Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Constitution of May 3, 1791/archive1

Moved

It survived the review because, as I believe, the system is almost always biased. Some articles are treated much lighter than others and some certain articles are just absolutely hopeless. I think it goes by the editor who is nominating it, and the particular subject of the article (including race, location, time, etc). Good to see somebody agrees with me on this. The Pallazo article had numerous unsourced statements and the editors relied on the user having to know some random historical facts and thought they shouldn't have to be referenced. Strangely enough, Sandy agreed with them. And I second the fact that almost all statements should be sourced. Not only from my own personal view regarding some articles, but by the heavy opposition I was given in my nominations for Featured Article (which also never passed). Some articles require sources for the most obvious of facts, and others can get away with numerous unsourced statements on challenged material. Domiy (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Domiy, regarding that everything should be sourced, see my reply to D.M.N; the guideline explicitly states that only controversial or material that is likely to be challenged (plus quotes and some other tidbits) should be footnoted. Everything should be sourced, but not necessarily from inline citations. Regarding your ridiculous accusations of systematic bias, there is bias, that much is true, but it's far from systematic - some reviews/candidates simply are reviewed more than others simply because they were nominated at the right time, and some get the more stringent reviewers. That's it. Even if you continue to stubbornly hold to your strange ideas regarding inline citation, please stop trolling FARs. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, Domiy, you are trolling FARs and your disruption is impeding work. This article was promoted three and a half years ago, before inline citations were required and when FA requirements were substantially different than today. Please stop being so offensive towards editors who worked towards what the standards were then, and getting in the way of those who work to bring these article to standard today. Your extended WP:SOAPBOXing on every page is only filling up space. Please keep your comments confined to WP:WIAFA. Your comments might be taken more seriously if they actually reflected guidelines and policy, like Wp:V, WP:NONENG, WP:WHEN, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)