reading" to "References"? And why not perhaps add, in complete good faith, a list of general references to a great article with no "Further reading" section, to save it as an FA, or even to get it through a new FAC? I really think verifiability ought to meet a minimum standard of usability, which means cite.php refs (OR toss inlines entirely and just go with a bibliography)... --Tsavage 02:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—It's well written; my only complaint is that it's a little short for such an important, multifaceted composer. Keep it, but please expand it. Tony 01:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just added a whole bunch of inline citations from the very thorough Grove article. I think it's rather pedantic to say that the article has no references simply because they are labeled "Further reading", when some of them were clearly used as references. Makemi 05:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inadequate summary of his musical style and its place in the history of music, although there are a few descriptive fragments. I'm moving towards a Weak remove unless the contributors fix it. Tony 07:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A discussion on criteria has been moved to the talk page.

Spoo

[edit]
Article is still a featured article.

This article does not meet several FA criteria, mainly that it is not representative of our best work and it has insufficient references, same as Goomba. The article is basically a few paragraphs describing Spoos in TV, and a few paragraphs about Spoo usuage in the fan community. Almost all references are from websites. Some are about particular TV episodes that are self-linked to Wikipedia, and others are a collection of usenet and email message posts, neither of which are published works, regardless of who wrote the messages. Other refernces all point to websites which do not list where they get the information, therefore no sources are verifiable, even though they may be true. Temporary account 01:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • STRONG KEEP naturally. It is one of the most stable Featured articles we have and solidly meets the various criteria. Comprehensiveness is not an issue here - indeed, this is the single most comprehensive treatise on this subject that you will find anywhere, period.
As for the quality of the references, they are all relevant to the subject, a fictional food from a fictional tv show. The usenet post linked from Wikisource is actual canon, as the show's creator, executive producer, and writer of 90% of the epic, wrote those words. Further references go towards the evolution of both the word and the fictional creature, both inside and out of the fictional universe. Usenet posts by J. Michael Straczynski are verifiable and legit - please read Internet marketing and fan influence on Babylon 5, rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, J. Michael Straczynski, and The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5. The JMSNews.com archive of his usenet posts is officially sanctioned by Straczynski, and the legitamacy of the google archives is without doubt.
It's an obscure subject, yeah, but all subjects deserving an article also deserve a featured article, even really obscure minutae like this. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I am pretty old-schooled regarding sources and stuff. Either give me PDF from respected journals or citations of published works. I have been writing term papers, research paper, and other serious no bullshit stuff for a long time, and what I learned is that internet doesn't count as proper source. In another words, I try to be as academically rigorous as possible. If you want lower your standards, fine. Temporary account 02:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[refactor]

  • How does Spoo compare to Goomba? Goomba's got paper sources, and I favor removal because the article's subpar. Samething here. Come on, you've got to admit even if this is a FA, it's at the bottom. Temporary account 02:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources need to be verifiable, not just paper (there are paper sources in Spoo, BTW). To accuse a resource of unverifiability and then not bothering to back it up is a diservice, to say the least. Finally, I have no opinion on Goomba - I do know that Spoo is one damn good article (evil Media subject or not), and, I say this with utter confidence, is the single most complete, comprehensive, referenced and well written article on this subject to be found anywhere. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spoo and Goomba and Bulbasaur???? [Personal attacks and incivility removed] We have so many terrible articles on important subjects (check out Amazon rainforest, recycling, or any article on the AID), and we spend time arguing about Spoo? That being said, I see no reason to remove this article. I wouldn't worry too much about the quality of the sources. If anyone in academia tried to do a serious work on spoo, I'm not sure anyone would read it, let alone actually try to track down the sources.PDXblazers 06:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove I find the fact that most of the references rely on usenet postings unsettling. Does the series have some other book sources or technical journals published? I know Star Wars and Star Trek have tons of that kind of stuff. And is "Lurker's Guide" in any way affiliated with the production company or whatnots? If not then at most it's just a fansite. BlueShirts 01:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its really not that difficult: Spoo Creator J. Michael Straczynski wrote "such and such" about Spoo. "Such and such" is archived at this and this website. "Such and such" is mentioned in the article, with a footnote explaining from where and when this statement came, linking to this and this website. Not only are the references valid, they are relevant and authoritative. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Content-wise, this is an example of what an article on a fictional element should be. It is light on the plot-summary filler and heavy on the real-world and fictional analysis. The creator's use of usenet posts are well-documented. So, if authenticated, how do they differ from an interview or production notes? [18] [19] --maclean25 02:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove For now. I am ambivilant about the sources, however I do not like that nothing is quoted, it is merely linked. Since none of this is verifyable, it should be relayed with a lot more direct quotes from the sources, rtather than the one that is there currently. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 05:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When writing an article about a character in a book, do you just quote vast sections from the book, or do you describe the character and reference the book? When you say "I do not like that nothing is quoted" you are just plain wrong (read the article: there are quotes). And then you make an utterly preposterous statement: "Since none of this is verifyable..." None of it? So there is no book by Frank Zappa, no B5 cookbook published in England, no Babylon 5 television series, no statements from Straczynski archived anywhere? Gee wiz, did I make this entire thing up? If so, then my prowess as a fiction writer is massively underappreciated. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do, particularly if the subject is completley made up in the first place. I don't quote vast sections of any text, you are misinterpreting me. I have said that the one quote you have listed is unsufficient for a make-believe subject. I still hold that the article is poorly written and unencyclopaedic. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 05:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Well referenced from ultimate authority on the subject, the creator, and meets all FAC criteria... it is a somewhat obscure topic, that is not and should not be a bar from being a featured article. Judgesurreal777 06:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep You cannot compare raw numbers of references and expect quality in all articles. Spoo, for example, will have less potential references than Babylon 5 as Babylon 5 can use every ref for Spoo AND others. Spoo uses every ref listed wonderfully, and while the article is short, it is definetly the definitive source on spoo. Staxringold 08:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove for now. Get some better sources then Usenet postings, anyone can spoof an email address. I agree that obscurity should not be a bar from FA status, but lack of proper ref's most definately is. -Mask Talk 23:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) JMS has been posting to USENET etc since 1985. 2) The JMSNews.com archive is oficially sanctioned by JMS. 3) The USENET posts are official resources for much of Babylon 5's back story. You simply cannot get more proper than this. Indeed, to not use the USENET posts by JMS (who, again, created Spoo) would gut the article, and much of Babylon 5's backstory. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply put then, find more authoritative sources. Instead of the usenet posts, is there a book about the backstory of Babylon5 that has these posts in them? If so, use that. If the article ends up gutted, well, then you simply dont have enough factual sources for a featured article. -Mask 20:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh... J. Michael Straczynski created Babylon 5, and therein, Spoo. He wrote 91 of the 110 episodes, some of the canon comics and short stories, and the outlines to the canon novels. Warner Bros owns the B5 rights, but he controls the story. He wrote about B5, both the production and backstory, extensively, online. See Internet_marketing_and_fan_influence_on_Babylon_5. Straczynski created Spoo, and when he writes about it, it is official. Furthermore, Google Groups' Usenet archive is verifiable and notable, and the JMSNews.com archive of his Usenet and Internet posts is officially sanctioned by him. To ignore the resources provided because Straczynski officially wrote backstory online years ahead of the curve instead of doing it in a magazine or a book or an interview is to willfully ignore both the verifiable evidence and the official resources. Willful ignorance. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand all of the above, but I will take exception to the fact that USENET posts are verifiable and notable. Notable, yes, verifiable, with some research into them. As I have said, it's easy to spoof an email address. Some research is required to verify it, and as such, falls under original research. To use an example, look at the Protocols of the Elders of Zion article. They're a hoax, and if you researched it, you could prove it were a hoax. But we can only report on others, not what we do ourselves. Therefore, we link to and source from others who proved they were a hoax. Same here. In a medium that is easy to fake, we can not inherently trust it, and can not verify it ourselves. An outside source such as a book or fan magazine who verified the posts are easily enough to prove they're real. So I ask you: Whats so hard to do about finding one of these? As I understand it, B5 has a large fan base much the same as Star Trek does. Theres even an official magazine out there. Simply source to the appropriate issue of that, or a book. Hell, I'm sture the guy has provided interviews with an outside media source. As it stands now, the article is NOT properly sourced. -Mask 17:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While the subject is (perhaps) not the most note-worthy of subjects, the article meets all FA standards. I should also mention that some of our best featured articles have been about subjects that traditional encyclopedias have ignored (with my favorite obscure FA being Dogpatch USA).--Alabamaboy 00:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, how does Dogpatch compare to Spoo? I think the former beats latter in terms of FA. I still don't think Spoo meets rule #1 though. If somebody is looking for FAs that represent the Best of the best of a million articles, and finds Spoo, what do you think he will react? I don't doubt that this article is the best about spoo, but it's not the best of wiki. Some of the better FAs(in terms of subject and...etc) are getting taken off the list because they lack inline citations or other technicalities, and we're keeping spoo? Why Babylon 5 is not promoted, but Spoo was is totally beyond me, are we trying to make fun of the system (wiki)? Temporary account 02:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not the fault of this article if other quality articles are removed from FA status because they lack inline citations or other technicalities. All that means is that the editors of those other articles should get off their butts and insert the dang citations. In short, this article meets the FA requirements and that is all that matters.--Alabamaboy 13:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • See that's the problem. When dealing with fancruft, the goal is to just pass the requirements and get a star, and then argue that the article is good because it conforms to the rules and that's all that matters. You see, to me the phrase "that's all that matters" really stinks to the high heavens. Are you here at FAC to write the best articles on wiki, or just to pass the requirements (which are lax) and get a FA status and feel yourself to it? Sorry, I know it sounds harsh, but that's the most figurative yet accurate way I can put it. Anyways. Temporary account 18:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A discussion about policy and procedure has been moved to the talk page.

The Long and Winding Road

[edit]
Misunderstanding of featured criteria. Nomination withdrawn

The article does not use citations per (c), which requires the "supporting of facts with specific evidence and external citations...these include a "References" section where the references are set out, complemented where appropriate by inline citations..." Hyacinth 12:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I notice now: "Before listing here, leave comments detailing the article's deficiencies on it's talk page, and leave some time for them to be addressed." However, the article never should have been featured. Hyacinth 14:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I beg your pardon? Are you seriously expecting an article featured on the main page long before the creation of {{ref}} or m:Cite to have footnotes? Besides, I thought FARC waits a decent amount of time before retrospectively applying FA criteria -- {{ref}} didn't even become particularly common until late last year, and it's just been retired in favour of m:Cite. Johnleemk | Talk 14:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do expect featured articles to meet the criteria for featured articles. One does not need templates to create footnotes or other inline citations. Hyacinth 16:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • In case you missed it, footnoting was far from a criteria in January 2005. It's ridiculous to say "the article should never have been featured" and cite a non-existent criterion at the time of the nomination. And you try creating footnotes that don't bog the article down without m:Cite or templates. Anyone who even attempted it a year ago would have been locked away in a mental asylum. Johnleemk | Talk 17:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Roosevelt

[edit]
Article is still a featured article.

This article, while comprehensive compared to some of our other presidential articles, still lacks many things that would probably prevent it from being promoted if it was nominated today. For starters, there are no in-line citations, and several places are tagged as "citation needed", including a direct quote from another source. Second, there are some areas that need to be re-formatted, such as the inclusion of two external links inside the text, and also inconsistent headers ("Later Life" v. "Personal life"). In addition, the last three major sections - "In popular culture", "Quotes", and "Trivia" are simply lists of information. "Trivia" needs to be incorporated into the article, and "in popular culture" should be made into prose, at the very least, and "quotes" should be moved to Wikiquotes. Finally, the article (and the "main" articles it links to, such as The Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt) lack mention of many important events, such as the Roosevelt Corollary (which I just added to The Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt but isn't mentioned yet in the article.) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough, this article's featured on the main page today. However, it's been significantly improved since I last looked at it (good work, Johnleemk and others), and is acceptable now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yikes! 3 supports and 1 object in September got this featured? Too few people looking at it, IMO. At one time I was helping to expand this to featured status but stopped half way through his presidency. When I have time I will look at my sources and add references and fill some missing gaps (not too much - this article is already big enough). But that won't be for a while. Until then I say delist as FA. Once everything is fixed, then I will put this through a proper FAC. --mav 17:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree with NON-inclusion. Agree 100% with suggestions. Have begun footnoting. Don't agree this should be removed as it is one of the best on-line "executive overviews" of TR that I have found on the internet. Its a great intro on TR with the photos. A great deal of useful information on TR. My personal goal is to get MORE people to learn about this amazing person. At the beginning of the 21st Century, he is almost a forgotten president. I spoke with a co-worker who was confusing him with FDR! "No TR did NOT have polio!" I agree that the article needs a lot of work. I, for one, have spent many hours adding some photos, editing the intro to fill in some information. Actually, I have spent many more hours rounding out articles on TR's father, wife, and children to make a family of articles. A good place to start is the footnoting and also I've noticed the inconsistencies with the personal life section. I suspect that's because when it was written, the article, as a whole was much smaller. Any suggestions for the so-called "perfect bio article?" The one on the recently elected Pope Benedict XVI is fairly well written. SimonATL 14:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was terrible as it stood a couple of hours ago, but hopefully I've managed to reorganise it and delete the overly detailed emphasis on conservationism. Half the article is cited with footnotes already, and I'll deal with the rest tomorrow -- I need sleep. I complained about the inefficient use of summary style when the article was first split out, but apparently nobody cared enough to do more than insert one paragraph back into the article, totally omitting Roosevelt's foreign policy. Let's see if we can tackle this before the week is out. Johnleemk | Talk 17:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism

[edit]
Article is still a featured article.

A huge, very excellent article, but unfortunately very few references, and as a minor note no inline citations. As an article that will certainly be considered to be a crucial article in Wikipedia 1.0, I don't think this should be called featured until it is brought up to the vigorous current standard. Judgesurreal777 06:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Fantastic improvement, lots of references and citations along with a very thorough re-working. I think it's at FA status now Judgesurreal777 22:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • remove, resubmit to FAC [change vote to: move to FA review] . I'd give it {{GA}} any day, but without a single inline citation, it's basically an essay. The "References" list one single 1979 book on Hinduism. It was featured in April 2004, I do not think that in its present shape it is up to our present FA standards. If people plod through it adding citations, it may be (but we won't know until that is done, so far, we're pretty much taking the authors' word on everything). There are minor pov issues too, but it's not as bad as it could be. It is also too long and should be shortened by at least 15k. The "Important themes and symbols in Hinduism" section for instance could be a short paragraph or link list without loss to the article (everything is covered in sub-articles). dab (ᛏ) 12:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you. I find the section on "themes and symbols" to be very significant. It not only answers some very important questions that non-Hindus have regarding Hinduism (Whats that dot?, Why do you use swastika?) but it is done in as concise of a manner as possible. This is one case where the extra length is needed. However, changes can be made in some other places to alleviate the problem by looking back at the original FA article.--Blacksun 03:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the article is too long. mention the concepts, treat them in detail in their dedicated articles. Why does the Hinduism article need a full discussion of the Gayatri mantra, giving it in transcription, Devanagari (redundant), IPA (redundant) and translation? There is a Gayatri article, after all. dab (ᛏ) 08:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
fine, since we have Wikipedia:Featured article review, and since the article is being actively improved, I'll change my vote to "move to FA review". My concern remains (a) references/literature, (b) length. dab (ᛏ) 11:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FA Review: it is my opinion that this article should be moved to FA review, which will allows editors to discuss the problems and address them. There a couple of editors scrambling to improve the article as we speak, so I think that the FARC should not proceed further until the FA review is on. Rama's Arrow 22:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I've started the review. Please don't go through with FARC until we've had an opportunity to address the problems. Rama's Arrow 13:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've got two weeks, the clock is ticking. :) But seriously if it can't be substantially fixed in time, removing it and having it re nominated at FAQ may stimulate greater effort and a higher quality for the article in the end anyway. - Taxman Talk 15:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my vote to Keep per recent changes to the article. Good job guys. -Mask 00:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this is rather harsh. Why? Wikipedia guideline on this matter states, "Before listing here, leave comments detailing the article's deficiencies on its talk page, and leave some time for them to be addressed. One may also consider listing the article on Wikipedia:Featured article review." Yes, you did leave a warning in the talk pages. However, this was done at 23:41 on March 13th, 2006 and then on 12:13, 16 March, 2006 you nominated it for removal of FA article. I do not believe that 36 hours and 32 minutes is an appropriate amount of warning. People have already started making good progress on addressing the concerns raised less than four days after your warning. It is really easy to demote someone's hard work but far tougher to create something. I find it very curious as to how excited some of you are on demoting it instead of giving the people sufficient amount of time to address the concerns. All I can say is that it rather makes me not want to spend my free time on articles to get them to a featured article quality *shrugs* You might find that as an immature reaction but that is the first reaction I had when I looked at the time stamps.--Blacksun 23:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been watching this article on and off for quite some time. Every now and again, there were cleanup efforts because the crap kept piling up. Every now and then there were comments as to the deficient citation. If listing the article here gets people to reference it, hey, that's the objective achieved. But it won't hurt the article to go through FAC again. And that's what counts: what will benefit the article. I repeat that very little is needed to get it to undisputed FA status. Cut it to below 60k. Fix the References section, and voila. The Referencing progress is looking good, but the Literature section is still a joke. Remember, this is the article on "Hinduism". We have one book treating Hinduism as such, Chaudhuri, Hinduism: A Religion to Live By (from the title, a work of proselytization rather than scholarship). Then we have two books on the Bhagavad Gita (what are they doing here? we have a Bhagavad Gita article). Likewise, there are references to primary texts (Upanishads, Rigveda, and Yajurveda, in Hindi! translation) all of which have their own articles. I am sure there must be some books on Hinduism beyond Chaudhuri's 1979 work. dab (ᛏ) 08:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well like they say dont judge a book by its cover, same can be said about name. That book is considered a classic in terms of scholarship value in the west. Also, Bhagwad Gita is a very important hindu text. Your question is like someone asking "what are books on bible doing in an article on Christianity?" Makes zero sense. Maybe I am misunderstanding you. Also, their are quite a few references to journal articles and I am sure their will be more. Did I miss some wikipedian rule regarding some type of reference quota on books? Regarding the size issuse, progress is being made (68kb now). Lets see if we get down to 60. And you are assuming when you say that it won't hurt it to go through FAC again. I have seen plenty of ex FA articles never again make it. Just my two cents. (Blacksun 09:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Of course the Gita is relevant to Hinduism. My point is that editions of primary texts are not helpful as further reading on Hinduism as a whole. Fine, take Christianity. Not a FA, mind you. Yet its bibliography is worlds better than the Hinduism one, featuring titles like A World History of Christianity, Christian Theology: An Introduction, Christian Theology Reader, Mere Christianity, A History of the Development of Doctrine, Systematic Theology (an ecumenical trilogy), A Short History of Christianity, The Christian Myth: Origins, Logic, and Legacy etc. The present references section of Hinduism would rather correspond to a "Christianity" bibliography of "References: The Bible." dab (ᛏ) 11:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goomba

[edit]
Article is still a featured article.

this is featured? the article has 2 so-called "references", which are merely promotional product-info distributed by nintendo themselves. full of uncited assertions (even on the first line - "possibly meaning people" - why possibly?! ). fairuse images without rationale. weasel words abound. extremely non-comprehensive, with no discussion of authorship: why were they created, why did the games developers make the decisions about these things that they did? no assertion of significance or notability at all either, so as it stands just fancruft (and there are better fancruft articles out there). fails FAC2, FAC1, FAC4. Zzzzz 16:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • remove per nom Zzzzz 17:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • remove This article has the same objections I have over Bulbasaur. If you object here, please take a look at bulbasaur FARC, thx. Temporary account 20:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Remove. As much as I like FAs on video games, this just doesn;t meet our standards. RyanGerbil10 20:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I have reconsidered my vote. At first, I had thought that there should be a reference for the Goomba's involvement in each game, until I realized I owned many of the instruction manuals for these games, so I read them. In some of them, Goombas were not mentioned at all, and in others, the same information was repeated many times. There is no need to have more than two references if everything is adequately explained by them. However, this article should watch its back, it needs footnotes and I think that it's only a matter of time before footnotes, just like references, become a grounds for near-automatic removal. RyanGerbil10 23:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wish this would have gone to FAR first to allow members of the CVG WikiProject a chance to improve the article before requesting its removal. Adding fair use rationale and removing weasel words is fairly easily done, at least. You have valid points, but I disagree with a few:
    • "possibly meaning people" - why possibly?! bō can have several different meanings, "people" is the most likely.
    • no assertion of significance or notability - The article states that the Goomba is the most common enemy in the Mario series, and the first enemy to appear in Super Mario Bros. This is sufficient for me, do you disagree?
    • the article has 2 so-called "references", which are merely promotional product-info - Yes, the instruction manuals are distributed by Nintendo, but they are not promotional, since they are packaged with the game. If that was Nintendo's idea of promotion they'd be out of business. The manual for SMB tells you what Goombas are and that they "betrayed the Mushroom Kingdom". You will certainly agree that this bit should appear in the article. As for its referencing, any non-game or non-instruction manual source cited would have to in turn reference the manual. The manual is simply the best reference for this, it practically borders on primary material.
Pagrashtak 22:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added fair use rationale to all images and rewrote the captions. The article should no longer fail FAC4. Pagrashtak 22:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The references are obviously from the game themselves, maybe this should be mentioned, but it's easily fixable. We have Fair Use Rationale on the images, and this is a pretty complete article on the lowly Mario monster. - Hahnchen 03:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-established and the writing is fantastic. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've gone and fixed a bunch of style errors, the article looks fine to me. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After looking it over, I have decided to vote keep. The nature of the subject necessitates that games and game manuals be used as sources. As goombas are not the star of any Mario games, there are simply no sources where Shigeru Miyamoto says "A goomba is a traitor to the mushroom kingdom." The format of some of the sources could be improved, but that alone is not grounds for de-featuring. --Danaman5 01:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a notable subject, in my opinion; if it isn't, then we'd have to get rid of every article about every video game on Wikipedia. As for the lack of sources, all of the video games in which Goombas appear could be cited as sources (which, technically, they are) if people weren't so stringent about things being written down on paper. The article is well-written, describes the various incarnations and the evolution of Goombas in good detail, it isn't overlong, and if it wasn't already a featured article, I would nominate it to be one. The Disco King 18:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see that there are sufficient inadequacies with this article to warrant de-featuring. This is a good article related to a notable subject; the Mario series of games is known everywhere, and the most common enemy to feature surely is notable. The article also seems pretty comprehensive to me. Lewis 23:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed status

[edit]

Severe acute respiratory syndrome

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

From FAR:

The article has been moved to Severe acute respiratory syndrome. It badly needs a fact-check and proper footnote and reference sections. The tables and boxes need to be formatted to fit the screen properly (doesn't work on my screen settings). Finally, it just needs a good clean-up (especially the "Clinical information" and "Political and economic reaction" sections.) --maclean25 21:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Neutralitytalk 22:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I added footnotes to the article; they should however be cited correctly according to WP:CITE. AndyZ 21:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather than just cold linking the resources, it would be a dramatic improvement if you described what is being referenced and gave the title of the page instead of the link (or worse, a number). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Páll (Die pienk olifant) 18:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, Páll! Like all things wiki, this is a discussion, and not a vote. As such, in part to be fair to our fellow users, and also because of the high standards relating to Featured Articles, we generally appreciate more than just a strict vote. Would you care to ad anything to your comment? Are there specific criteria the article fails? Do you aggree with the nominator? Do you have suggestions for improvement? Thanks! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. I'll go with 'remove' here because there are many 1.5 line paragraphs and sections, and messy inline citations (though I note that AndyZ converted most of the ext. links in the body into footnotes) that do not inspire confidence in the factual accuracy of the article. This article was promoted as "brilliant prose" in Jan 2004 but has not been updated since (except for the addition of NY Times article and a Chinese study on bats). These concerns can be resolved by a thorough fact-check and copyedit. Are these good enough reasons for de-featuring? --maclean25 23:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • remove per maclean Zzzzz 21:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • remove given that we have the benefit of hindsight, I am saddened that no-one seems to have taken the trouble to achieve an overview. Too much of this reads like contemporary news coverage rather than a properly documented, scientific and political assessment of the response to the disease at a local, national, and international level. Given the apparent threat of H5N1 and the need to learn from past experience, retaining this as an FA seems inappropriate. Further, the standard of English is at times quite painful and I do not believe that we should hold this out as an example of Wiki's best. David91 16:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bathing machine

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

No references or citations. Very little information; the "history" section seems especially inadequate. This article is a Brilliant Prose relic that never went through a FAC listing (or at least no record of one exists). A request for references on the talk page has gone unanswered for almost a year. Andrew Levine 07:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fountain pen

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

Not a featured article for these reasons:

  • The picture caption "Comes in 12 different colors, is refillable with a cartridge and costs less than $5 each" is an advertisement.
  • "...regarded by many serious writers" is weasel words.
  • No references, although there are many external links.
  • A bit too many external links. Of the 37, 12 are labeled as commercial sites or stores.
  • The sentence "Although the most common nibs end in a round point of various sizes (fine, medium, broad), other nib shapes are available. Examples of this are oblique, reverse oblique, stub and italic" needs some explanation of what the different nibs do.
  • The lead is a bit on the short side.
  • Too many lists.

Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Single malt Scotch

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.
  • Too short lead
  • No inline citations (though not surprising considering that this article has been promoted in 2004)
  • Production section is excessively divided
  • History section barely touches on the subject. When there are whole books written about Single malt Scotch, lack of available info cannot be an excuse.

This article might have been acceptable in 2004 but is incomprehensive in our current standard. I suggest we remove it from FA. --BorgQueen 16:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional counties of England

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

Simply no references nor inline citations, it was featured two years ago, and fails 2 (c). KILO-LIMA 00:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove- lack of references. The lead is slighty too long, based on WP:LEAD. An excessive amount of wiki-linking is done to years also. AndyZ 23:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like the lead. I'd humbly suggest that, rather than demote a very nice article, it might be prudent simply to reference the article. If that's the only objection to a particular article, I guess I don't see a crying need to delist. But I'm out of touch with the current FA guidelines, no doubt, and I won't fight that battle here. Jwrosenzweig 05:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree referencing it would be great. I just don't have the familiarity with the subject to do it among other reasons. - Taxman Talk 23:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Part of the difficulty is that not just any sources will do...if we want references, they ought to be the references that were consulted in the production of the article...and if we can't track down the author/originator of a particular paragraph, sentence, or phrase, we have a hard time doing that. With old and relatively well-established articles, perhaps we ought to establish some guidelines for what references are acceptable...in this case, is it enough for me to add the names of some books on the topic of "traditional counties", and if not, what standard do I need to meet in order to add a source as a reference if I'm admitting off the bat I didn't write one word of the article in question? Jwrosenzweig 06:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not true; see WP:CITE#When_you_verify_content. Verifying content is very important (and I do it many times on FARC), so even if the original authors can't be tracked down, at least the information can be verified. AndyZ 22:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it can be referenced within a reasonable time, I'd be happy to keep, but as reference-less as it is now, I'd vote for a removal. - Mgm|(talk) 12:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove unless it can be well referenced within the next two weeks. - Taxman Talk 23:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Prose not good enough. For example:
"The establishment of the usually accepted set of counties began in the 12th century (though many assumed their modern form long before then), although it did not become finalised until the 16th century. Tony 08:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have an agenda to remove traditional counties from Wikipedia based on your own prejudices. There very much is such a thing as a traditional/ancient or geographic/historic county. The GRO mentioned them in the census of 1891 as separate areas from the newly-formed local government areas. The government issued a statement on the coming in to force of the Local Government Act 1972 that traditional boundaries were not altered by the Act. You are one of the bury-your-head-in-the-sand types who doesn't want to bother reading the legislation or listening to the government. Owain (talk) 09:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Avon? Huntingdonshire? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Foundation Series

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

no refs Zzzzz 15:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article looks complete and well written. I am baffled as to why it is set for removal.63.239.200.42 18:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator has cited the article's lack of references, Criteria 2 (c). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an excellent article and one to which I often refer. I see no reason to demote it. Polymath69 21:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per the nomination and Christopher Parham's observation. In two months and odd days, I will be rejoining my personal library, which contains the sort of Asimov collection only a lonely bookworm teenager could have built. (Yes, I visited the Asimov Archive at Boston University. Twice. I even found the screenplay Asimov wrote for Paul McCartney in 1974.) I also have the standard reference and criticism works on Asimov, of which I think Joe Patrouch and James Gunn's books would be the most important here. At that point, I'd be able to build this article up to present-day FA standards. (I dare somebody to beat me to it.) Let's remove it now, rework the darn thing and nominate it again later. Anville 19:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove for now, at least, without prejudice to renomination and restoration. The writing has its weak spots (surprisingly few, given the corporate authorship), but the references just aren't there, and there are places where they're somewhat demanded ("I did a little cribbin' from Gibbon" Asimov said). Missing sections aren't a giant concern of mine, but rather I have some difficulty with the coverage of the fiction as if it were real. I.e. the article is concerned less with Asimov's "Foundation Series" than "all the things by all the people all the times that are part of the Foundation series." I'm no lover of fictional universes being treated as if they are coherent wholes worthy of analysis: that's fan work. Also, the article does nothing to relate the fictions to the actual world (in 1950, Canticle for Leibowitz was already out, and Foundation is the obverse of it; instead of that, though, I would be interested in the historical conditions that made authors gloomy and optomistic about faith and science: the world itself as a set of historical limitations has to have had a large effect, but when the discussion of the author, the production, the reception is quashed, we get nothing but a hermetically sealed "universe"). Geogre 05:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The joke "cribbin' from the works of Edward Gibbon" is from a poem called "The Foundation of SF Success", published in several different Asimov collections. The relevant stanza goes as follows:
So success is not a mystery, just brush up on your history,
and borrow day by day.
Take an Empire that was Roman and you'll find it is at home in all the
starry Milky Way.
With a drive that's hyperspatial, through the parsecs you will race,
you'll find that plotting is a breeze,
With a tiny bit of cribbin' from the works of
Edward Gibbon and that Greek, Thucydides.
I typed this up for a report way back when, for a poetry workshop which wasn't fanatical about bibliographies, so I don't know where Asimov originally published it. (Methinks it appears in The Complete Asimov, vol. 1.) One more thing to cite when we overhaul the darn thing.... Anville 09:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blackadder

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

this article is not in good shape. it is a rather weak example of a tv series article, failing FAC1. it cannot be considered well written ("Also, Blackadder popularised the use of exaggerated simile and similar devices for comic effect in Britain") or comprehensive (there is little or no behind-the-scenes stuff about the writing and filiming process etc), so fails FAC2. the lead doesnt summarize the article sufficiently, failing FAC3, the image doesnt have fairuse rationale failing FAC4, also its lack of "disinterested" 3rd-party sources hurts it - none of the very few references listed could be considered neutral and reliable enough to support assertions like "Blackadder popularised the use of exaggerated simile and similar devices for comic effect in Britain". Zzzzz

Ian McKellen

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

somehow i doubt that this entire article was written from one single interview source. if it *was* then i seriously doubt the reliability of much of the article. an encyclopedia requires distance from the subject, just quoting primary source material only is unacceptable, especially when it comes from an agenda-pushing publication. it certainly fails FAC1, far better biographical articles exist; it fails FAC2 on numerous counts, being non-comprehensive (over-domination of sexuality issues at expense of anything else - did this guy's long life and career only amount to this?), what about critical reception, both positive and negative, for instance? factual accuracy is dubious if all info comes from one LGBT magazine, the lead fails to summarize the article failing FAC3, fairuse images that are tagged with invalid templates, failing FAC4, and even then no rationale is given, finally it is far too short to meet suitable length criteria (failing FAC5) - most of the article is padding with an extensive list. in short, not FA material. Zzzzz 21:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Western (genre)

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

full of uncited assertions, no refs, fair use images without rationale, generally poor all round. fails FAC 1, 3 and 4 (at least).

Hip hop music

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

Doesn't fit Wikipedia:What is a featured article-- its not neat, for one, and repeats with history of hip hop music. It doesn't cover the topic in its entirety; theres not even a section or even summary on the subject of rapping, which to most people in the world is the defining characteristic of the music. It repeats itself many times, both in the information it gives and in the words it uses to deliver it. I nominate it to be removed from FA and cleaned up, and peer reviewed again before being nominated again for FA.--Urthogie 13:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - I agree that is is not worthy of featured status at this point. However, I think removing it would violate one of the guidelines for featured article removal:
Do not list articles that have recently been promoted—such complaints should have been brought up during the candidacy period. Do not list articles that have recently survived removal attempts. Either listing is likely to be summarily removed.
The article has not changed significantly since its featured version (see diff). Only 193 edits have been made, many of which are minor or reversions. I don't think it should have become featured in the first place (see [21] for how it did), but now that it is featured, it apparently has to stay that way for now.
Dan is sadly misinformed as to the history of this article - it was featured in December 2004, and speedy keeping this article under the time clause simply cannot happen. Additionally, there have been far more than 193 edits since its promotion - too many to bother counting. The real difference between featured and current version is here. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, of course. I assumed that the box on the talk page that states "Hip hop music appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on 25 January 2005" meant that it had just become a featured article in January 2005. I change my vote. thejabberwock 04:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per nom. In addition, another problem is the lack of inline citations. I think you misread the rule- 193 edits is plenty (plus its not the number of edits that matters anyway). I consider December 2004 as plenty a time ago, and it hasn't been recently nominated for removal or been recently FACed, as the rule you pulled out. The point of this page is to remove featured articles that no longer conform to standards. AndyZ 22:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. The article is filled with too much unnecessary history and trivia that could be moved to other pages. The main focus of the article should be the distinction the genre has from other genres of music. I have no idea how it even became featured in the first place. --Mod 04:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm the one who originally nominated it and got it featured in the first place. I'd like to point out that it was pretty much in line with featured articles at the time, and has gone downhill in several ways since. I have no doubt it would fail FAC now, if for no other reason than the lack of inline citations. My understanding of FARC, however, is that it generally takes a lot to be removed, and I'm not sure this qualifies. I'm not voting either way at this time, though, because I hope to make some significant changes to improve it. If anybody has any specific suggestions, please note them -- I think the most important thing is to make it clear that this is an article on hip hop music with a summary of the history of hip hop music. History sections in genres tend to become bloated because some people feel they need to contain every minor permutation and development, so that needs to be majorly trimmed and the sections on not-history need to be expanded, especially "Characteristics". (don't take this as a guarantee that I'll be working on it, since my schedule in the next week or two may be changing rapidly -- if featured status is removed, I'll be working on it soon, so specific concerns to fix would be a big help, even if they're not addressed swiftly). Tuf-Kat 08:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone outtright object its temporary removal from FA?--Urthogie 09:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove - The article has many problems: the History section overlaps the article, no inline citation, very little information about music characteristics, variations and subgenres, little information on rapping/MCing, little or no figures and numbers (sales, impact), plus like I've suggested in the talk page there should be discussion on which samples would be "encyclopedic" and really useful for the article. These one were arbitrarely chosen. CG 20:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove, history section is too long, too little information, needs cleanup. --Terence Ong 11:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • remove article has devolved Zzzzz 14:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Cash

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

I really hate to do this, as I love Johnny Cash, but the article has had massive changes since the FAC, which was kind of small to begin with (only 2 votes). Absolutely no inline citation with a massive non-prose trivia section added after the FAC which is completely uncited. Finally, even if there was inline citation, there are very few sources for an article this big. It therefore violates at least FA criteria 2c, I would argue 2a, and the short reference list makes it semi-violate the basic 2 (factual article) as well. Staxringold 23:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Charming Man

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

Oh dear. This is on the main page right now and I think it's a poor, poor article at the moment that should never have been featured.

  • It's riddled with POV. Examples include Asides from being a fan favourite (which is also grammatically incorrect), Fan reaction was similarly ecstatic, The "New-York" mix by DJ François Kevorkian was not a fan favourite, Predictably, it met a chilly reception, provides an unusually danceable beat.
  • Because it was a single, the song originally wasn't included on the UK and European versions of the Smiths' self-titled debut - non sequitur.
  • the popular Smiths theme of sexual ambiguity - popular according to who?
  • The Top of the Pops performance would be cited by many Smiths followers as being a key event in their musical upbringing - a wildly unlikely claim, backed by just a single quote.
  • the song has received nearly unanimous critical acclaim - only glowing reviews are quoted so either 'nearly' is wrong or the writers have only quoted reviews which praise the song.
  • Musically, the song is defined by Marr's bright jangle pop guitar riff and Morrissey's characteristic vocals is not supported by the reference cited, and what, in any case, is meant by characteristic vocals?
  • Opinions in references are quoted as fact in the article. The sentence above is one example, another is an unusually danceable beat, featuring a Motownesque bassline.
  • The article is very short, with just 10kb of writing. A good chunk of this is direct quoting from articles and reviews. I make it about 6.5kb of original prose, and this makes me seriously question how comprehensive the article can be and how it can be seen as an example of the very best of Wikipedia. Worldtraveller 17:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to agree with your comments. There's way to much opinion asserted as fact. As the the length though, for pop culture topic, I'd much rather cover 10kb of it if that is comprehensive and covers the available verifiable information, than fluff the article out to 32kb just to look larger. See the various way too long Pokemon etc, articles for what I'm talking about. - Taxman Talk 21:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. I don't understand how the examples you brought up are POV. It is biased to say that its a fan favorite? Statistics show that its the most popular Smiths song. After several sources of professional critics remarking on the Motown influenced bass-line, we are not allowed to note that for a Smiths song it is unusually danceable? It is unacceptable to call the general fan rejection of the remix "predictable" when we take into account that the group was clearly seen as at odds to the dance music of the time? Perhaps these are not straight facts of the type "the sun is hot and the sky is blue", but this is an article on a widely-acclaimed piece of popular music, not a scientific theory. I think a little leeway with the prose is acceptable and the nature of the article perfectly fine.
'Unusually danceable' is pure opinion, unless you're quoting what someone else has said in which case you should attribute it. Same with fan favourite - according to who? Predictable is the opinion of the authors, not a verifiable fact. All these make it read more like a fan piece than an encyclopaedia article, and I think all our articles need to be held to the same standards, not given leeway for being on certain subjects. Worldtraveller 21:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've removed "fan favorite". "Chilly reception" stands though. The fact the mix was quickly deleted and that you have the singer defending and denouncing it in interviews, not to mention its referencing as such in books about the band makes it a fact to me. --Hn 04:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. A "non sequitur"? You do realize that in that time it was customary for lead-singles to not be featured on full-length albums? See Joy Division, the Stone Roses, etc.
It occasionally happens that a single is not featured on an album but to my knowledge it's never been customary. In any case, the sentence doesn't make sense as it is and needs further explanation for clarity. Worldtraveller 21:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Popular according to anyone who's actually heard the band's music? Popular according to several of the professional critics listed as sources in the article? Please just glance through the band's lyrics on the internet and come back if you still think this is a valid objection.
So cite your sources. The word popular in this context is inherently biased unless it's backed by a source. It would be better to omit it - it makes it read too much like a fan piece. Worldtraveller 21:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Widely unlikely that band's strongly influenced by the Smiths music - adolescents at the time - were influenced by their famous first appearance on national television? So widely unlikely, in fact, that a brief BBC feature on the song deals nearly completely with this performance, while John Harris' "Britpop" - the most comprehensive book on the mid 90s music phenomenon - features a good page dealing with its influence on the following generation of indie rockers.
Yes, I'm sure lots of people saw the show but to say it was a 'key event in their musical upbringing' is a very strong claim. The problem is that you've only cited one person who has said such a thing. If Britpop talks about that performance's influence, then cite that. Worldtraveller 21:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. This is a single from 1984. Today it is widely considered a classic. In an extensive search I could not find a single negative review. "Nearly" was placed there because it is obviously impossible to state that all the reviews of the song were negative, but it seems clear from the contemporary reviews at hand that the great majority were favorable.
'Nearly unanimous' sounds biased. Maybe replace with 'a great deal of' - probably more accurate and certainly more neutral sounding. Worldtraveller 21:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. It would help if you actually listened to the song. A heavily-accented croon occasionally erupting into falsetto that is almost always brought up in texts about the singer (as it is in the reference cited) qualifies as "characteristic" from where I'm standing - but maybe that’s just me. The reference adequately reinforces the perfectly fair description of the song.
I know the song, and I know that Morrissey's voice is distinctive. But, this is an encyclopaedia article, not a magazine piece or a review, and requires a different tone. You're writing for an audience a large proportion of which will never have heard of the Smiths, let alone this song, so you need to explain in the article what you mean by characteristic. Worldtraveller 21:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. As I wrote above: this is an article about a single from 1984, not an astronomy topic - which, as I can see, you are most familiar with. Astronomy is a science. A 1984 single is a popular art form. Trying to evaluate articles on pieces of popular music based on standards for scientific texts is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Perhaps we can not scientifically determine that (for instance) the bass-line in "This Charming Man" is influenced by Motown - but when numerous unrelated professional critics make a key point of this, I don't see anything wrong with stating it in the article.
I'm not asking for a scientific attitude to popular music, I'm just asking for an encyclopaedic attitude to writing style. Some things you can say in the voice of the encyclopaedia, as it were; solid, incontrovertible facts, like, the Smiths were a band from Manchester and Morrissey was their lead singer. Other, subjective statements, you need to say things like 'according to critics...' or 'commonly described as...'. Here, you're reporting as fact something which is not a fact, as if it's something an encyclopaedia can definitively say, but you should be using the latter form. Worldtraveller 21:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Your assertion that the article is not comprehensive is entirely unfounded. This article references and addresses nearly every reference to the song in books/magazines available, and is easily the most comprehensive text on the topic on the internet right now. The topic itself - an indie single from twenty years ago - doesn't quite lend itself to a 32kb article either. Live Forever 01:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't like it puffed out and bloated to be 32kb long, I'm just not convinced that such a short article can really be called the very best of Wikipedia, even if all my concerns above were addressed. If it really can't be expanded any more then I would prefer it to be listed at WP:GA than at WP:FA. Worldtraveller 21:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The length is perfectly acceptable for an article on a song. I presume this means you want practically all the featured articles on songs removed from that status too, as they're all comparable in length? It's a pop song, of course there's going to be a limited amount to write about. If there's any comfort, I have no doubt that it is one of the most comprehensive articles written on the song to date. I'd much prefer a shorter, more concise article than an unnecessarily long one. --Hn 04:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute...Worldtraveller complaining that an article is too short? First time for everything. I thought our readers were all 7 year olds who couldn't digest more than 1 or 2 paragraphs of text? Well, anyway, keep featured and expand if possible. Everyking 06:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove There is a good amount of detail here, around which a better article could be fashioned. Particularly, the composition section has interesting production detail, and the discussion about remixes covers an IMO important area that most pop song FAC noms fail to cover. As it is here, however, it is filled with subjective, unsupported and (for an encyclopedia) sometimes bizarre-sounding assertions, like:

  • cited by many Smiths followers as being a key event in their musical upbringing
  • It can be taken as a good example of a number of genres
  • The single's artwork is fitting with the song's general theme: actor Jean Marais, shown on the single’s sleeve, was homosexual.

This needs a rewrite. --Tsavage 02:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Democratic National Convention

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

There isn't a single reference or citation in this entire "article". It's more of a "talking points" fax. Also, there are many one paragraph sections. Quite an embarrassment to have this as a featured "article". Feeds into some people's belief Wikipedia is a "leftist" website. --Jayzel68 12:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove per nom. Lack of refs + inline citations a big problem. Additionally, the entire structure needs to be redone (confusing in current state), the article needs a copyedit and it violates WP:NPOV in a number of places. Mikker ... 23:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove purely on lack of citation. If it becomes fully cited then I'll take a read. gren グレン ? 08:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove, even with citations it would still be a spotty and list-heavy article. Andrew Levine 02:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per nom. AndyZ 21:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Kinda surprised this slipped past NPOV considerations on FAC. In contrast, the lead paragraphs of 2004 Republican National Convention heavily criticize the GOP response to demonstrators. Neither article deserves feature status—they're mostly collections of quotes with less than brilliant, often gratingly obvious commentary. But at least the article on the Republican convention makes a pass at NPOV. This one hardly tries, with its PR-speak about how "enraptured" the delegates were with a speech by John Edwards that few people (if any) can now remember a line of. Casey Abell 18:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- this is the diff from roughly when it was featured and its current state. Jkelly 23:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't really see much difference between the two versions. Both have major NPOV problems, too much stuff that looks like a party p.r. handout, obvious and amateurish "analysis", and way too many quotes. The lack of references is really the least of the article's problems. Still hard to understand how this got through FAC. Sure, it's very hard to write a good article about party conventions, which have become news-free campaign ads. But this thing is an embarrassment. Casey Abell 01:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Sarkozy

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

This article is horrible, horrible, horrible. It is filled with unsourced claims, poorly translated passages, and weasel words.

  • "He is nicknamed Sarko by both his supporters and his opponents; this nickname is never used in any official context but is often used in left newspapers such as Le Canard Enchaîné or Libération (and it's one of the keywords to reach UMP website from Google)." -- This is pretty long-winded and meandering for the second sentence of the lead paragraph. What's written before the semicolon should be enough, but if the para were just chopped down to that, it would look too curt.
  • There are a great deal of terms in the article that are clearly poorly translated from French -- references to Sarkozy's "collaborators"; "as regard his repressive discourse"; etc. Bad grammar abounds; I've fixed a few of the most serious cases but there are some sentences I just don't understand and can't fix without knowing what the intent of the author was ("Sarkozy is the son of Pál and Andrée Mallah Sarkozy into a family belonging to the lower aristocracy of Hungary.") The article is just extremely poorly written. But what really chafes is the flagrant overuse of weasel words. There are dozens of assessments of Sarkozy's character, his political motives, his way of expressing himself, and many more issues. Here is a small sampling:
  • "While his supporters emphasise his charisma, strong leadership qualities, and his many innovative initiatives, Sarkozy's opponents see him as populist, careerist, and "repression-happy" for his "law and order" policies;" These are strong words, and they badly need to be cited, and cited well.
  • "He is known for his ubiquity" -- Well, one would think he'd be ubiquitous, he's one of the most important people in the government, and in any media-heavy country top-ranking politicians appear in the press a great deal.
  • "Many of his speeches and interviews are famous for their frankness-kind side, wit, and folksy, plain-spoken character; opponents, however, contend that he uses demeaning language. Sometimes, derisive comparisons to the over-ambitious cartoon character Iznogoud are made." More claims in dire need of citation.
  • "it is widely recognised that his position, influence and popularity currently make him the third man at the country's head" Yet again, "widely recognized" according to whom? We're not even out of the article lead yet.
  • "Allegedly, Guillaume Sarkozy was prevented from running for the presidency of the MEDEF due to the political career of his brother, Nicolas." A very serious claim, not given the least source to back it up.
  • "In 1959, Paul Sarkozy..." Are we still talking about Nicolas' father, who was called "Pál" in the previous paragraph? Is this an alternate spelling, a mistake, or a different person?
  • "who had developed a reputation as a Don Juan" Again, no sources.
  • "He did not feel fully French at the time (his father is said to have told him once that a Sarkozy never could become President of France, that such things happened only in the United States), suffered from insecurities (his physical shortness, his family's lack of money), and harboured a considerable amount of resentment against his absent father. "What made me who I am now is the sum of all the humiliations suffered during childhood," he said later." Once again, what's missing from this pictue?
  • I could go on -- this on only about a quarter of the way through the article -- but you get the idea. (Scroll down to the Criticisms section filled with weasel words if you need more examples). Put simply, this article is horrid, and most shockingly, I just found out it's scheduled to be featured on the main page on March 13. This article's moment in the spotlight should be deferred (if not canceled entirely) until all the issues are settled. Andrew Levine 06:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC) Oh, and Remove.[reply]
I came across the article as it's due to be on the main page soon, and also feel that it isn't an article that'd pass FAC if it were submitted today. Andjam 09:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove I also noticed this through TFA. It was promoted before I even knew about FAC, so I didn't see it there. It is full of sweeping statements, based primarily on numerous on newspaper articles and other current media. Also (I believe my count is correct) 19 of the 20 reference sources are in French, one in English, which is particularly problematic since they are mostly media reports on politics, therefore likely more open to interpretation than, for example, academic texts where literal translation might be less of a concern. Also, the promotion was with little discussion, three supports with no substantial comment, and one standing objection concerning writing style, with examples, where IMO valid concerns seem to have been largely unaddressed. This doesn't suggest an adequate FAC review. --Tsavage 19:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • remove per nom & tsavage Zzzzz 14:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove, I agree with all comments so far and would add that the 'timeline' section really should not be necessary if the rest of the article is properly written, and the 'quotations' section also should be redundant with the rest of the article - if the quotes are individually notable in the story of his life they should be mentioned - otherwise move them to Wikiquote. Worldtraveller 15:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gough Whitlam

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

This article on one of Australlia's most important prime ministers does not do anyone justice. A large part of the description of his policies is just a list, the intro paragraph is long, and there is almost no analysis of his impact on Australia. There are no references, just "further reading"s. All in all, no longer worthy of being a FAC. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 17:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Age of Arcade Games

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

lacks any references, 2 "further readings" are insufficient, dubious "facts", doesnt cite major assertions, lead fails to summarize article sufficiently, fairuse imahges without rationale, too short to be comprehensive, was promoted with only 2 supports, and was never peer reviewed. Zzzzz 16:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

auto rickshaw

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

It appears to be a well written article, but there is not a single reference on the page. References have come to be standard for featured articles. I would not have the time or energy to fix it, as, honestly, I am trying to work on Oregon articles and it would be extremely low on my priority list. If anyone wants to add references, then maybe it could stay. But with no references, I have to vote it off. PDXblazers 23:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

=Nichalp «Talk»= 09:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Submarine

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

I was first going to post this on Featured Article Review,but after reading the info it seems better here.The problem with this article is that it's not comprehensive and there is a general flow problem.For starters the article lacks the basic thing that a submarine page needs : how does it floats,dives and goes between these two states.This is essential!

The second thing is that the article has a discussing about the propultion,but other topics aren't mentioned.For a military sub stealth is everything,it's the reason we have subs.No discussion on how stealth is achieved (modern subs may have a suspended inner chamber to dampen the noice).Hand in hand with stealth is the hunter/killer aspect and sub hunting.Also nothing on life support,life on board or the weapons and electronics.How about submarine operations?Were do they dock?

The third thing is more a problem when these sections exist an that's that the history section is far to dominant it has grown too much to not have a spin off.The strange thing here also is the highlighting of accidents after 2000 when in the coldwar there have been very grave accidents (nuclear and an imploding sub).

Lastly the Submersibles section is a strange inclusion,given that it hasn't much to do with submarines and the confusion that could arise between the two could be explained in the lead.I also wonder if there isn't more info on civillian subs out there.--Technosphere83 12:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read the article, just glanced through it. However, I say: the first point of yours would be a pretty simple addition to the page. Second point: i don't think that is key to the article. Yes, it should be mentioned, but i don't think stealth/military aspects are necessarily the focus of the article. third point: i agree, there does seem to be a lot of detail on modern accidents but far less of histroci ones - this could be partially because of the availability of information. Records are harder to find the further back you go, and 20 years back into the cold war might not seem like a long time - but it means the writer of the article would have to go to a library or somethign, not just other sites on the internet etc, to find this info. i agree completely with that point. last point: no comment, i didnt read that far :)
On the other hadn however, you seem to know a fair bit about this topic! when you said they might have suspended inner chambers to acheive stealth, ive never heard that before. You could help to improve the article with your knowledge on it! this isn't really a vote to keep it featured, but nor is it a vote against it. just an opinion for your interest. SECProto 22:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to second SECProto that Technosphere seems to know quite a bit about the subject... Techno: Be Bold! Ad to the page and improve it. If this article is demoted, you yourself can make it featured again. Good nomination, too. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stealth is still the number one thing to add in my opinion,because it's what makes it a sub.Don't know this in depth but I do know enough about it to have a idea of the whole topic.The reason is because I'm sort of an information whore.

Some of the most famous sub accidents are pre-2000.To name two K-19 and U.S.S. Thresher.

Russian accidents : http://www.bellona.no/imaker?id=11084&sub=1 and more general : http://www.lostsubs.com/

Encarta has a much better balanced article : http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567260_1/Submarine.html

It's the virginia that has the cushioned chamber (saw this on discovery): "Command Center will be installed as one single unit resting on cushioned mounting points." http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/nssn/ --Technosphere83 12:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a very good article. I would add in the missing parts described above, though.--Alabamaboy 19:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article hasn't changed one bit and if you are going to vote "keep" than in effect you are saying that wikipedias best content isn't on par with the other references.Even Encarta--Technosphere83 11:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove This is not a very good article. I agree with the nominator's assessment. In addition:

  • The writing is quite uneven and poor, starting from top: Most major navies use submarines. (second sentence), There are probably more military submarines in operation than any other type of submarine, though it is difficult to obtain exact figures because navies are secretive about their submarine fleets., U.S. fast boats no longer prowl the deep oceans in the hunt for the elusive Soviet and so forth (many other examples)
  • The lead does not clearly summarize the topic No mention of submarine origins, but an immediate (sceond para) dive into details like U-boats and how they were named, to some classification of military subs, but no significant explanation of non-military use (one-man subs used in university competitions?). All over the place and not comprehensive.
  • The reference sources and citations are inadequate There is a lone inline citaion, which is odd, and the five reference texts, by their titles, only cover specific, very limited periods and types of submarine (one is The steam warship 1815-1905, the other four seem to cover (WWII?) battles and military use only, e.g. Wahoo: The Patrols of America's Most Famous WII Submarine, or Sink 'Em All: Submarine Warfare in the Pacific, (1951)). This seems far from sufficient to support the information in the entire article.

With the nom's objections, there are fundamental problems not casually fixed. --Tsavage 01:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand Magellan

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

No notes or specific sources, only one "reference" and several "further reading." --Neutralitytalk 22:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. "In 1511, Magellan was sent to Morocco, where he fought in the Battle of Azamor and received a severe knee wound"
  2. "Ruy Faleiro, an astronomer and Portuguese exile, aided him in his planning, and he found an invaluable financial ally in Christopher de Haro, a member of a great Antwerp firm who held a grudge against the king of Portugal"
  3. "The men among Magellan's expedition were also the first Europeans to observe several new animals that didn't live in Europe"

In other words, even with the recent refs being added, the Magellan article does not meet the WIAFA requirements. Mikker ... 14:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/March_2006&oldid=986295670"