Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/October 2007

Kept status

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

The article was kept 10:04, 28 October 2007.

Imagism

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
User:Filiocht‎ and User:Stumps notified. No WikiProjects are listed on the article's talk page.

WP:WIAFA 2(d) states: (d) "Where inline citations are appropriate, they should be consistently formatted using either footnotes] or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1). (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.)" -- There is not a single in-text citation in the Imagism article, nor does it ever mention any of the works or authors on its reference list (with the exception of Aldington). There was an inquiry as to how it ever acheived FA status, so I'm nominating it for review (I suspect it was promoted when standards were lower). It's well written, but does not back up any of its claims. -DMCer 16:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a small start at including some in-line citations ... the listed references are quite specific, sometimes giving page numbers ... so it's probably just a matter of digging up the texts and inserting the appropriate footnotes. Stumps 02:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Substantively, the article is a gem, and the quality of writing reflects the fact that one of the contributors is a major poet himself. I'll look to chip in some citations. A Musing 13:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does appear to be lacking in citations; I'll work on it in the next few days, but I'm not willing to say its status should be revoked. AdamBiswanger1 18:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also added eight sources for quotations last week. It's very important to point out the extent to which this article is self-referencing:
  • Clearly linking Objectivism's principles with Imagism's, Louis Zukofsky insisted, in his introduction to the 1931 Objectivist issue of Poetry, on writing "which is the detail, not mirage, of seeing, of thinking with the things as they exist, and of directing them along a line of melody."
  • In October 1912, he submitted three poems each by H.D. and Aldington under the Imagiste rubric. That same month, Pound's book Ripostes was published with an appendix called The Complete Poetical Works of T. E. Hulme which carried a note that saw the first appearance of the word Imagiste in print.
  • Aldington's poems, Choricos, To a Greek Marble, and Au Vieux Jardin, were in the November issue of Poetry and H.D.'s, Hermes of the Ways, Orchard, and Epigram, appeared in the January 1913 issue; Imagism as a movement was launched.
  • The March issue of Poetry also contained Pound's A Few Don'ts by an Imagiste and Flint's Imagisme. The latter contained this succinct statement of the group's position:
This article is a perfect example of why "citation counting" is problematic. If there are no "challenged" statements to present, there is little to be done here. It is instructive that I was able to add eight or ten citations in a few hours without leaving my computer or even delving into a non-public Internet database. A reader wanting to confirm the "gist" of this article is certainly capable of doing the same, and would have to do so whether citations existed or not. –Outriggr § 00:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A good point ... I was a bit thrown by the term 'self-referencing' until I realized it meant proving references in the body of the article ... It's a good way to get a solid factual article which is easily verifiable. Stumps 04:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone pls review my edits; I'm unclear on some of the capitalization here. For example, is Classical values a proper noun? Modernist poetry in English was capitalized in one place in the text, but not in another; not sure which it should be. Also, I reduced an all caps quote per MOS:CAPS#All caps, opinions on that (that direct quote can be sourced to a JSTOR article that I can't access, maybe Outriggr can source it?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy. I added the quote reference and returned the quote to uppercase, as he wrote it. Would you be willing to reformat the book references at the bottom in accepted style? thanks –Outriggr § 07:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concern is citations (1c, 2d). Marskell 18:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see Outrigger and Stumps have been at work. People can update how they feel about this. Marskell 18:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's close to a save. A few claims need to be cited, the images need captions, and the "Pre-Imagism" section needs to be trimed. Ceoil 19:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cut the bits and pieces I was unhappy with, so my support is unqualified. Ceoil 11:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 15:33, 24 October 2007.

Witold Lutosławski

[edit]
Notifications: WikiProject Composers, User:Tony1 (significant contributor), User:Antandrus (many useful suggestions during FAC). User:RobertG (major contributor and FAC nominator) is also aware.

I'm nominating this for FAR due to;

1. A violation of criterion 1. c, and that's because none of the information is verified. Many critical statements are made upon his style and how it changed, so this needs sourcing which should come from esteemed critics. LuciferMorgan 08:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please complete your first sentence, "…that's because none of the information." I think the article does not violate criterion 1c ("factually accurate, verifiable against reliable sources"), because I think all the statements are verifiable from the cited references, which are excellent, readily available reference works by respected Lutosławski scholars. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't notice that I hadn't finished the sentence. That's now rectified. As concerns your assertion that the article doesn't violate criterion 1c, that's inaccurate and couldn't be further from the truth. Featured article standards have improved vastly since this was promoted, I'm sorry to say. LuciferMorgan 09:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Couldn't be further from the truth"? Good heavens. Are you implying that I wrote the article without verifying the information? And why are you sorry to say that standards have improved? --RobertG ♬ talk 09:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am stating, not implying, that criterion 1. c. has changed and that the article doesn't meet current requirements. That's all. Considering your reaction towards my FAR nomination suggests you question the truth in what I am saying, feel free to seek other opinions. LuciferMorgan 10:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't react to the FAR nomination, my first post here simply expressed my opinion that the article meets 1c. My "good heavens" reaction above was prompted by your own hyperbolic reaction to that opinion. My opinion remains that by criterion 1c as it is currently constituted, this article is factually accurate. There is a references section setting out the sources, and I think all the facts in the article have been verified.
Why should I seek other opinions? Surely, that's the whole point of FAR? --RobertG ♬ talk 10:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion - one inline cite per paragraph from the relevant books and reference works should be good enough. The content here is excellent, but current norms are for the refs to be more direct. This has to be done with care, though. Reviewers reviewing who have no clue what they're talking about simply causes chaos. Moreschi Talk 20:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as featuredComment: it's wonderfully readable, accurate, gives its references, and simply put is the best information on Lutosławski in English on the internet, with the possible exception of the New Grove article, which requires subscription and is written for a specialist audience. In fact in many ways it is superior to the New Grove article. I don't see any problems here. A lot of our best content lacks things like inline cites. If you insist in inline cites, Moreschi's suggestion above is a good one. Antandrus (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Struck "keep" after reading Tony's comment; forgot what page I was on. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs inline citations without doubt. Just like many other FAs out there... perhaps we could ask WP:SPOT for help, they did good job with HoR recently?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd take the opposite view to Piotrus. Spotlight made a right dog's dinner of the referencing there by tag-bombing the article indiscriminately. I really wouldn't want anyone who didn't know about modern classical music touching this. I agree with Moreschi's idea that we only need one citation per paragraph. (Incidentally the claim "He was possibly the most significant Polish composer after Chopin" is a bit controversial. Moniuszko? Szymanowski? Otherwise I can't see much to argue with). --Folantin 07:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Paderewski would be an equally good counterexample; I've never heard of Moniusko. But would anyone challenge that Lutosławski is in the short-list of half-a-dozen who might be second to Chopin? Weasel-wording, as here, does have its uses. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey folks, this is the review process, not the FARC, which would only happen it the review were determined not to have addressed the major issues. Please don't declare keep or remove here. Tony 11:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a worthy FA indeed, thanks to RobertG's work. However, the paucity of references is a major problem, I'm afraid. Robert, are you able to address this? Moreschi's suggestion is good. We need preferable two or three (or more) authoritative sources; best not to repeat the same source again and again. Tony 11:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am gratified by the plaudits, but people haven't really given me much to go on here.
"A paucity of references," says Tony, but I think Stucky and Rae are the two standard studies. Stucky is a distinguished composer who is an acknowledged Lutoslawski expert; Rae knows his Poland (he lived and studied there) and sets the context admirably, if his exposition of the music is less thorough. I think adding more references for the sake of it would not enhance the article.
Everyone else seems to think that copious footnotes will make things "better", but I don't follow your logic. Either the article's content is verifiable, or not. If its verifiability continues to be questioned, then I must assume that there are surprising statements in the article that you all think an interested reader would doubt, and not be able to check: but which statements?
To be honest, I don't have the inclination to trawl through Stucky and Rae again (I haven't even checked they're in at the library). The criteria for this FAR make me wonder if its featured article status is quite simply a distraction: I don't see how this process is likely to improve the quality of the article.
As you can probably tell I don't yet understand the point of this FAR, nor what you are all trying to achieve. I'd like to understand… --RobertG ♬ talk 15:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FA requirements change, and FAR picks random FA for review and checks them if they comply with modern FA standards. Today, inline citations are a FA standard. If WL was nominated today at FA, he would fail. It makes only sense to update articles or remove them if they can't satisfy modern standards (for the record, I spend much of the past year updating my old FAs instead of writing new ones...).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I quite agree that defining and upholding standards is important. I fully support the criterion that all featured articles (indeed, all articles) should be factually accurate and verifiable.
Everyone who has contributed here seems au fait with the FA criteria, and yet you all also (except the FAR nominator) seem pretty happy with this article's being featured. It seems to me that Wikipedia would be putting the cart before the horse to then say, "but it doesn't currently satisfy all the standards, therefore de-feature it". Further, what I have read here seems to be saying that no footnotes equals not enough references equals unverifiable.
I'm very sorry that I am unconvinced, and unable to really engage with this process. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article may well be the best article on a composer on Wikipedia; it's the only one I'm aware of to use musical examples to show his innovation, creativity, and notability.Correction: Messiaen is also good in this regard. I'd like to know what statement in the article someone couldn't find the source for within five minutes by checking out the references in a library? It seems pretty obvious that biographical details can be verified in Stucky, Lutosławski and his music, and style in Rae, The Music of Lutosławski. If people want a footnote on every sentence or every phrase, who is going to verify each one? And if no one is, what has been gained? -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I don't think I've ever seen an FA reviewer who's gone down to the library to check up on the references provided in the footnotes, so why should this article be any more or less trustworthy with inline citations? (As far as I can see, the quotations in it are referenced in any case). I think we can certainly trust Robert when he says all the material in this article is in the sources. I don't know much about Lutosławski, but I do know something about Polish history and the historical background in the article checks out fine as far as I'm concerned. I like to see extensive referencing on controversial subjects, but Witold Lutosławski hardly comes into that category. --Folantin 08:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record actually Folantin, I do doubt some of the statements in the article and that's why I brought it to FAR. Simply put, if this was nominated today it would fail and falls far from FA standards. There's too many unverified POV statements in the article. FAC currently passes music articles which are much better than this, so all the people who are voting keep frankly need to read criterion 1c again. I will be returning to this FAR to highlight specific POV statements, something which everyone above seem to have conveniently missed. LuciferMorgan 12:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So I assume you'll be checking the citations in the library if they are added to the article. FAC currently passes music articles which are much better than this - I have my doubts. --Folantin 13:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LuciferMorgan, thank you, you talk sense. The questioning of specific statements is what this FAR requires. Question them here please, so we have something to deal with and this FAR can begin. By the way, I would be intrigued to know which recently-featured music articles you consider to be much better? Seriously, I'm genuinely interested, I really would like to read them. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be ridiculous: no one's asking for "copious" referencing, a footnote "on every sentence or phrase"; but there are clearly not enough to provide the kind of verifiability that is required for authoritativeness. I wonder whether you really do work as an academic. Tony 12:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, personal attacks (nice second one in the edit summary), really cute. :) -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC) [1][2] [3][4] [5] [6] [7][reply]
I didn't need a raft of defensive weblinks showing that you are in fact working as an academic. My remark was rhetorical. Tony 07:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can provide a few inline cites from the (quite extensive, written by Rae) Grove article on Lutosławski, if people wish. That's not perfect, but it may work as a temporary solution to demands for cite-crunching. Moreschi Talk 14:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Moreschi, thank you very much for offering. I happen, personally, to disapprove of tertiary sources (such as other encyclopedias) for Wikipedia references, and on those grounds I think it might reduce the quality of the article to cite Grove (even though the Grove article is by Rae). Also, I wouldn't advise the citation of individual facts or paragraphs: either the prose will get lost in a morass of superscripts, each individual footnote pointing to the same references, or it might cast doubt on the remaining apparently uncited statements. Also, you might miss the specific POV/unverifiable statements that LuciferMorgan has offered to point out, quite apart from its distract you (us) from the business of building an encyclopedia. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness to Grove, in this case I think it counts as more a secondary source than a tertiary one - Rae is surely going to have used his own research and conclusions for the Grove article, not just synthesized available literature. In any case, I'm only advocating this as a temporary fix - I agree that cites from the relevant books are better, but that will take longer. Moreschi Talk 20:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, you might miss the specific POV/unverifiable statements that LuciferMorgan has offered to point out, quite apart from its distract you (us) from the business of building an encyclopedia. - Feel free to clarify that last statement RobertG, because I am keen to know what you meant by this. LuciferMorgan 17:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In your previous comment above you offered to point out statements in the article which you perceive to be POV. I am keen for you to do this, please. Otherwise the task Moreschi was offering to do appeared to me to involve trawling through the Lutowlawski article placing footnotes against statements which have not been questioned, and which could easily be verified from the given references. This does not seem to me to be the best way to improve Wikipedia, nor the best use of Moreschi's time, and hence I characterised it as a potential distraction. Once you have told us what the questionable statements are, we can address whether they require footnotes, and that seems to me a much more sensible way forward. I apologise if my meaning was not clear. --RobertG ♬ talk 18:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue where POV is, is within the "Music" section. LuciferMorgan 18:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In his later works Lutosławski evolved a more harmonically mobile, less monumental style, in which less of the music is played with an ad libitum coordination. - This is a critical judgment, and can be attributed to the critic / biographer in question (I'm assuming this is either Stucky or Rae). As we know, critical opinions slightly or marginally differ from critic to critic and each critic places a lesser or more significant emphasis on different aspects. LuciferMorgan 10:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"More harmonically mobile" and "less monumental": the former seems to me unquestionable, the latter less so, but I will have a look through the sources to back them up. That his later works contain "less music played with ad libitum co-ordination" does not strike me as a critical judgement requiring footnotes, however, but a plain statement of unquestionable fact. For example compare his String Quartet, his Livre pour orchestre and his Second Symphony with his later Piano Concerto and Chantefleurs et chantefables. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --RobertG ♬ talk 21:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Robert: what does harmonically mobile mean? Tony 16:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lutosławski described musical composition as a search for listeners who think and feel the same way he did — he once called it "fishing for souls". WP:CITE requires all quotations to be cited to the source in question. LuciferMorgan 11:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look for a ref (from memory, I think it's quoted in Jacobson). --RobertG ♬ talk 09:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --RobertG ♬ talk 21:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lutosławski himself did not hold the view that such influences had a direct effect on his music, although he acknowledged that they impinged on his creative world to some degree. Since this sentence mentions Lutoslawski's viewpoint, can the publication where his opinion is referenced be sourced? LuciferMorgan 11:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, as I suspected, Rae 1999 (which is where I think this is discussed) is not available to me just now (actually, not until mid-October). Sorry. --RobertG ♬ talk 21:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is rather unfortunate. Should the article get defeatured due to the fact this isn't available, perhaps you could renominate it when the book becomes available to you. LuciferMorgan 14:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; very frustrating that the FA status could hinge on this deficiency. Can this reference, and others, be distilled via another route? Tony 14:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May I restate my puzzlement? One view (the one I hold) is that "Lutosławski himself did not hold the view that such influences had a direct effect on his music, although he acknowledged that they impinged on his creative world to some degree" could be trivially verified by anyone with access to the references, and therefore the sentence doesn't need a footnote. I am baffled that you have questioned the statement, but I make no complaint.
When I get access to Rae, perhaps in October, I will possibly add a footnote. Whether it is in the meantime de-featured has become a matter of low importance to me. I have been completely unable to engage with this FAR. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) I was asked for a comment here. Though the majority of FAs that lack inline citations are typically about three years old and in middling shape, we have seen comprehensive, well-written articles that lack them and it's always a dilemma. I take your points Robert, but it always comes back to this: Wikipedia articles are not static. You know the sources and you know this page is accurate at the moment—but then we have to assume that you will always be watching it to ensure it complies with 1c. What if someone comes along and adds info from a new source or their own OR and you're not watching? Readers going through it later won't know what's from what because there were no inline cites to begin (they don't have to be footnotes, incidentally).

But I don't want another drawn out debate on 1c. Mid-October, you say? Then we'll wait until mid-October. We've gone eleven weeks here before, and I really don't mind unless the article is an embarassment to the FA star—this one clearly is not. Marskell 13:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we can wait till mid-October.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  13:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Permitting this extra time will save a worthy FA. Thank you. Tony 10:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copious footnotes will help an article only if someone watches the article to ensure that none of the following happens:

  • The footnotes are moved from the statement they support to one they don't.
  • The meaning of the text is changed or reversed, while the footnote stays.
  • The footnote itself is vandalized.

I have seen the first two happen often, in good faith. Chill, guys. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone seems quite chill, from where I'm sitting. Marskell 08:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Even though me and RobertG have differing opinions over citations, RobertG was pleasant enough to write a nice message on my talk page. LuciferMorgan 12:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course: RobertG is quite the gentleman. Tony 14:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Its a great article, and we have few enough featured articles on composers. I hope RobertG finds the time to go through the tiresome work of adding footnotes to an already attributed page, because it deserves the star. Ceoil 18:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you thought I'd forgotten you all: I have now assembled the references and will be looking at them again over the next week or two (or three?). I have made a start. On the basis that if a thing is worth doing, it's worth doing well I will probably just reference everything, even though I originally thought that would be unnecessary overkill. --RobertG ♬ talk 05:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Bows deeply*. Marskell 19:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Bows even more deeply with hat flourish (nose touches floor)* Thinks: "what was all that about then?" --RobertG ♬ talk 16:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm done here. Thanks for your patience. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, Robert, for a monumental task; this should be retained as an FA. However, you'll hate me for saying that I think it's way over-referenced now. If you feel inclined some time in the future, some of the repeated references (such as within sentences or in successive sentences) could be rationalised. Tony (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fortunately I enjoyed re-reading the references (and I find his music bears much repeated listening). I kept worrying that I'd discover truthiness had crept in to the article: fortunately there wasn't any. And I don't hate you, Tony! I will, perhaps, as you suggest, "rationalise" the refs some time, because I agree with you.
    If anyone watching here wants anything else to do, I commend Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tōru Takemitsu to you: please contribute over there. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think 1c is at fault, so congratulations to RobertG for referencing the article. LuciferMorgan 14:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was kept 14:07, October 21, 2007.

Dmitri Shostakovich

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Alerted nominator, WP:Composers, WP:RH, WP:MUSICIAN (Bio subgroup), WP:RUSSIA and WP:WPO
Old School ('04) FAC of Dmitri Shostakovich

Nominated & passed FA back in 2004, but while the bar has risen for FAs, the quality of the Shostakovich article has remained inert and I don't think this now passes FACR#1. While the article is good, it has varied problems, ranging from excessive reliance from too few scholarly sources (and way too much rehashing from Groves - a typical problem with composer articles) to language and flow issues. Comments and suggestion for improvements most welcome. Eusebeus 15:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the citations from Grove's are direct quotations on the quality and impact of Shostakovich's music. We should include such matters; including them from Grove's will reassure the reader that they have not been cherry-picked as POV, but are likely to be the consensus of musical criticism, as I believe they are.
I am, in fact, strongly impressed by the use of sources. There is neither too little nor too much of Testimony, that perennial danger on this subject. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I make it 7 out of 37 references being to Grove, which doesn't strike me as unreasonable. Unfortunately Shostakovich has not been well-served in the academic literature as far as surveys of his output go - as far as I know there's no equivalent of Stucky and Rae for Lutoslawski (and I have looked). For general statements about the music rather than on invidividual works, that leaves the options of a) Grove or b) generalising from work done on individual works, which I think would be orignal research and much less preferable. Having said that, I have no particular opinion on whether this should still be an FA: I don't do FAs any more and don't know the current criteria. HenryFlower 10:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and prose (1a). Marskell 19:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain as above; the only suggested concern I see is the use of Grove's, which I approve. For what it's worth, the new Grove's Online retains the judgments and much of the prose of the Second edition. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've read the article and added references for a few quotes that were not cited, and made some minor tweaks. The writing is actually quite fine, and it's sufficiently referenced. –Outriggr § 23:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: I'd have liked more comments here and there are a couple of unreferenced sections, but I'll trust Rel's work. Marskell 14:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was kept 19:38, October 17, 2007.

Chennai

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
User:Sundar‎, User:Nashcode,‎ User:Brhaspati,‎ Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities,‎ Wikipedia:Noticeboard for India-related topics‎, User:Rigmahroll notified

I guess this article was promoted to FA under the old guidelines. Sadly, it fails to measure up to the present guidelines. I feel it fails at least the first three criteria. There are several issues with the article including sourcing and several prose issues. In my opinion it needs a lot more work to be counted among the best on Wikipedia. Sarvagnya 04:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment While I do feel that the article needs some work toward improving its lead, redistributing prose into roughly equal sections and paras, and a thorough copyedit, I do not agree that it merits bypassing a discussion in the article's talk page and going for a review. Also, I'd request you to provide specific examples to help understand the problems. I'll devote some time in the next few days copyediting the article and request everyone interested to help. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regarding the citations, I feel it can be worked upon. Regularizing the existing citations (that is providing all the info available for a citation, preferably in a template) will do a lot of help. I have started working on this aspect. Also, it would be helpful if "citation needed" tags are put. I request the FAR proposer and others to put such tags. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Gave the article a quick once-over. Prose (as in language) seems largely OK. Citation neededs can be worked on or rephrased to avoid making unverifiable (or tall) claims. Review process more suited to talk page than FAR. -- Brhaspati\talk/contribs 03:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The so-called problems in the article are not beyond rectification with discussions in the article talk page. I feel the FAR request is unnecessary. There is nothing seriously wrong with the prose or the verifiability. Tagging practically each sentence smacks of disruption. Parthi talk/contribs 05:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with the other comments, the concerns should've been brought up first in the talk page rather than go for an FAR without any discussion anywhere. In any case: the article needed references, which have now been provided, for the most part. Lotlil 13:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defeature a.s.a.p. ...while the total metropolitan population was 6.4 million. The estimated metropolitan population in 2006 is 7.6 million. Is this a joke or is this a joke? The article also does not seem to bother to make any distinction between the Chennai district and the Chennai metropolis. A note about Saurashtrians (and Saukarpet) financing history may be included. Anwar 19:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article actually says this: As of 2001, Chennai city had a population of 4.2 million, while the total metropolitan population was 6.4 million. The estimated metropolitan population in 2006 is 7.6 million. This sounds clear enough to me. And, why should the article talk about Saurashtrians, when nothing is being said about Telugus, Malayalees, Kannadigas, Marathi people, Gujjus, Rajasthanis and so on? Lotlil 20:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, another Anwar-gem. Add that to long list of random but mandatory Anwar fart on India-related FAR/FARC/FAC.--Blacksun 20:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guilty of adding many citations in the non-template format, I did that because it seemed to use a lot less bytes than the templated version. But, I just retested this theory with a few sample citations and I'm not so sure now. I'll go ahead and standardize the refs with templates, we can then decide whether the article is too bulky. Lotlil 16:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The references are fixed now. Thanks. Lotlil 03:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
References are formatted now. I will request a cpedit from the experts once the content issues (raised in the review below) are fixed. Thanks. Lotlil 03:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A review and list of concerns... in no particular order really.

  • half the lead (the sister city stuff and all) doesnt belong in the lead.. or even perhaps the article itself.
Moved sister cities to Culture and the National park info to Geography. Lotlil 03:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • the climate stats box is overkill for this SS article. has gaudy colouring too.
I think the stats box can stay in the article, but I've made it appear collapsed, by default. Lotlil 03:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • most of the pics are of very poor quality (b'natya, luz corner, usman road, tennis court). the maps in the geography section also look weird. A map making(svg) expert should be able to consolidate everything in the rail network map which is good.
Removed luz picture and one of the geography maps. The rest of the pics looked ok to me, just needed some resizing to fit well with the text. Lotlil 03:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • pics need to be to the right as far as possible.. too many pics to the left of the text.
This is fixed now. There are still a couple of pics on the left, but I think they look better there. Lotlil 03:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After trimming down the sections, I had to remove pics on the left due to space constraints, anyway. No pics are on left now.Lotlil 23:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • sources - some of the sources like worldwar1.co.uk, chennai-madras.com, madurainews.com, racehorseowners.com, freemeteo.com, world-gazetteer.com etc., look very suspect and may not qualify under WP:RS.
  • "detroit of asia" is pov and UNDUE. who else other than the IT secy has called it so? it is not a well known sobriquet like Garden city/silicon city (in case of B'luru) etc.,. that apart, not really sure if being a detroit is anything to be proud of considering detroit's own withering fortunes.
Detroit of asia was not mentioned in the text of the article. It appears in a reference as the title of the news report. Lotlil 03:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hmm... i guess it was in the article(perhaps the lead) when this was first brought to FAR... but was removed soon after.. certainly was gone by the time i wrote the above comment. my bad. Sarvagnya 08:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sports section needs a complete makeover... for instance, "The stadium is famous for its list of records, including the first ever test match victory that India recorded in 1951–52 when they defeated England, the second of only two tied tests between India and Australia in 1986 and Saeed Anwar's 194 in 1999 which is still the highest ODI score by a batsman." doesnt belong in this article at all. Sriperumbudur and sholavaram are not Chennai.
I'm not sure whether the records should stay or not. It's fine either way. We can surely remove it, if you insist. Sriperumbudur is a part of the metro area (we talk of all the hardware companies in this area under Economy). What other aspects of the section needs to be fixed ? Lotlil 03:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trimmed down the section (to about the same size as when this article became an FA, 2 yrs ago) and forked off many of the details, including the records, into a sub article.Lotlil 23:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{see also|}}s look better at the top of the respective sections.
Fixed. Lotlil 03:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • child articles required for each section. create them if they dont exist.
The important sections already have child articles (History, Geography, Economy, Culture and Transport). Media, Demographics, Education and Sports don't have one, I'm not sure if this is a requirement for FA. The other Indian cities FAs don't have child articles for these sections either. Lotlil 03:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though I don't think it was necessary, I added sub articles: Education and Sports. Lotlil 23:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • of most concern is that almost all child articles are poorly sourced and badly written. Ideally, each section should just summarise a well written and comprehensively sourced child article.
If there are claims in the main article that are unsourced neither there nor at the sub-article, that's a concern. But I didn't see many such cases. Lotlil 23:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • economy section is a mess. too many names of companies thrown in. tafe and ti cycles dont belong in the same league as hyundai(which has a huuuuge plant in chennai and was one of the earliest of the new age MNCs to enter madras) or MRF (which has a history with madras). foxconn who? virtusa who? naza automobiles who? try and get a better source than citymayors.com for exceptional claims like "fifth largest GMP" (i dont doubt it myself.. but feel that a FA needs to be sourced better in crucial areas). "Chennai was recently rated as having the highest quality of life among Indian cities ahead of the other three metros and Bangalore, based on the "Location Ranking Survey" conducted by ECA International." - eca intl., who? source? relevance to economy section?
Yes, this section needed some work, I've done some fixing up. Let us know if there are further concerns. Lotlil 03:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Administration section - Nanchil kumaran doesnt belong in this article. I am not sure Utility services subsection belongs in this article at all... atleast not in its present form. right now it reads as if its target audience was a new migrant to chennai looking to get cable and internet. either remove it altogether or melt it down and recycle it into other sections. names of MPs dont belong in this article.
Added table of officials. Cable tv moved to Media. The rest look ok to me. Lotlil 23:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Water subsection - in the context of water supply to madras, telugu ganga project is too important to be left red. also if i am not wrong, desalination projects have been in the works for over two decades. so the line needs to be removed or reworded and at the very least, sourced.
Fixed. Lotlil 23:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • did a random ctrl-F for "Parry's corner"; couldnt find it. From what little I know of Chennai.. it sure belongs somewhere in this article. ditto with mount road.
Good catch. I tried to fit these two into the text, though may not be at their most optimal places. See if it looks ok. Lotlil 03:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Culture section - "This unique cuisine is replicated in many a Madras Cafe in other parts of India and the world." draws too much attention. Not to mention, the second half of the section is completely unsourced. amazingly, the Madras Music Academy fails to even find a mention in this article. cut down on a 'roll call' of new age software companies and please add institutions and organisations and where possible people that really have a history with the city. for example, I'd rather Kumaran and Nalli saree shops be mentioned than infosys and wipro.

hmm.. this much for now. But the article still has loads and loads of problems. plenty of MoS issues. Plenty of sourcing issues. Plenty of weasel/peacock/pov issues. And the prose is way below par for a FA. requires several rounds of copyediting. I'm afraid I cant support retaining its FA status yet. Sarvagnya 04:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would've been useful and helpful if this list was posted when it was requested by almost every commenter so that the issues can be fixed. (Not that I agree with all of the above objections. Nanchil Kumaran does belong here given that he is the incumbent CoP. Doing random Ctrl-F for specific strings and not finding them is no review at all.) And some other issues mentioned above have been fixed now. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 13:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I leave it to Lotlil to update the status regarding the issues that are already fixed. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 17:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good review. Thanks. I will try to address the remaining comments (the ones I haven't replied to) in the next few days. Once the content issues are behind us, we can request an independed cpedit for prose and MoS issues. Anything you can point out before that, would help. Lotlil 03:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most concerns have been addressed. I still need to remove the few questionable sources and also add citation for one paragraph in the Culture section. Lotlil 23:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status: Should this go down to FARC? Work can still continue there. Marskell 16:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the criteria for moving from FAR to FARC is, so I'll let the others speak up on that. Most of the concerns raised so far, are addressed (except some possible MoS issues). Would help if someone takes another look at the article to say what more needs to be done. Lotlil 23:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b), and referencing (1c).

Comment: Just moving it down to get greater clarity on whether people feel it's up to speed. Marskell 10:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's in pretty good shape. Definitely still among Wikipedia's best. If any of the above identified items can be further addressed that would be great. A few more things that would also help are the last paragraph of the lead and the last paragraph of the history section particularly need to be expanded. The space devoted to various time frames should be approximately even. There's got to be at least one or two more important things that have happened since 1914 that could balance that out and make a cohesive paragraph. Also the economy section just covers the large corporations without discussing what most of the people are involved in economically which isn't properly balanced. In general the article looks pretty good though as those are relatively minor points. - Taxman Talk 03:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm trying to identify significant events that happened in Chennai during that period. States Reorganisation Act perhaps altered the boundaries of the areas currently under the Chennai Metro area? If so, I'll dig up some sources related to that. Are the recent issues around proposals to move the secretariat and the Kannagi statue notable enough for a mention here? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 09:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sundar, I don't think the proposed move of the secratariat is notable enough (at least until the move actually gets approved and starts materializing). Same with Kannagi statue. Lotlil 13:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I had my doubts about them. By the way, I was referring to the controversy surrounding the earlier proposal by the Jayalalitha government to move the secretariat. On second thoughts, that too is not notable for a summary article. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 05:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I still think that there are substantial issues with the article, particulary prose and sourcing (for sourcing concerns, seem my comment in FAR). The prose has more than a few redundant sentences(for example 1st sentences of the 2nd and 4th paragraphs of the "Transportation" section are essentially the same) which ought to be ironed out. The media section is too listy and talks nothing about the birth of different kinds of media in the city. For example, which was the first newspaper? When was the first radio station established? Who has the largest circulation? etc.,. The economy section has too many names and too little facts and figures. Also, not sure if "under construction" projects need to figure in the section just yet (they havent started contributing to the economy already, have they?). There are more such issues in almost every section. At the very least, the article needs some serious copyediting for prose and flow. Will try to add more comments in a couple of days. Sarvagnya 05:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I am not understanding the above editor, Sarvagnya's, overt hostility and sarcasm toward this article demonstrated throughout his many comments above in FAR. Are not the comments, suggestions etc. supposed to be constructive, or at the very least, neutral? Although not all comments on FAC articles are ideal, I have never seen this level of negativity before on FAC and do not understand what the goal in being so antagonistic. The article is not as faulty as many I have seen go through FAC without such belittling comments. --Mattisse 21:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I am not understanding the process here. I would help out with the copy editing, but I cannot make sense of what is going on. Maybe I am not supposed to enter in here and am out of place, that only designated editors are supposed to enter in. --Mattisse 21:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mattisse, can you please spell out what you find overtly hostile or negative in Sarvagnya's review? Come to think of it, I agree with him that this article still needs some work.. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 05:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mattisse, you can obviously comment here. It would be great if you helped with copyedit too. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 09:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have copy edited several FA articles, including a few for India. However, I looked through this article and did not see any glaring MoS "breach" errors. Could someone point them out to me? I am not clear what is in dire need of fixing. (Content, of course, I cannot address, except to note that it is admirably concise.) It seems well organized. Perhaps Climate and Water could be merged. If someone will point out to me the problems I would be willing to try to fix them. --Mattisse 12:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, Mattisse. Could you give the article a quick read through and see if the prose or flow needs work anywhere? Lotlil 13:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought I think not. I see India admins are involved. --Mattisse 17:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I concur with User:Mattisse. This FARC was raised on frivolous grounds. As my comments at the start indicate that none of the issues of the article are not beyond fixing with some civil discussions on the article talk page. I cannot fathom the continuing antagonistic and disruptive comments by Sarvagnya. Parthi talk/contribs 04:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general I find that most outdated FAs only get improved, in this case refs, when they are put in the firing line. Many other FAs, such as India, lack citations even though there are 5x more people on the talk page discussing the lack of citations and agreeing that it is missing and nothing is happening. So in general, it seems that tagging articles with {{fact}} or sending to FAR is the only way of extracting improvement in many cases, even though it can be seen as a testy tactic. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There still seems to be unnecessary information floating around. I've removed an "aka". Other trivia include the caption of the image "venue of the tied test" etc. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article in better shape. I am commenting keep hoping the following would be taken care of (1) Remove the subsection "Water". You can add a gist of this subsection to utility services. (2) If needed, create a separate section on "climate", rather then giving it a subsection status under "geography". (3) Can get rid of some names in Economy section, as indicated above by Sarvagnya (4) One image is listed for deletion. (5) Further copyedit, which Mattisse and others are doing. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lotlil and others have fixed almost all the content and referencing issues. Dwaipayan's above comments have been fixed by prose refactoring. Economy section perhaps needs some more work, but those are minor. Taxman's admittedly minor issue regarding post-1914 events is not fully addressed, but that period had far fewer events worth mentioning related to Chennai. Will add some as we find. Finetooth from the League of Copyeditors has given a thorough copyedit on my request. As it stands, the article is in a very good shape, still among the best of Wikipedia. Minor issues will be ironed out in regular course. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 04:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Referencing problems:I checked the sport section and only the Chepauk and the Chemplast sentence are fully sourced. The hockey stadium sentence is partly sourced and tennis sentence is partly sourced. So In all, there are only 2 +0.5+0.5=3 sourced sentences, the rest need to be sourced. The claim that the cricket is the main sport is the headline sentence and definitely needs to be sourced, just in case it might be a non-average place where soccer or hockey are the most popular. If this lack of sourcing is a general trait of the article, then it should not be an FA. Also, many of the references are not fully filled in, some refs have authors and publication dates listed but not filled in. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • References have been provided for all but one (which you say is needed "just in case") of the facts pointed out above. Those were either common knowledge or easily verifiable. They have references now, nonetheless. How do you say it's a general trait? After a staggered release schedule of issues with the article by Sarvagnya which were fixed from time to time, you're bringing these minor issues up at the end of the review and claim that it's a general trait. Neat. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 05:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, the reason I said "just in case" is because the fact that cricket is the most popular sport in India does not imply that it is the most popular everywhere. In Australia, Australian rules football is the most popular sport, but in Sydney and Brisbane, rugby is 5-10 times more popular. Hinduism is the most popular religion in India but there are some states and districts and cities where it is not. Even still, when I came in today, the Venkat and Srikkanth from Chennai claim was not sourced, Lillee is not the MRF director as claimed, and the fact that the Nehru stadium can be used for multiple things is not sourced, nor is the fact that the golf courses were 19th century nor the fact that the people listted like Anand etc actually do come from Chennai. So it is not correct to say all references have been provided because they are demonstrably not. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Each sentence does not need to be cited. Cricket in India and rugby in Australia aren't even a close comparison. If any Indian city claims some other sport to be popular, that's what needs to be sourced. Venkat and Srikkanth have their own articles whose references show they are from Chennai. Same with Anand. And, no, their roots to Chennai aren't contentious. One can question every single sentence, for the sake of doing so, but that would just be a waste of everyone's time.Lotlil 02:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even the lone remaining fact has a citation now. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 05:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, actually, that is because not every sentence is tagged. To do so would seem disrespectful, which is why people have not tagged every single sentence, because it would not be correct to treat you as though you are a child and that everything needs to be pointed out one by one. It is a given that when the FAR was started on grounds of lack of sources, then there is an understanding that a lot of info is unsourced. The reviewere (FAR or FAC) does not have to spend 4-5 hours checking every single sentence and example of a non sourced sentence and tag every single one of them; it is unfair expectation since the person who wants to claim the FA star is responsbiel for its well being; it is also demeaning to the people responsible for the article to engage is finger-wagging every single thing like a headmaster embarrassing a kid in front of the class. The prevalence of unsourced info was there at the start and it remains now. I did not get around to checking all of hte article and only did that one sample. By the theory of statistical sampling, the fact that 70% of that section is unsourced is a bad omen for the rest of the article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious, what percent of an article should be cited explicitly, for it to be an FA? According to you, it's apparently over 30%, should we attempt to measure a few FAs (even recent ones) against this criteria? Lotlil 02:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, 100% and definitely > 90%. Other wiki articles are not RS. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't pointing to other wiki articles to be used as a source. Venkat's article explains, among other things, that he is from Chennai. It cites cricinfo as the reference (the same source you have added to the Sport in Chennai as a reference). My point was, as long as a reader can reasonably verify questionable claims using wiki-linked terms or sub-artciles, we should be fine. It would be disruptive to cite every sentence in a main article. Anyways, out of curiosity, I looked up a recent India FA - Karnataka. It's Education section has 13 sentences (many with multiple claims) and a total of 5 sources. So 8/13 sentences are unsourced, i.e., over 60% is 'unsourced'. I'd be surprised if any of the 1000-odd FAs measure up to your high standards! Lotlil 02:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that section has been fixed. It would be helpful for the purposes of this exercise if you could indicate whether you actually think that citations problems are a general trait of the article or not - obviously, as you say, if they are a general problem then the article should be defeatured, but from you comment it isn't clear whether you think it is, and if so why. -- Arvind 13:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • continuing from above, I went on to check the next two sections from the bottom up, and in the education section, only about 10% of hte article is in the sources attached and in the media section only about 30% is sourced. At FA level, that is not good enough. Delist. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The arguments you've provided for delisting the article are completely gratuitous. With this purely quantitative method of fact review, random statement can be questioned merely because they don't have a citation close enough to them. It's one thing to demand that truly controversial, counter-intuitive or highly obscure facts be cited, but questioning their veracity by merely being ignorant of them borders on the disruptive. Footnotes after almost half the sentences in an article makes Wikipedia look stupid, not more credible. Peter Isotalo 02:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually most articles that were written on teh run and not referenced properly have quite a few problems from inacurate or semi-accurate info. In any case, this article has improved a lot, so keep. Good work. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • De-feature - the article was using many non-RS sources, something that I had pointed out weeks ago. They were still there and I've removed and replaced them with {{fact}} tags. Few other problems also remain. Cannot support at the moment. Sarvagnya 06:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • De-feature - This article was featured two years ago, so it's obvious that lots of things happened to decrease the quality of the article from the featured level. Some considerable number of {{fact}} tags are still remaining. So I too cannot support at this moment. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 10:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was promoted two years ago, yes. But, quality issues have been fixed from time to time, more so recently. The "considerable" number of {{fact}} tags is five of the tags added a few hours back by Sarvagnya. Those facts are minor enough to be even removed if we don't find citations in a day. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 11:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be helpful if you could point out exactly where the article is below featured level quality - it strikes me as a little odd to say that an article isn't at FA quality because it doesn't provide a citation for the newspapers published in the city (which, at the moment, is the only out standing {{fact}} tag, in relation to which see also my comment below. -- Arvind 15:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found that there are five {fact} tags in the article. One is in the lead concerning consulates, one is in Geo and climate which is about elevation and highest point, one is in the administration section which deals with CDMA and the other two in the Media section, dealing with sentences on Chennai newspapers and radio stations respectively. Apart from these five remaining fact tags, it would be helpful to know what specifically are the other issues that this article needs to address? GizzaDiscuss © 12:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is now one {{fact}} tag in the article, and that is for the list of newspapers. Does this even need a citation? A quick look at other featured articles about cities shows that most of them tend not to provide sources for the names of the newspapers that're published in a city, but only for circulation figures, rankings, and other such things. -- Arvind 15:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some problems that I see

  • Sports Section:

** The city has a long-standing and thriving motor sports culture. This is a POV or needs a substantial citation. ** No citation exists for the motor tracks mentioned

    • What is meant by Other athletes of repute from Chennai include Chetan Baboor, as far as I recall Chetan Baboor always used to play for Karnataka and PSCB. Does he reside in Chennai? Is that what this means? In any case, citation is needed.

** Viswanathan Anand resides in Spain, he no longer resides in India. Sentence needs to be changed.

Good catches, thanks. I've fixed the bits about the racing and Viswanathan Anand. I have no idea about Chetan Baboor - if nobody adds anything by tomorrow, I'll take him out. -- Arvind 23:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided citation that says he's a product of PSBB (Padma Seshadri), a Chennai school. He played for PSCB while being employed at Bharat Petroleum (I believe in Chennai too, I will find a link for this later, if needed). In any case, I added his name ahead of another famous TT player from Chennai, S. Raman. If you insist we can remove Chetan's name and add Raman. Lotlil 20:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When Chetan was not playing for his employer, he used to represent Karnataka, as seen here. Since he does not seem to relate himself to Chennai, I am not sure if his name should be there. Any how, Sharat Kamal's name is already there, which should suffice as far as table tennis is concerned. Please add Raman's name if needed, since that is more relevant -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 05:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Chetan. He was a Kannadiga, yes, but I don't think he played for K'taka (in fact he apparently represented TN in sub-junior and junior level, before moving on to represent his employer). But, this is a minor detail for this article, I agree that we can let go of his name.Lotlil 16:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lotlil, just to get the facts right. He did represent Karnataka as seen here. In fact, I had the privilege of being one among the audience who watched the exact match that is being talked of in the article, live in the stadium. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 11:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Media section:

** Some info on the history of media (newspapers and like), will make this section better. Currently I see it as containing only a list of names.

Done. Lotlil 20:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transport section:

** The city has plans for an underground Metro - citation needed. ** The Gemini flyover, built in 1973 over the most important arterial road, Anna Salai, is a well-known landmark in the city.. What does this mean? Is it a heritage site? Is it so significant that it supercedes may be other important landmarks in the city? Just a comment since I did not see the significance of it... ** Vans, run like bus services and popularly called Maxi Cabs, also ply many routes in the city. Hired transport includes metered call taxis, fixed rate tourist taxis and auto rickshaws. - The grammar is confusing, can we use simple English please. ** The rail network is broad gauge. - This small sentence, can be clubbed with many of the sentences in the section and would look neat

Done, mostly - but I actually didn't see the problem with the sentences you've cited in your third point, so I've left them as they are. -- Arvind 23:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have modified third sentence myself, let me know if there is any issue... -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 02:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Culture section:

** Local bands play music in many styles. Of course, they will. A city with such a population will have diversified music. The sentence is very generic and does not convey much

One way to fix this sentence that Amarrg has pointed out is by mentioning what the "many styles" are in the form of examples. "Local bands play music in many styles including ..." Otherwise, it is better to remove it altogether. GizzaDiscuss © 00:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REmoved sentence. Lotlil 20:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A personal opinion is that Chennai does deserve much more in the culture section. I see absolutely nothing on literature
  • Economy section:

** Where are the numbers, where are the financial figures? Some data please... You cannot have an economy section with just text in it

Added some income, employment and export numbers. Lotlil 16:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead in:

** Chennai is the third largest commercial and industrial centre in India - This sentence is vague. The citation shown seems to be an off-hand remark. Does this mean in terms of the workforce or in terms of the contribution to GDP or in terms of the number of industries present here? Can we have some clarity please...

Redid the lead a bit and removed this sentence. Lotlil 19:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • History section:

** Tamil agitation against Hindi needs a citation

  • Geography section:

** Is that weather averages table really needed? It would be better to move it to a sub-article; as without it, the article looks neater and the table will no way affect the FA status anyways...

Removed. Lotlil 20:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Administration and utility services:

** Just a thought, I see that there are lot of names like Airtel, Vodafone etc... being mentioned here. While this is OK, it is also prone to abuse with people adding names as and when there is a change, degrading the general look and feel and thereby the quality of the article. This requires a lot of maintenance as well. As an example, in the recent round of mobile licences, more than 10 companies have applied afresh. If nothing is done, names of all these companies who are granted licences for Chennai will slowly start appearing in the article. Ideal way would be to move names to a sister article and keep the quality of the main one intact

Done. Lotlil 16:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Economy

** making it a preferred destination for medical tourists from across the globe - Is a POV

The ref was in the sub-article. The ref (from Govt. of India) actually says it's the largest hub in S. Asia. I was toning it down by saying it's "a preferred destination". Please feel free to modify, if needed. Lotlil 16:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have changed it in the article to sound NPOV -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 17:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

** Most common treatments sought by the tourists include heart surgery, neurological procedures, cancer treatments, plastic surgery and orthopaedic procedures. - This is POV and needs a good citation.

The ref was there in the sub-article. Moved it over, now.Lotlil 16:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

** This section needs more citations. I see only 6 citations for a section that contains more than 20 sentences

All numbers, claims etc. are cited. If a sentence is uncited, it most likely has wikilinked terms or a sub-article that cites it. If you find any that needs explicit referencing, let me know.Lotlil 16:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Demographics
    • making it one of the most densely populated cities in the world - This needs a citation.
Provided ref for the density numbers. wikilinked "densely populated" to a global list to clarify the point. Lotlil 16:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Global list is nomed for deletion, so an appropriate better citation may be needed -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 17:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That article wasn't nomed when I wikilinked it 2 days back, but it seems to be now. Provided another citation.Lotlil 19:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lotlil, refs are fine. One small problem though. The population and density figures mentioned in the Infobox dont match the ones in the article. Also total population figure in infobox is 4.35 million where as that of the Metro in the infobox is 7.5 million, is that correct? -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits
Yes, the figures are correct. The city's population was 4.34 mil as of 2001 census (the infobox said 2006, which was wrong) and the metro area (which is chennai city+other suburbs) was 7.04 mil. as of 2001 census. The 2007 estimated population of the metro area is 7.5 (according to the Hindu article).Lotlil 16:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

** The last paragraph needs more citations

Removed linguistic communities and added migrant info, with refs.Lotlil 16:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transport

** This section lacks citations -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 02:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some references have been added from sub-articles, pl. take another look and see if any specific info needs to be cited.Lotlil 16:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove—1a, unless copy-edited. I looked at just the lead, which is likely to be better than the rest.

  • "Considered the automobile capital of India, Chennai is home to a major percentage[6] of the country’s automobile industry." Can we have the reference number at the end of the sentence? Disrupts the flow when shoved into the middle.
  • "second-largest" and then "third largest".
  • "and is a base for the manufacture of hardware and electronics, with many multinational corporations setting up plants on its outskirts." Clumsy prose. Try "and is a base for the manufacture of hardware and electronics in many plants owned by multinational corporations on its outskirts."
  • "the Bharatanatyam, a classical dance"—Check whether it's a classical dance "form" or, perhaps, "genre".
  • "The city faces problems with water shortages, traffic congestion and air pollution."—Overuse of "with" in such a role. "Of" would be better here.
  • How do mini-flyovers address water shortages? Tony (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reformatted the lead a bit and fixed the prose/grammar issues you've pointed out. Bharatanatyam is a dance form and I've corrected the statement. Thanks. Also, the lead says the city's problems are water and traffic and they are being addressed by the Veeranam project and mini-flyovers. The Veeranam project addresses water and the flyovers address traffic.Lotlil 19:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too much work has been done not to keep this, and I don't see why it can't be. Can we have some comment on the last prose and citation concerns? Marskell 20:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • Education - a handful of {{fact}} tags still remain. The first paragraph on education is entirely uncited. Also, there should be information in the education section which traces the birth of modern education, who the pioneers were, when were the first school/college/universities started, what is the literacy rate... how many educational institutions exist.. in short, as much info specific to chennai as possible and not just generic info that could be a part of Tamil Nadu article.
Moved references over from the sub-article to here. Added info about total # of schools. The sub-article gives details of when each notable institution was started.Lotlil 16:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Demographics - population density is uncited. Madras bhashai is entirely unsourced cruft and we have a sentence riding wholly on it. In the last sentence, Kannadigas, Sindhis, Marwaris, Gujaratis okay.. but anglo-indians, punjabis, bengalis, UP and Bihar? I am not so sure. A citation will help. Also afaik, kannada population is on par with atleast the malayalam population. In fact, Kannada population form about 2.5-3% of TN's population and all of them are concentrated either in Coimbatore area or Madras. That would mean that their numbers in Madras are on par with atleast malayalees and i dont see why they should be bundled with anglo-indians and punjabis and bengalis! A citation(preferably one giving percentages) will help clarify these things.
Removed linguistic communities and madras baashai (I remember taking this out once recently, somehow this has made it back). Added migrants info.Lotlil 16:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transport - citations required for the figures mentioned.
Moved citation from MTC article.Lotlil 16:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Media - instead of a numbing list of channels, pipelink them to a List of TV and radio channels in Chennai or some such (or maybe an appropriate section in Media in Chennai) and free up space to mention that the Sun TV network, headquartered in the city is one of India's biggest media houses etc.,. How can that notable fact about media in chennai not be mentioned? Get rid of the frequencies of the long list of FM channels... those frequencies belong on advertising billboards.. not in a summary article.
Done. Lotlil 19:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inane and context-less sentences - I fixed a few such sentences in the course of my edits here (examine my edits in that window and the accompanying edit summaries). The article has more such disjointed sentences which are just thrown in there without context. Not all of them are insignificant and need not be removed. But they need to be reworded and put in context. And citations should be added where necessary. Sarvagnya 21:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updates: Almost all issues seem to have been resolved. Can people update their comments/votes based on the improvements made? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 05:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Changed. Lotlil 16:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The references need some clean up and completion; I will start from the bottom of the article later today. Perhaps others will note the type of edits I make, and start with similar from the top of the article. Can someone please fix this?
  • Madras itself is etymologically derived from Madraspatnam, the name of the site chosen by the British East India Company for a permanent settlement in 1639.[clarify]
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned up references in the bottom half of the article; the top still needs to be done. It's apparent that citations were added by many different editors using several different styles. Sometimes cite web was used for The Hindu, sometimes cite news; sometimes publisher was used, sometimes work, often dates were missing, sometimes titles were wrong, sometimes publishers are missing.[8] I hope someone can finish the ref checking and cleanup to the consistent style now in place for the bottom of the article. I added a clarification needed on a statement that said "about eight"; is it eight or is it not? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completed the top half of the ref formatting. The refs all look consistent now. I've removed the statement ...about eight papers, there are more than eight papers/magazines (which are listed in the section). Lotlil 22:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of good work has gone into the article in recent weeks and I'm confident remaining issues(mostly prose) can be ironed out in due course. Great work by Lotlil in particular. Changing my oppose to keep... wanted to do this few days ago.. but was tied up with RL. apologize for the delay. Sarvagnya 07:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Excellent work by Lotlil on this one. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 10:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was kept 22:10, October 15, 2007.

Football (soccer)

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notifications, project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football, Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports
Notifications, user: User:Raichu FAC nominator

Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 1 (c) seems to be a problem as the article is tagged as having unsourced information since February 2007. __meco 20:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that one {{fact}} tag (which took me two reads through the article to find) your only reason for listing for review? Oldelpaso 20:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not so much that as the fact that it hadn't been dealt with in six months. Admittedly, I haven't read the article. I just figured this to be a sign that there was a need for a general review as Featured Articles are supposed to be impeccable. If I've been rash in my nomination, I shall stand corrected and censured. __meco 09:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - a huge lack of references. 23 in total for a 39kb in length. Several paragraphs have hardly any references, and in most cases, zero references. Davnel03 17:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm willing to do whatever is required to keep this an FA, but at the moment I'm busy with an FAC nomination for another article. Oldelpaso 13:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I will also help if needed. I think sweeping statements about citations is unhelpful though. Could you be more specific? The guidelines currently say anything that could reasonably be challenged should be cited. Some paragraphs may not be reasonably challenged and as such do not require citations. Woodym555 20:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy retain. A nomination by someone who confessedly has not read the article is frivolous; it is for one tag itself questionable (I am surprised that anyone would actually challenge the assertion that many Britons still speak of soccer in imperial). Footnote counting is not actionable, or productive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments, I left sample edits, references are incomplete and unformatted, Oldelpaso and Woodym555, pls let me know when it's ready for another look, and let us know if you need more time. The prose is also going to need a thorough audit; for example, notice this throw-away sentence: "The field has various other markings and defined areas." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gradually sifting through the prose. Oldelpaso 11:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell 15:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see too much needing citation, that the game is played by two teams of eleven players etc. seems highly unlikely to be challenged, though as a football fan my view on what is obvious may differ to the norm. For the section about the rules, pretty much everything can be sourced to the FIFA Laws Of The Game. Its already referenced once, and to do so every other sentence would be unsightly IMHO. Oldelpaso 18:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have referenced it for every paragraph, per this diff, to specific areas of the Laws of the game. I was going to cite "round ball" but hoped that no-one would find it very contentious. There are now no sentences/sections that could reasonably be challenged that are not cited. I see nothing that prevents it from retaining its FA status. Woodym555 17:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone see any problems with the article, or can we close this review? Woodym555 12:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast. It's quite well written, and deserves to remain as a FA. But let's improve it. Here are glitches I picked up at random. Someone else should sift through it, too.

  • The map: where do the data come from, and who is classified as a "player"? (Membership of amateur clubs? Professional? Back lane? Schools and colleges?) This should be deleted from the Commons immediately unless the uploader can clear this up.
Players are cautioned with a yellow card, and sent off with a red card.
  • Image under "Laws of the game"—Poor resolution. Caption makes an assertion without supporting evidence, and it's vague and has little relevance to the adjacent section.
  • Why two images bunched up at the top?
  • "18 yards (16.5 m) from the goalposts and extending 18 yards (16 m)"—Hello?
  • This image is really helpful:Tony (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was hardly being fast, this has languished here for long enough without comment. In reply to your comments:
I have contacted User:Johan Elisson who uploaded the image.
I have removed the "child image" (The one under "laws of the game") as i agree, it had little relevance to the text.
Moved an image down a section
fixed the convert template to round to 1 in both cases.
The card image serves its purpose, it illustrates a point.
Other reviewers would of course be welcome. Woodym555 14:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's the problem with the map Tony? The image description page clearly says where the data comes from, "[...] data taken from National Geographic June 2006 edition and this FIFA survey." I've done nothing but made a derivate of the map in the NG edition, and where the colour of a certain country was difficult to compare to the legend, I used the FIFA data (which the NG map in turn has used) to double check. The unknown status colours have been calculated based on the FIFA data, as these countries and territories where not included in the NG survey (thus no "No. 1 sport" or "Not No.1 sport"). And for countries and territories which are not included in the FIFA data either, the no data colour has been used. Is there still a problem? – Elisson • T • C • 15:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just about ready to go. (Sorry I've left this one.) Can we get a source on Ball in and out and Fouls and misconducts (before the last para)? It's generalized and a single ref to a rule book or manual would be fine. Marskell 19:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Oldelpaso 08:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 19:51, 13 October 2007.

Charles II of England

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified Wikiproject Anglicanism, Catholicism, England, Biography, and User:Emsworth

The article needs in-line citations. Judgesurreal777 20:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concern is citations (1c). Marskell 11:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still working on it. DrKiernan 11:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Could do with a scan through by fresh eyes. There are a few things I've not checked yet: Sarah Ferguson's ancestry; designation of a Collar day; and the dates of ennoblement and death in the "Children" section. DrKiernan 17:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 18:35, 6 October 2007.

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
previous FAR, October 2006
Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, Wikipedia:WikiProject The Legend of Zelda series, Wikipedia:WikiProject Nintendo and User:Phils notified.

It is a while since this article was reviewed for its FA status and has obviously changed significantly since that time. As has been noted on the articles talk page, it appears that the article receives a lot of attention from people who want impose POV on the article and add unnecessary information, which in many cases amount to original research. This subject has been raised on the talk page and it is obvious that the page has been reverted to its FA version on a number of occasions following what the contributors see as a decline in quality of the article. An image used in the article has recently been nominated for speedy deletion due to lack of fair use rationale. This alone violates criterion 3 of WP:FAC. I feel the best thing for this article is to have a full review, which will give the editors clear guidance on how to maintain the article's FA status. --carelesshx talk 20:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need to get this fixed up so it will stay at FA status and not go to FARC. Greg Jones II 21:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to notify all relevant Projects and editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- fair use rationale added to Image:TLOZ Phantom Hourglass Link.jpg. Any other issues? For a character this popular, it's impossible not to have POV pushing in the article (without protection, and I won't go there), so you really can't delist for something like that. IMO. Giggy Talk | Review 22:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
POV is not the only problem. The problem is that every time somebody edits to prove a point (as has happened), the quality of the prose goes down, the article becomes more and more bloated and less coherent. If you want specific examples, I can provide some:
  • "he was portrayed by a two-dimensional sprite; in later releases Link's appearance has been conveyed by a computer-generated image". This sentence is about as redundant as it is possible to be, and the article is riddled with other examples (criteria 1(a) and 4
  • "Link is described as a young Hylian (However in the early games, this is not stated. The Comic Books from that time however, along with Trading Cards state that this Link hails from Calatia, a Kingdom West of Hyrule. These sources are generally said to be canon) boy from the fictional land of Hyrule". Criterion 1(a), the article really really needs copy editing
  • "A new country has been formed, encompassing the islands of the Great Sea, which were once the highest mountaintops of Hyrule. The kingdom of old, lying dormant under the sea, is now a half-forgotten dream, barely surviving in ancient scrolls and dusty memories" (from the summary of The Wind Waker). Many parts of the article need re-writing from an out-of-universe perspective, as per WP:WAF (criterion 2)
The article generally feels far too long. Information is often repeated, sometimes in sections where it doesn't even need to appear. As far as the popularity of the character goes... I'm not convinced that, just because an article attracts edits that lower the quality, we should give that article a pass when it doesn't meet FA criteria. --carelesshx talk 00:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have also never been too happy with this article. It was promoted back in the lax days of 2005, for one. Also, it tends to attract poorly sourced information. However, I would like to see this article improve so I'll try to copyedit it some within the week. I also wouldn't mind see it permanently semi-protected, just because. Axem Titanium 05:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


We need this article's issues to be addressed ASAP, everyone. Good luck. Greg Jones II 20:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Any discussion of what is and is not "canon" for this character needs to be explicitly sourced to either some sort of official Nintendo canon repository or to quotations from one of Nintendo's main officials, such as Miyamoto. My guess is that any such discussion should be purged from the article, though. — Brian (talk) 07:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are POV (1d) and images (3). Marskell 13:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We need to fix up this article ASAP, now. Greg Jones II 18:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • !a—there's evidence of sloppiness. It needs a thorough check-through by a copy-editor. Not too long a job, though. These caught my eye in the first 30 s of swooping over it.
    • Apostrophe missing from the third sentence: how embarrassing.
    • MOS breach WRT to ellipsis dots.
    • Space before comma?
    • Redundant "alsos"—they become tiresome and weaken the flow.
    • "Well-known" with the hyphen, please.

No response. I guess we need to have this edited to maintain for Featured Status by now. Oh, well. Greg Jones II 03:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For now, Contest removal. Greg Jones II 14:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove—1a. Here are random glitches. Needs work by someone fresh to it.

  • MOS breach in the use of bolding "The Hero of Time", et al.
  • Also-itis, a bad disease. Get rid of them all, please: "He also has several friends, such as the pirate captain Tetra from The Wind Waker, Kafei and Tatl from Majora's Mask, and the fairy Navi from Ocarina of Time. He also has a utilitarian relationship with Midna from Twilight Princess, though the two grow to become friends as time goes on.[13] His mother and father also appear as ..."
  • "he is closer to the age of 7 to 12"—ah, that's an age-range, isn't it?
  • Redundant, flabby wording: "Link’s hair color is usually a dark blond, but was originally a brown colour."
  • "Link has long pointed ears resembling some conceptions of elves. These are apparently a distinctive trait"—"some" makes the reader work too hard to determine the meaning; so does "these". Tony 12:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as all the problems appointed in this FAR were fixed. igordebraga ≠ 00:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -The article was FAR'd for POV and images, which have been taken care of. The article has also, as a bonus, been copyedited by those who have pointed out some writing flaws. I do not see any compelling reason to remove its Featured article status, as all points seem to have been addressed. Judgesurreal777 22:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

Removed status

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

The article was removed 18:52, 31 October 2007.

Separation of powers under the United States Constitution

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject United States, Wikipedia:WikiProject Law, and User:Lord Emsworth

This article was already featured on the main page, so anyways I don't think it is FA status as the guidelines have become stricter especially no inline citations. --1ws1 04:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone do the notifications please :) --1ws1 04:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did it for you, but really you, as nominator, should have done it. The nominator is expected to be involved in the FAR. My comments: WP:LEAD is not respected. Lots of other WP:MOS violations, one-sentence paragraphs, use of bold. But most importantly, the topic is very relevant and there is nothing written here about the current constitutional arguments going back-and-forth during the reign of the current US president. --RelHistBuff 15:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Stable, but uncited. Wouldn't pass today, and probably shouldn't without a major cleanup of the sources. Choppy spacing and just plain odd syntax in the Checks and Balances section. Content-wise, that same section has reasonably well written sections about the legislature and courts system, both of which predominately focus on their checks against the power of other branches of government, but the executive section is extremely lacking and seems to go a touch off-topic. The two redlinks both point to pages you can reasonably expect to exist in the near future - continuing expansion of SCOTUS coverage will hit 'em eventually. Nonetheless, seems odd to have any redlinks in a FA. MrZaiustalk 15:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that much of this is sourced; named Supreme Court decisions are sources for American constitutional history. Most of the rest appears to be simple statements of consensus facts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell 19:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support for Removal

  • Based mostly on 1) utter lack of comprehensiveness especially given the significance of the subject matter, 2) pitifully low quantity of sources, 3) and an extensive lack of diversity of sources. Writing should also be improve, among other troubles.
  • FA - Finest Articles Learnedo 03:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Before we get to the content, there are MOS breaches, such as hyphens as interruptors (read MOS on em dashes), and illogical punctuation, which should be after the closing quotation marks. Trivial links, such as "18th century". But why get even this far: needs referencing urgently.Tony (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 18:52, 31 October 2007.

Canadian House of Commons

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada, User:Lord Emsworth, User:Montrealais, and User:The Tom

In February, the Canadian Parliament series failed a FTC nomination because, apparently, none of the FA articles met current criteria. I'd like to know what can be done to get them back up to snuff. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is an old promotion, so it doesn't have inline citations. There's one external jump in the text. Also, could the nominator inform relevant projects and editors according to the FAR directions? Jay32183 19:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If inline citations are all that are needed, will putter away at this article over the next while to save its feature status. Also contacted a few more editors to the article.SriMesh | talk 02:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concern is citations (1c). Marskell 18:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or WP:MOS#Hyphens Tony (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks well-written now. Pity not to complete the job with more references. Tony (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC) PS I've never seen the point of a bloated infobox: much of the information it contains should be (probably is) in the main text. It's so long that it overpasses the table way below it, at least on my puter, until you widen the window considerably. Tony (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speaking for myself, I like big infoboxes. Many times I've been saved from having to read a whole article when I just wanted the key stats. This, one, however, could probably be streamlined by not using the full titles for everything. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spaced or unspaced em dashes; inconsistent, and MOS prefers unspaced.
  • Space before ellipsis dots.
  • does.).—Remove the first dot.
  • Stubbify the huge redlink list at the botttom?
  • MOS says to specify C$ on first occurrence. Tony (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 10:04, 28 October 2007.

Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Messages left at Star Wars, Science Fiction and Films. Also notified Deckiller, the copyeditor and one of the main editors of this article and The Filmaker, the nominator and one of the main editors of this article. Greg Jones II 20:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this featured article for review for the following criteria violations:

REACTION SECTION:

1a:

"After the release of the film, there was controversy over whether several alien characters reflected racial stereotypes"

This does not sound professional.

REACTION SECTION & MAIN ARTICLE:

1b 1c, and 1d:

Not only are major facts and details missing, there is a general bias toward the negativity the film received. The neutrality is definitely a question here.

The introduction of midi-chlorians (microscopic organisms that allow communication with the Force) in the film has been controversial. Those against it have seen it as a concept that negates the spiritual quality of the Force.

These two lines are the only lines in the article that mention this major plot point. It's only mentioned here as a negative aspect of the film in the reaction section. Hardly neutral and is clearly fan opinion rather than FACT. The original source was an internet forum. The source has been removed, however the lines still remain.

Some aspects of the scripting were criticized. Much criticism was directed at the character of Jar Jar Binks, who was regarded by many members of the older fan community as a purely merchandising opportunity rather than a serious character in the film.

None of these lines are supported by their cited sources. At least one of the sources (CNN) actually refers to the character, however none of them actually represent "many members of the older fan community" and in general when you make a bold statement such as that without an air-tight source, you lose credibility. I question whether you could find a source to give credibility to that statement at all.

Even if the sources were valid, it doesn't sound professional. "Much criticism was directed"

In 2002, with the release of Attack of the Clones, actor Ewan McGregor admitted the film was "kind of flat".[33] Comedians and former Mystery Science Theater 3000 alumni Mike Nelson (who in a recent interview claimed he considered The Phantom Menace "the worst movie ever made"[34]) and Kevin Murphy have provided an audio commentary track for Nelson's RiffTrax service, mocking the film.[35] In a February 17, 2002 poll on the Internet Movie Database, The Phantom Menace finished first in response to the question, "Which film, that you were really keyed up and effusive about just a few years ago, embarrasses you now the most?

This entire paragraph is ripe with trivia. None of it is important to the article or the reaction of the film.

Overall there are many references throughout the article to websites such as imdb or rottentomatoes that are used more as a source to give false credibility to fan opinion such as "the film received mixed reviews" or "Many people thought this or that" rather than to cite actual sources.

I have attempted to make changes but an edit war always ensues.

Movieguy999 00:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, starting with the 1a violation. So it needs to be rewritten, so either rewrite it or ask someone else to on the talk page.
You're are going to have to state these "major facts" that are missing, if you want to be taken seriously. Most of your edits that have been quickly reverted by myself and others appear to remove almost all negative details whether they are properly sourced or not.
First, the midi-chlorians is a particularly major plot point. Second, midi-chlorians are mentioned in the Cast section under Anakin Skywalker's description and not in any negative aspect. Clearly only fan opinion? Is that speculation I am hearing? And when did majority fan opinion suddenly become non-notable? Yes, I will admit that the original source was inadequate. The source has been removed and replaced with a tag to allow other users to attempt to source the information. If it cannot be sourced, it will be removed (I nor anybody have ever denied or implied that it wouldn't be).
Again, "It doesn't sound professional" is not a criteria for deletion. Trivial is, however this is not trivial. The sources themselves do cite information on the fan community dislike Jar Jar Binks, the CNN article is practically about fan dislike of Jar Jar. All of the sudden CNN is not a reliable source?
The star of the film degrading his own film and the head writer of Mystery Science Theater 3000 mocking the film and openly calling the "worst movie ever made" is not notable?
IMDB is credible source only when citing IMDB related information. Rotten Tomatoes is owned by IGN which is turn owned by Rupert Murdoch, it cites many well-known film critics as it's own sources. The Filmaker 01:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the line you have about midi-chlorians in the CAST section (it's misspelled):

a nine-year-old slave boy from Tatooine. He is discovered to have a higher midi-cholorian count than any Jedi, and is therefore exceptionally gifted in the Force.

It's not mentioned at all in the plot synopsis and then it's described in the reaction section as it's being smeared.

I had also tried to reword those lines. I even expanded greatly on the topic and YOU yourself quickly reverted them...

The article does need to sound professional as per criteria 1a. I'm not trying to get the article deleted. I am having it reviewed because I have hit a brick wall. You refuse to make changes to this article.

I have no problem with the CNN source. I actually used it when I expanded on the topic. But, you can't use that and those other sources just to backup a bold statement like "Many members of the older fan community thought, blah, blah, blah." By wording it that way, you are clearly saying "Many fans of the original trilogy, didn't like Jar Jar." and then you go onto give reasons which are also not sourced.

The whole thing just sounds like a fan would have written it.

The star of the film saying the movie was flat, was from an article promoting the second film, Attack of The Clones. If it's going to be in these articles at all, it should be in THAT article. He is comparing the second film to The Phantom Menace. It's being put in the reaction section of this article that makes it look like it's being used soley to amplify the negativity.

As with Mike Nelson, you are giving all this credibility to a comedian who makes his living off of mocking well known films. By him saying he thought it was the worst movie ever made, he reveals himself as more of a fan than an unbiased critic (which he isn't a film critic to begin with).

If you really wanted to have a neutral point of view, then you wouldn't single out a statement like this from a comedian like Mike Nelson, who has no reason to be neutral.

When I had expanded on Roger Ebert's review, he had a perfectly neutral POV...

"Star Wars: Episode I--The Phantom Menace," to cite its full title, is an astonishing achievement in imaginative filmmaking. If some of the characters are less than compelling, perhaps that's inevitable: This is the first story in the chronology and has to set up characters who (we already know) will become more interesting with the passage of time.

He sums up everything that you have been trying to put in that section, except without bias as a fan would. Instead, you chose to revert back to your version where you are speaking directly for the majority of fans, as if what you were saying were FACT...

Movieguy999 01:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, how is it a major plot point? You said it is only mentioned in a negative aspect in the Reaction section. I provided another section of that does provide mention. Now your opinion has changed to say that it needs to be in the Plot section. Once again. Why?
Any edits you made did not (or at least appeared not to) cite any sources. Thus your information was original research.
Wrong, I refuse to allow your edits to the article. The article is edited every week with changes that are allowed. I recently even changed the genre we allow the film to be called. You are the only person so far to believe that the article sounds unprofessional.
I do believe that the sources do contain information that refer to the supposed "older fan community", if they do not, sources will need to be found. But still, the information should not be outright removed as you have done so time and time again. Your edits are generally unhelpful to the section. If you have a problem you should discuss it in the article. This does not include yelling about the section, ignoring my response and then falling back on your original argument for your own replies.
Again, you are purely speculating and not assuming good faith. With McGregor's quote, what is notable is not what he did, but what he said. He was promoting AOTC (something all stars do), he was degrading TPM (something stars never do). Now where should the information be?
And again you are falling back on your original argument while ignoring the fact that Mike Nelson is notable as the head writer and producer of a well-known television series that was later transformed into an internet company which is notable within itself. A film critic is not neutral. A film critic's job description includes the word "opinion". The only neutral aspect of criticizing films is to removal personal preference, which I don't see in any of Mike Nelson's interview.
And one more time with the accusations. I honestly don't see the huge difference between this quote and the one found in the article other than it incidentally is more of the positive aspect that want in the article. It is slightly too long to be included, when his feelings on the film are easily enough summarized by saying that he called the film "exhilarating". If you wanted to use a slightly smaller version of that. That would be fine.

So far in the course of your last post, you refuse to answer outright questions, you speculate and assume bad faith, you fall back on your original statement while ignoring my replies, and once again simply throw around accusations of fanboy logic and opinion. If we are going to continue with accusations, I personally believe that you don't like the fact that film has received such a negative response by the general public or have been living under a rock for the last 8 years. In either case you dislike that the article reflects the mixed to negative response and wish to change it to reflect your own views on the film. In the course of your time here, you have pretty much argued against any information in the article that reflects the film in a negative light (or what you call "smearing the film") The Filmaker 02:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a major plot point? Gee, I don't know...

Maybe because it tells the origin of how the jedi get their power? Maybe because it tells us how Anakin would become powerful enough to destroy all of the jedi? Maybe it's because it's the main reason why Quigon would risk everything on a podrace just to free him and bring him all the way to the Jedi counsel to beg for him to be trained?

::Any edits you made did not (or at least appeared not to) cite any sources. Thus your information was original research.

This is a weak argument. Not only did I have sources cited, I used the same sources that you already had on the page :)

If you think you can get out of this one, please tell everyone what information I added to the article that wasn't backed up by a source... Movieguy999 04:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is history, not plot point. The article does mention that Qui-Gon sensed a strong prescence of the Force within Anakin. Qui-Gon risked everything more specifically because he felt that Anakin was the Chosen One, not just because of a high midi-chlorian count.
That is why I said "at least apppeared not to", it is very difficult to tell you are adding information in the midst of you constantly removing sources and relevant information for the benefit of your own personal agenda. The Filmaker 13:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment, please notify. Please follow the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to notify all relevant WikiProjects and involved editors. Follow the example on other FARs to include a list of the notifications at the top of this FAR. And please confine lengthy commentary to the article's talk page and focus here on identifying items that need to be addressed to restore the article to standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Films and WikiProject Star Wars are notified Greg Jones II 20:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What is this garbage? This mess of text needs to be chopped down to a few readable coherent sentences to be taken seriously. I already think this FAR is more about being disruptive and should have been talked out on the talk pages in a civil manner. Judgesurreal777 20:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Damn it, man. Movieguy999 has been acting uncivil. I agree with you, Judgesurreal777, that this FAR is distruptive. Greg Jones II 21:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some comments on the film's talk page. Girolamo Savonarola 22:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS - can you guys please be more assiduous about signing each of your indented responses, even if you're doing several at once? It's damn confusing trying to read the back and forth above. Girolamo Savonarola 22:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from this page - The nomination is disruptive and should be removed, enough of this. Judgesurreal777 16:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy removal from this page as per Judgesurreal777. Greg Jones II 19:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination stays put. There are currently several discussions on the talk page of the article. Movieguy999 01:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We will wait until this nomination stops. Greg Jones II 22:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well. We will wait until these issues are resolved. Then, we can remove this nomination from here. Greg Jones II 22:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the FAR page is fine, there are some problems with the article that need to be addressed. There is uncited hard data, but more troubling is that a lot of data is sourced to IMDb, which is not a reliable source. There are some quotes for which a citation is provided several sentences later and it's not clear the quote is in the source given; all direct quotes and hard data need to be cited to reliable sources. Right now, the article violates criterion 1c. While ya'll are in there, please clean up per WP:DASH; emdashes are not spaced on Wiki, and endashes are used to separate date and number ranges. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close nomination—uncivil nomination about a dispute this user has with others. FAR is a childish way to escalate debates. Sandy, those issues can be addressed by those interested, but it's not enough to warrant a FAR (otherwise, I'd nominate half the FAs for having flabby prose). — Deckiller 03:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c).

Or at least citations appear to be the last thing being debated. We should be careful with IMDb, to be sure. Marskell 15:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Greg Jones II 23:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Not happy with the prose of the first few paras. Copy-edit needed throughout.

  • "a young slave boy who is unusually strong with the Force"—Readers shouldn't have to hit the link to "the Force" to learn what this clause means.
  • "Despite mixed reviews by critics, it grossed US$924.3 million worldwide,[1] making it the highest grossing Star Wars film in the series (third when adjusted for inflation). It is also the highest grossing prequel after adjustment."—"was the highest".
  • "Because of their short-range weapons, Gillard theorized that the Jedi would have had to develop a fighting style that merged every swordfighting style, such as kendo and other kenjutsu styles, with other swinging techniques, such as tennis swings and tree-chopping."—"Theorized" is not the right word in this context.
  • "Filming began on 26 June 1997 and ended on 30 September of that year, primarily taking place at Leavesden Studios in England"—Spot the two redundant words.
  • "On the night following the third day of shooting in Tozeur, an unexpected sandstorm destroyed many sets and props. With a quick rescheduling to allow for repairs, production was able to leave Tunisia on the exact day originally planned."—Can this be just "On the third night"? I don't quite get the logical connection. Tony (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We need to do this ASAP. Greg Jones II 01:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. The intro is flatly awful, neglecting to mention the names of some main characters or anything about the production of the film. The middle paragraph is back-of-the-box material: "When the group returns to Naboo, they realize that the situation is much worse than they thought—the evil Sith have returned." Other problems include inadequate sectioning, lack of critical reaction apart from You Know Who, an advert-like DVD section, flimsy references and in-universe captions.--Nydas(Talk) 16:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these problems have been addressed, but others remain. One thing which this article needs is information on the current attitude towards this film. It's been eight years, there is plenty of critical re-evaluation to discuss.--Nydas(Talk) 21:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove, 1c, reliable sources. It's been a month since I noted the article was heavily sourced to IMDb. Note that current citations 12 thru 25 are all to IMDb, which is not a reliable source for the kind of hard data being cited. Also, there is still a mix of unspaced and spaced emdashes (see WP:DASH) which could have been fixed by now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If it is removed, we will get it back up for FAC. We, however, find IMDb an invalid source as a reliable source unfortunately as per SandyGeorgia's comment on the removal. Greg Jones II 23:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: Nothing has happened with citations and I agree that the near total reliance on IMDB for much of this raises a serious 1c concern. Marskell 10:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was removed 15:33, 24 October 2007.

Ebionites

[edit]
Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity, Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history,‎ Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism,‎ User:Jayjg, User:Codex Sinaiticus,‎ User:Str1977, User:MichaelCPrice, and‎ User:Ovadyah

Review commentary

[edit]

Based on the continued discussions on Talk:Ebionites, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive287#Expert_attention_needed_on_Ebionites_featured_article, and talk pages of various editors, including, but not limited to:User talk:Jayjg#We could use some help, User talk:Ovadyah, and User talk:MichaelCPrice, it appears that this article may be lacking in stability, neutrality, and factual accuracy, to say the least, and thus should undergo a review -- Avi 18:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could the nominator post a notice at the top of all the persons that have been notified? I noticed that some of the major editors have already been notified on their talk pages. --RelHistBuff 07:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I had a quick read-through of the current version, the original FA version, and the talk pages. There has been many changes, but unfortunately the article is going through a dispute between several editors. Although the nominator is welcome to bring this article to FAR, I would suggest that this nomination be withdrawn and that the editors work through the dispute resolution process first. The talk discussion seems to be moving in that direction anyway. --RelHistBuff 13:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that won't work under the present circumstances. All of the editors responsible for getting the article to FA have left the article. The only editor remaining is the person that caused the dispute. If a new group of editors could be identified to fix the problems, then I agree that dispute resolution could work. Ovadyah 19:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, I contributed to this article at a time long in its past & would be willing to offer my own disinterested opinion. However, if someone could provide a link to the version that made FA status, it would help immensely. -- llywrch 00:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it was on April 12, 2007, the day it was promoted to FA by Raul654, can be found here. Ovadyah 02:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article as it was on April 21, 2007, the day it was unprotected by Raul654, can be found here. And here is the diff between the two versions. The main difference is that a page was created on Wikisource for the primary sources cited in the article. One of these would probably be considered the "official version" if there ever is such a thing. Ovadyah 05:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article as it was on July 8, 2007, the day before it was featured on the Main Page, can be found here. There were relatively few changes between this version and the April 21 FA version. Here is the diff between them. Discussion of the changes between April 12 and July 8 can be found here. Ovadyah 05:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have gone over the article and fixed what imho were the most egregious problems affecting neutrality and factual accuracy. The article is closer to the FA version in that respect. However, when a certain disruptive editor returns, all this may change. We will be using formal mediation to resolve any remaining disputes. Ovadyah 21:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns stability (1e), neutrality (1d), and factual accuracy (1c). Marskell 13:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. 1a. This is appallingly writtennot well written. Shoot it dead now to be kind to the animal.
    • Tons of stubby paragraphs. Disjointed.
    • "Modern scholars, aiming at elucidating on the views, practices and history of the Ebionites draw on other sources as well as the Church Fathers, with some agreeing with the substance of the traditional portrayal as a re-judaizing offshoot of mainstream Christianity,[3][4] while others argue they may have been disciples of the early Jerusalem church, who were gradually marginalized by the followers of Paul of Tarsus despite possibly being more faithful to the authentic teachings of the historical Jesus." Oh yuck. Tony 12:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove: This is a really interesting topic and it deserves a much better article. Please fix the dispute, i.e. bury the hatchet first. Then I suggest to start from the original FA version, work on it together, and bring it back to FAC. --RelHistBuff 12:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Michael Price has withdrawn from formal mediation, so the content dispute is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon. The oversight system is broken. A disruptive editor should not be able to demolish a featured article and then just walk away. Thanks everyone for your helpful suggestions. Ovadyah 12:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The above editor has regretably decided that the article is unsalvagable with the current situation. I have recently posted a request for Arbitration on this matter. I believe that if they should choose not to accept it WP:CSN may also be contacted. I request that the individuals involved in review realize the difficulty of improving the article while such efforts are ongoing, and will hold off on a decision until after these efforts have been concluded one way or another. John Carter 17:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can hold. It's just a had a great deal of work done, so up it stays. Marskell 19:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it's work. It looks like more disputing (see talk page). Sad, really. --RelHistBuff 21:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The voting on the request for Arbitration is taking much longer than expected. Therefore, a majority of editors has voted to remove the disputed material to the talk page to fix it within the next few days, as a last-ditch effort to avoid demotion. We now have the oversight of an admin (Dbachmann) which will help a lot. Please give us a little more time. Ovadyah 16:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A couple more days; people can update here. Marskell 10:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Progress report The editors collectively feel that we have now addressed the problems with stability (1e), neutrality (1d), and factual accuracy (1c). We are now working diligently on the problem of 1a, the aftermath of the ceaseless edit-warring. Dbachmann is keeping a watchful eye on the page to handle any immediate problems, and a case is proceeding through arbitration to make sure this doesn't happen again. Ovadyah 17:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I may have limited knowledge of the subject, but I will work to address what seem to me to be some of the major existing problems with the copy of the article. If anyone sees fit to point out specific flaws they see to me, I will gladly do what I can to address them. I regret to say I've never worked in a situation like this, and am not at all sure of the protocols and procedures, but will do what I can to return the article to FA status. John Carter 19:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. There are still a lot of issues. I just fixed the footnote punctuation per WP:FN (haven't had to do that in a very long time, so just noting it so that regular editors will be aware). See WP:MOS regarding use of e.g. There is a likely copyvio citation to a geocities personal website, not a reliable source. Many publishers aren't identified on sources, making it difficult to evaluate reliability of sources without clicking on each source. (ah, and I see I asked for this to be attended to during the FAC, and apparently it never was.) For example, one sources is selfhelp-guide.com; is that a reliable source? Is hebrew4christians.com a reliable source? There are still citation needs, samples only:

  • Most historians place the end of the Ebionites during this time.
  • Regarding the Ebionites specifically, a number of scholars have different theories on how the Ebionites may have developed from an Essene Jewish messianic sect.

There are still copyedit needs and redundant prose, samples only:

  • The question remains whether or not Epiphanius was able to make a genuine distinction distinguish between Nazarenes and Ebionites.
  • Can someone check if this is correct? "Origen in c. 212 remarks that ... " in circa together?
  • Why is the Poor Ones capitalized? ... from the Hebrew Evyonim, meaning "the Poor Ones" ...
  • I don't know what this sentence is saying: The actual scope of the term Ebionites is difficult to ascertain, as the contradictory patristic accounts in their attempt to distinguish various sects, sometimes confuse them with each other. Ah, then as I read further along, I find a redirect link to patristic; first occurrences should be linked. Anyway, I still can't understand the sentence. Then further on again, we find Church Fathers linked.
  • Is this correct punctuation? This article is just hard to read: The Ebionites believed that all Jews and Gentiles must observe the commandments in the Law of Moses, in order to become righteous and seek communion with God; but that these commandments must be understood in the light of Jesus' expounding of the Law, revealed during his sermon on the mount.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It appears as though people are determined to find new things wrong faster than we can fix the old ones. Knock yourselves out, but it will no longer be at my expense. Ovadyah 01:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I will try to attend to some of the grammatical, etc., issues presently. Thanks for pointing out the weaknesses of the article. Like I said above, I'm new at this and hesitate to act on my own to make changes to what is an FA. Now I have something to work with. John Carter 01:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support for Removal

  • For all the unresolved points stated previously.
  • In response to: "..appears as.. people are determined to find.. wrong faster than .. can fix.. old ones..." If it's not up to FA quality, then I am happy that wikipedia has such diligent reviewers. Learnedo 02:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: After reading the current version, I am afraid that I must reaffirm my vote to Remove. The Ebionites of which we have so little in terms of extant writings are used by modern scholars to push interesting, if not controversial views. For this reason, I believe the article really needs more depth in the History, Views and practices, and Writings sections. I write below some criticisms which I hope will help in improving the article.
  • In the lead, mention is made of two opposing views, the traditional view that the Ebionites were offshoots of mainstream Christianity and a modern view that the Ebionites were “more faithful to the authentic teachings of Jesus” and that they were “marginalized by the followers of Paul of Tarsus”. The latter modern view which is presumably more controversial is not explained at all in the article. Why were Ebionites considered more faithful to the teachings of Jesus? What is considered the “authentic” teachings? What group were the “followers of Paul”?
  • The lead mentions that they regarded James as the head of the church, while the article only says some scholars claim this. The rejection of Paul comes from Patristic sources. Putting the two together appears like a synthesis which is WP:OR. The text in the lead needs to be rephrased and cited.
  • The assertion that the earliest reference of the group uses a cite to Justin Martyr’s writing, a primary source. But surely it wasn’t Martyr who said that this is the earliest reference! Some scholar must have said that. Who? Please cite the secondary source.
  • Similarly, Irenaeus supposedly was the first to used the term “Ebionites”. But the cite is again to the primary source of Irenaeus. Who made the assertion that Irenaeus was the first to use the term? The secondary source cite is missing.
  • In a previous version of this article, there were more explanations on why Epiphanius’ account was questionable. I would suggest putting this back in or expanding the current text (and again giving the cite to the secondary source).
  • Related to all this is that there is a heavy use of primary source citations and use of tertiary sources such as Schaff and other encyclopaedias and websites. Secondary sources should be mainly used especially for featured articles. And for articles on the history of religion, preferably printed books or journals.
  • The line "Many scholars link the origin…" should be cited.
  • One paragraphs starts with “According to these scholars…”. It is not clear which scholars. Is it the “Many scholars…” from the previous paragraph?
  • Under the writings section, the definition of the grouping of writings is from the Catholic Encyclopedia which is again only a tertiary source and one that has a certain POV on the Ebionites. Probably a better source should be used. Again, the cites tend to use primary sources that does not really cite the assertions made in the text. There is a mention of Ebed Jesu. Who is he? Without the explanation, that line adds little value.
  • If the Ebionites reject the gnostic doctrines within the Book of Elchesai, then why is the book considered part of Ebionite writings?
With some work, I am sure this can be brought back to FAC. --RelHistBuff 14:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I hope you can appreciate the dark irony of this proceeding. I could have said nothing and the article would have remained a featured article, replete with fraudulent content. The few readers that know something about the Ebionites would have dismissed it as complete crap, and the many more that don't would have been misled. By calling attention to this wrongdoing, all I accomplished was to bring down what was once a well-sourced and well-written featured article. Never again. Ovadyah 15:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ovadyah, the last confuses me. If the article was previously "replete with fraudulent content" and "complete crap" how has your work brought down "what was once a well-sourced and well-written featured article"? As I see it, the article has improved regardless of the star, but should go because there's multiple removes after nine weeks. That is, no longer FA but not a waste of time. And, of course, it can go back to FAC. OK? Marskell 21:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My work here is done. Frag it. Ovadyah 05:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 18:30, October 16, 2007.

History of post-Soviet Russia

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified FA nominator, Wikiproject Russia, WikiProject Russian history

Article has a chronic lack of inline citations, lots of citation tags - the vast majority of sections do not have any citations at all. Fantastic claims without citations like "Most editors and managers are willing to pull an article or to fire a journalist upon an informal request from the presidential administration". Original research like "The word best applied to post-Soviet Russian culture is eclectic. While coming to grips with, and in no way rejecting fully, the Soviet inheritance, Russians reached out to identify with their own pre-Soviet past and embraced, some would say indiscriminately, tendencies from the West."--Miyokan 14:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), POV/OR (1d). Marskell 11:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove very little, if any, work done on the article; both concerns remain. DrKiernan 11:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove—was it written off the top of someone's head? Seriously under-referenced. Tony (talk) 11:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove — Article makes lots of sweeping claims, which are not supported by any sources. The reflist is a collection of weblinks. Any item in it should have title, authors, name of journal/newspaper/magazine etc. Many statements in the article are not politically neutral (NPOV problems): they mostly express the point of view of those, who have been opposed to reforms. The language is ladden with such words as: "sunk", "futile", "disastrous" etc, which are not neutral themself. In the present form the article is beyound repair and should be rewritten from the scratch. Ruslik 13:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 22:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 19:35, 13 October 2007.

Schabir Shaik trial

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notifications, project: WikiProject Africa, WikiProject Criminal Biography, WikiProject Criminal justice, WikiProject Law, and WikiProject South Africa
Notifications, user: User:PZFUN (creator, major contributor, and FAC nominator)

This article, promoted to featured status in December 2005, falls short of the current FA criteria in several respects:

  • 1(a): Concerns about prose raised in the FAC went unadressed.
  • 1(c): The article has 32 citations. However, well over half of the article lacks inline citations, including the "Trial" and "Squires' judgement" sections in their entirety. The "Fallout" and "Appeal" section carry a total of three sources, but are still mostly unsourced. The article contains numerous unattributed quotes.
  • 2(d): Almost all inline citations are incomplete and provide only title and URL information. At minimum, they should note the date that the source was last accessed. Moreover, all sources are formatted using the rather awkard {{ref label}}, which adds an 'a' link before all references, even if they are used only once.
  • 3: One of the non-free images used in the article (Image:Schabir Shaik after sentencing.jpg) does not have a non-free use rationale.

There may be issues that I've overlooked, but it would take substantial effort to fix even only the ones listed above. — Black Falcon (Talk) 05:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), citations (1c) and their format (2c), and images (3). Marskell 16:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Remove. 1a. The lead is a good example of the whole text, in this respect.
    • "Shaik's petition of appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal has failed; Shaik started to serve his sentence of 15 years on 9 November 2006"—recent-past tense "has failed"? Spot the redudant two words.
    • "He was pronounced guilty of corruption for paying Zuma 1.2 million Rand (US$185,000) to further their relationship and for soliciting a bribe from the French arms company Thomson-CSF, as well as guilty of fraud for writing off more than R1 million (US$ 154,000) of Zuma's unpaid debts." Something is needed before the second "guilty". And in the currency formatting, first there's no space, then there's a space.
    • Choppy paragraphing: take the last para of the lead. Should be merged with the second-last. Tony (talk) 05:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: Not a lot of comment here, but no work at all (for 2007, in fact). Marskell 19:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was removed 19:35, 13 October 2007.

Charles Ives

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Alerted nominator, 1st FAR reviewers, WP:Bio, WP:CT, WP:Composers.
1st FAR of Charles Ives

Second FAR nomination. 80% of this article is missing citations. There are numerous one-sentence paragraphs, which are inconsistent with the giant paragraphs at the top. The lead had also not been brought up to date with WP:LEAD. This article could eventually be fixed, but it is not updated frequently enough for me to believe this is going to happen. MrPrada 08:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please notify major editors and relevant WikiProjects as stated in the instructions for WP:FAR. Please indicate your notifications below the title of this page. Thanks. --RelHistBuff 09:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, ignore that. I see it got done just as I posted it. Thanks. --RelHistBuff 09:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), LEAD (2a), prose structure (1a). Marskell 09:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem for me is not whether the article complies with WP rules or not, it's the lack of substantive discussion of musical style (with musical examples), and of the question of his revision and datings of works. The Grove dictionary entry, for instance, uses five examples as illustrations of style and innovation. There are little interjections here and there that are largely irrelevant ("William Schuman arranged this for orchestra in 1964.") and the "Reception" section is almost a bulleted list of increasingly unimportant moments in reception history, and full of weasel words ("Some find his music bombastic and pompous. Others find it, strangely enough, timid." Who?). FAs like Lutoslawski and Messiaen show the standard to which we should hold FA-class articles on twentieth-century composers. Ives is probably a more significant composer than either of these two and his article should be at least as good or better to be a FA. I'm sorry to lose a classical music FA, but I think this needs major improvement to be retained. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, you have your opinion on comparisons between composers; I wouldn't express mine here. Remove—1a, 1c, 2a. I'm suspicious of the "modernist classical" label at the top. "American Originals" needs a citation, or at least an explicit agent. Unencyclopedic attitudinal statements such as "which seems as mysterious as the last several decades of the life of Jean Sibelius,". Title "Mature period from 1910–1920", oh deary me. Dangerous statements such as "would eventually compare with the two other great musical innovators at the time (Schoenberg and Stravinsky)". And get rid of this conditional as future. "14¾ in (37.5 cm) "—MOS breach. Stubby, disjointed paragraphs. Tony 12:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per Tony's concerns. LuciferMorgan 21:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong retain if nothing more serious than the present objections can be presented.
    • Myke Cuthbert's suggestions would improve the article; although I note that Dmitri Shostakovich has been brought here for precisely the sort of comments from Grove that he advocates for this article.
    • "American Original" is both obvious and widely citeable (it was the subtitle of an essay in Hi-fi Review, September 1964. p. 42) Burkholder's introduction to Charles Ives and his World (p, xi) objects to the use of the phrase to mean that Ives owed nothing to Europe, but attests that even the exaggeration is widespread.
    • Ives' stopping composition in 1927 is citeable to almost any biographical source; the comparison to the almost simultaneous silence of Sibelius may be trite, but is certainly not unsourceable.
    • And I have, after consulting MOS, no idea what Tony's problem with "14¾ in (37.5 cm)" may be. In any case, like most complaints about so-called MOS breaches, it is far too trivial to be actionable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Over time, Ives would come to be regarded as one of the "American Originals""—So ... when? During what period was this reputation formed, and where is it attested?
  • The lead is still hopelessly inadequate. At the very least, we need a better description of his musical style than "uniquely American idiom"; emphasising his experimental techniques gives completely the wrong balance in this context. He might have been remarkably original, but his style must have been based on something pre-existing. What? And can we be let into the secret of what genres his output spans, in summary?
  • "unusual phrasing and orchestration, and even a blatantly dissonant 11 note chord ending the work"—Unusual in relation to what? It's so vague. And whose opinion is this (citation please)? Hyphen missing.
    • Unusual with regard to the music of his time, or indeed now. (I've never heard of an Ives pastiche, for example; but Copland and Stravinsky are common.
  • Towards the end it collapses into disjointed stubbiness.
  • "it is often difficult to put exact dates on his compositions"—Sometimes it's difficult, sometimes easy?
  • For such as major figure, and one Americans would be keen to study as a national icon, it's hard to believe that the reference list is so small and lacking in recent items. And it's hard to believe that there haven't been valuable doctoral studies. These need to be referred to, and their information integrated into the article, particularly WRT style, which is treated in vague terms and without placing him in music history properly.

It's a pity: this could be saved, but I haven't got time to do it (has PManderson?). Tony (talk) 11:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • It doesn't need to be saved, and it's not my field, but I'll see what I can do. That embarassment on the Flavian Amphitheatre will probably be first, though. Septentrionalis PMAnderson
  • Remove, 1a prose problems already mentioned, stubbiness in Reception, and weasly unattributed statements throughout, example: One of the variations is in the style of a polonaise while the interludes, possibly added some years after the piece had originally been composed, are probably Ives' first use of bitonality. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A fascinating example. That is a well-advised hedge. If, as Swafford thinks, the piece as printed in 1949 is what Ives wrote in 1891, it is not only the first use in Ives, but the first systematic use in the world (op. cit., p. 63). But the identity is not certain; and Ives himself has other sketches, which may be earlier, which use bitonality. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've dealt with those two, which were easy to find. Anything else, preferably substantive? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is all that has been done since Sandy's review. Tony (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: Nothing happening. Marskell 19:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was removed 19:18, 10 October 2007.

Typewriter

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notifications, project: WikiProject Technology
Notifications, user: User:Atlant‎ (major contributor). Almost all major contributors are unlikely to respond as their last edit took place 2 months or more ago.

This article wasn't reviewed for a long time. I have found some problems such as lead section doesn't contain references. History section is significantly under-sourced, as well as many other sections. There's a trivia section and I want to question about the "See also" section. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are LEAD (2a), referencing (1c), and trivia (4). Marskell 10:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. In addition, the prose is not up to standard.
    • Why is "keys" in quotes?
    • The lead is pretty bad in terms of WP's specific requirements. Four stubby paras, too.
    • First caption in History is inadequate: why doesn't it tell us what type/model of typewriter it is? Info not provided on the infopage, either. Other captions similarly inadequate.
    • "In fact"—Get rid of this.
    • MOS breach: use logical punctuation at the end of quotations.
    • "many printing or typing machines were patented"—"and"?
    • "well known"—hyphen required in US and UK English.
    • "1845" is, strangely, linked.
    • Stubby paras.

I got three paras into the first section. Tony (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was removed 19:18, 10 October 2007.

Architecture of Windows NT

[edit]
Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft Windows

Review commentary

[edit]

Brought to FAR due to the sparseness of references. SP-KP 08:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is currently being dealt with. I have a book where I'm looking for the info that you are requesting, this might take me a few days. I really feel that this is a little premature for FARC. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't being proposed for FARC - just FAR. I wouldn't want to see the article delisted as it is a good article. It just needs many more references. Hopefully this FAR listing will attract more volunteers to help Ta bu shi da yu, and these people may have other books to add to the one you're using. SP-KP

Glancing at the statements that have been tagged as requiring citation, it's hard for me to imagine that specific citation is really required in these cases. What challenges do you think are likely to a statement like "[the security subsystem] looks after Active Directory"? Christopher Parham (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, there is a pretty wide consensus that the article is underreferenced, so I think you're in the minority here (that doesn't mean you're wrong of course, but you will need ot argue your case). If you want to show that this article is somehow special in that the vast majority of its content is so trivial that its doesn't need citing, then here is definitely the place to do it, but you'll need to do more than just picking a single example if you want to change people's opinions. If on the other hand, there are just some individual statements tagged as needing citation which you think are too trivial to need it, please do bring those up on the article's talk page; I'd be more than happy to discuss any of these with you there. SP-KP 21:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the article, I think that the majority of the tags you've added are to statements that are not likely to require citation. For instance, none of the statements that are tagged in the section "User mode" would seem likely to be challenged. The statements simply describe the nature of different parts of the operating system. Could you explain what challenges you think these statements are likely to encounter? For your convenience feel free to pick any one that you feel is particularly troubling. As far as a general consensus, I see you and Falcorian. Who else do you have in mind? Christopher Parham (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also Ta bu shi da yu, who did most of the work writing the article and recognises the need for better referencing. I'm not going to get into a defence of specific cn tags here - WP:V makes it clear that the burden of evidence is on those wishing to add material not on those wishing to see it referenced; if you've got concerns over specific tags, as I said above, I'm happy to discuss on the article's talk page. SP-KP 10:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell 09:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see "This isn't being proposed for FARC - just FAR" above, but it remains indeterminate. Moving to see how people feel. Marskell 09:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Progress with adding references seems somewhat slow, but apart from that the article still feels like an FA quality article. Can we leave it here while Ta Bu Shi Da Yu does his work, rather than de-featuring it? SP-KP 11:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No time, unfortunately. I'd like to point out that this is not largely my fault, as this article has degraded since becoming FA. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 09:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suspend until Ta bu shi da yu has time; the fact it's under review will be sufficient warning not to front-page it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm willing to go along with a postponement of the axe only if Ta bu can give us a date. Otherwise, I think this is hardly "among our best work". It's a very choppy, unsatisfying read. Who is the intended readership, anyway. It's boring. Poorly referenced. Tony (talk) 11:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a dry subject. This is unquestionably better writing than a manual on Windows would be; as for the sourcing, short of consulting such a manual to duplicate the points, Ta bu shi da yu looked up the obvious sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks mate. I don't think the referencing is particularly good at the moment though. Somebody added a whole bunch of subsystems, with no references. I'll need to find the time to remove the misleading info. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, nice. What's boring for one isn't boring for another. Basically, you seem to be objecting to the subject matter (with the implication that those who are interested in the topic are "boring" - pretty close to a personal attack, I think). However, I think we had better delist this as I have no time to work on it, and it has unfortunately degraded and since then FA standards have risen anyway. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please unsuspend FARC and delist

[edit]

Please unsuspend this FARC and delist the article please. This article has degraded. Here a diff of the last revision that's closest to my submitted FA, and the current revision. Totally different, full of unsourced material. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was removed 10:41, 8 October 2007.

Doom

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: User: Fredrik, Wikipedia: WikiProject Horror, Wikipedia :WikiProject Video games.

Fails Criterion 1C blatantly. It has only seventeen references—one of which is in the incorrect format. This is exacerbated by the fact that many of the statements refer to fan consensus anhd other such things that desperately need a source. There are few minor points too, like an excesive external link list and misplacen footnotes. This was listed as an FA two years ago, but I believe that it fails current standards. Note: This is my first nomination for review, so please notify me of anything that I've done wrong. Ashnard Talk Contribs 19:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Commment "Engine design" is blatant WP:NOR as it has no citations and makes comparsions to Wolfstein 3D, which as of now is based on looking at both games and drawing original conclusions from them. Also, you forgot to make a lame joke (I would have said, "This article is DOOMed" heh heh). hbdragon88 03:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Zero cites/references would be a blatant violation of 1c; 17 is not and may in fact be appropriate. Are there specific items in the article not cited that are likely to be challenged? If not, then that particular objection is non-actionable. --mav 01:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, let's see Mav: "Distributed as shareware, Doom was downloaded by an estimated 10 million people within two years, popularizing the mode of gameplay and spawning a gaming subculture;"

  • "as a sign of its impact on the industry, games from the mid-1990s boom of first-person shooters are often known simply as "Doom clones"."
  • The story has one source, which is the game manual. It also has things like "according to the manual throughout.
  • Gameplay isn't referenced at all.
  • "When the game design phase began in late 1992, the main thematic influences were the science fiction action movie Aliens and the horror movie Evil Dead II."
  • "However, many of his ideas were discarded during development in favor of simpler design primarily advocated by Carmack, resulting in Hall in the end being forced to resign due to not contributing effectively in the direction the rest of the team was going. Most of the level design that ended up in the final game is that of John Romero and Sandy Petersen. The graphics, by Adrian Carmack, Kevin Cloud and Gregor Punchatz, were created in various ways: although much was drawn or painted, several of the monsters were built from sculptures in clay or latex, and some of the weapons are toy guns from Toys "R" Us."
  • The engine technology section is not cited at all. It has obvious OR in throughout with its comparisons to Wolfenstein, as Hbdragon88 stated.
  • "The development of Doom was surrounded by much anticipation. The large number of posts in Internet newsgroups about Doom led to the SPISPOPD joke, to which a nod was given in the game in the form of a cheat code. In addition to news, rumors, and screenshots, unauthorized leaked alpha versions also circulated online."
  • "Doom was also widely praised in the gaming press. In 1994, it was awarded Game of the Year by both PC Gamer and Computer Gaming World. It also received the Award for Technical Excellence from PC Magazine, and the Best Action Adventure Game award by the Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences.

In addition to the thrilling nature of the single-player game, the deathmatch mode was an important factor in the game's popularity. Doom was not the first first-person shooter with a deathmatch mode—MIDI Maze on the Atari ST had one in 1987, using the MIDI ports built into the ST to network up to four machines together. However, Doom was the first game to allow deathmatching over ethernet, and the combination of violence and gore with fighting friends made deathmatching in Doom particularly attractive. Two player deathmatch was also possible over a phone line by using a modem. Due to its widespread distribution, Doom hence became the game that introduced deathmatching to a large audience (and was also the first game to use the term "deathmatch"."

I really could go on for much longer. No offence, but I find it hard to believe that this is among Wikipedia's best work. Thank you. Ashnard Talk Contribs 08:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken and I don't care about this article. I was just trying to get a specific and actionable reason why this article fails 1c. You have now provided that; hopefully, somebody familiar with the topic will be able to find citations for your examples and similar items in the article. --mav 17:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; I should have given examples in my summary anyway. Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), external links (2), and images (3). Marskell 16:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Added images (3) to the list Pagrashtak 22:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 10:41, 8 October 2007.

Countdown (game show)

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
User:Bonalaw‎, User:JonONeill‎, User:CountdownCrispy‎, Wikipedia:WikiProject British TV shows‎ notified.

I'm very concerned about the quality of this article, especially the sources. The article cites Amazon.co.uk (once), IMDb (six times) and a fan site named "The Countdown Page" (god-knows-how-many times) as sources-hardly reliable. One citation is not only from a fan page, but it is in French. (I know that this is sometimes seen as acceptable, but suerly and English alternative can be found?) The external links section breaks all boundaries of WP:SPAM. The prose in the Format section is verry bitty, there is no need for so many 'examples'. Also, there is no infomation on response, reception, criticism etc. Dalejenkins | 14:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points, I'll try to answer them individually to avoid a mess emerging:-
  • I agree about the external links section; there are hundreds of Countdown sites around and new spammy links get added all the time. I've pruned it again but more might be needed - I'll let consensus decide that.
  • The French link is indeed problematic. I believe wiki policy allows foreign-language links when nothing better is available, and I think it would be very difficult to find an authoritative English-language source for the rules of a French gameshow.
  • amazon.co.uk is cited as evidence for the cost of a book, so I can't see how it could be any more reliable.
  • Is IMDb not reliable? How is anyone supposed to decide these things? The facts sourced to it are entirely unremarkable so it wouldn't be hard to replace them, but what with?
  • To call the Countdown Page a fan site is rather unfair. It's more than 20 years of work and has been cited by the BBC. If that isn't a good resource for information about Countdown then I don't know what is.
  • The number of examples is entirely a matter of opinion. There are three types of round and three examples. That doesn't seem excessive to me.
Calr 17:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has everyone involved in this article been notified? See the FAR instructions concerning {{subst:FARMessage|Articlename}}. If so, please place the names of the notified persons and projects at the top of this review. --RelHistBuff 06:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • I'd like to see the citation templates used, especially so that the references are formatted correctly. Dale is correct in that the IMDb should be avoided as a source. The first paragraph of "In popular culture" is like a list in prose form. Any chance of some context? For example, Grant's character in About a Boy is unemployed... I wonder if the commentary on that DVD has some sort of comment about Countdown being a favourite of the unemployed? (you could leave a note on their talk page: someone there is bound to own the DVD.) As for the others (Father Ted, etc.), are the mentions really of note?
    As far as comprehensiveness, shouldn't the unaired episodes that were recorded with guest presenters while Whiteley was in hospital have a mention? The JPStalk to me 17:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another referencing problem: the book 'Countdown: Spreading the Word' does not have adequate information. The first reference to it needs author, ISBN, etc. Complete as many fields in the cite book template as possible. Subsequent references can just then be <ref>Author, pg. x</ref>. The JPStalk to me 13:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concern is source quality (1c). Marskell 11:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Not well-written (not too bad, but certainly below par); MOS breaches.
  • It's not a vote, but a consensus-gathering process, something that Anderson knows little about, or regards with gobsmacking indifference.
    • Over over over over at the start.
  • MOS breach in "GB pounds". Read MOS on currencies.
    • "Most-watched", yet "first ever".
    • MOS prefers unspaced em dashes. Then there are hyphens stuck in there as interruptors.
    • "Approximately every four series"; pfffff.
    • "The first ever episode of Countdown is to be shown as part of Channel 4 at 25 on 1 October"—oh, which year would that be? Tony (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Always ignore any !vote that says "MOS breach", per WP:AAFD. In this case, the only complaint of any merit is "first ever episode" which should be, and has been, changed to "first episode ever". The suggestion of "first-ever episode" would be less idiomatic than the text complained of. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for airing your pet peeve here, again. Criterion 2 says that MOS should be followed. Simple as that, no matter how much Anderson huffs and puffs here and at FAC. Tony (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you for illustrating why that criterion is destructive to this process. None of these "MOS breaches" interferes with the clarity, neutrality, verifiability, and accuracy of this article; some of them are imaginary even as breaches: "GB pounds" instead of "GB ₤" is not even proscribed. It remains inappropriate to change from one style to another, especially in such small matters. It is doubly inappropriate to reject a good article on such grounds. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to complain about the application of MOS, you may as well get your fact right about what it says about not needing to specify "GB". Tony (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixes needed. The citations are not formatted; publishers, article titles, authors and dates aren't identified, and it will take a sustained effort to fix all of them (see WP:CITE/ES or, if the regular editors don't know how to manually format citations, cite templates can be used). If someone addresses the citations and MOS breaches, pls ping me and I'll have another look, otherwise, Remove. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As the main author of this article, I just no longer have the energy to constantly improve/remove/correct the volume of junk that gets added to it. It's not reasonable in the long term to expect editors like me to monitor an article like this for the rest of eternity, and it's ridiculous that all my good work on this will be undone by constant dross edits. This article would barely be harmed by reverting to the version that got promoted. Anyway, keep it or remove it as you see fit, but to me it's clear example of a broken system. Calr 16:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't get too hung up over badges. Although the article needs fixes, it's still in fine condition. If it (temporarily?) loses its little star, well, so what, really? You've helped get it up to a good condition, and you need to be proud of that. The JPStalk to me 16:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 19:18, 4 October 2007.

Henry Fonda

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
The following wikiprojects were notified at the time of this nomination: WikiProject Academy Awards;‎ WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment;‎ WikiProject Biography‎ WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers‎ and WikiProject Film‎. As well as the FA nominator: User:A Link to the Past. And the article's top four contributors:‎ User:Kaisershatner‎; User:Volatile; User:Steve Eifert and‎‎ User:Rlevse.

The article was promoted to Featured status in 2005, and hasn't been reviewed in nearly two years. The article doesn't meet various featured article criteria:

  • Lead section is five choppy paragraphs.
  • The paragraphing in general is sloppy and needs to be tightened.
  • Many things in the article are not backed up by factually verifiable sources, as only 17 in-line citations are present.
  • Many paragraphs in the article don't even have citations. In general, more citations are desperately needed.
  • The citations that are present are in disarray and need to be wikified.
  • All images in this article are copyrighted and may not meet fair-use criteria; including the infobox image which is scheduled to be deleted on August 28.
  • Article could be more comprehensive.
  • Prose needs to be spruced up, and weasel words and peacock terms need to be removed.

Overall, this article does not currently exemplify Wikipedia's best. Grim-Gym 02:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user who nominated this article is currently blocked for violating the three revert rule. I gave him a copy of the article's code at his request so that he can add improvements, but please realize that he will be unable to make changes or communicate here until the end of the block. BassoProfundo 03:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please notify major editors and relevant WikiProjects as stated in the instructions for WP:FAR. Please indicate your notifications below the title of this page. Thanks. --RelHistBuff 21:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY Done.
Now we need to fix up these issues ASAP. Greg Jones II 03:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know when User:A Link to the Past will be unblocked from editing? Sadly, he appears to be the only person interested in preserving this article's Featured Status. Grim-Gym 21:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The logs do not even indicate that he is blocked, but recent discussion on his userpage shows that he is. I will contact him via IRC and try to find out when he will become available. BassoProfundo 21:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:A Link to the Past is now unblocked. Greg Jones II 18:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now is the time for someone to take it upon themselves to start addressing these concerns, or we'll have to move on to FARC. Grim-Gym 20:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear nobody has any interest in working on this article. I therefore recommend that we move on to FARC. Grim-Gym 03:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we simply change it to improving the article without a review or removal? I'm pretty busy right now, so... - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we're already at the review stage, so we can't really go back. We won't move on to the removal stage if the article's being actively worked on, but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be happening. Since we're already here, if you or anyone else can't work on it anytime soon, then the best I guess you can hope for is having it removed from FA and then trying to get it back at your own pace. That's a worst-case scenario though. Grim-Gym 13:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This FAR will possibly never be looked at again by anyone other than me. No one is going to make an effort to fix the issues mentioned. Can we move on to FARC and remove this poor-quality article from the Featured list? Grim-Gym 00:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are LEAD (2a), citations and their formatting (1c and 2c), paragraph structure and prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell 11:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - Per all the above-listed points—none of which were addressed. Grim-Gym 21:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. The lead section still includes choppy prose, I see a problematic and inconsistent referencing, and stubby sections. I hope improvements come, so as to change my vote.--Yannismarou 11:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain. I have knit up three short paragraphs into adjacent ones; the others seem to, properly, give one paragraph to one subject. I do not see what Yannismarou means by stubby sections. The nomination is regrettable; citation cannot be evaluated by counting footnotes, and seventeen is a respectable number; the test is whether the reader can check the source of any statement "challenged or likely to be challenged". No examples given. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove.
  • Anderson, you just did count them, having said they can't been evaluated by counting. What kind of gobbledygook is that? You read 1c in a very odd way ("Any edit lacking a source may be removed" ... J. Wales: "This is true of all information". ""Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.")
  • The History section is full of overly small subsections (and in some cases, paragraphs).
  • MOS breaches all over the place, including capitalisation and non-logical punctuation.
  • Awkward writing, such as "Together, they adopted a daughter, Amy (born 1953),[12] but divorced three years later." Logical problem in "but"; twisting and turning.

It could be saved, but would require considerable effort. Who? Tony (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ignore any complaint of a "MOS breach", per WP:AAFD.
    • In short, the counting is both an appeal to a bad standard, and an unfounded complaint if I were, arguendo, to accept the standard. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see only two sections which are less than a single screen, and removed one of them. His war service, as a interruption, really has to be a section of its own, no matter how short. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Logical" punctuation does not contribute to the clarity, accuracy, verifiability, or neutrality of the article. If you can convince the article editors to switch, fine - that's consensus; but it should not be an FA requirement because a handful of opiniated editors on a different page happen to like it. 17:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
      • It would've been nice if this article could've gotten this much exposure when I nominated it over a month ago. It possibly could've been saved had that happened. Unfortunately, at this point, it's beyond hope. Grim 21:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is why I suggest, on talk, that articles which fail the initial review be put back on FAC, which would get this article the attention it needs. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, if you think about it, there's really not much of a difference between extending the FAR process and improving it after it's been removed. Sure, the FA star will be gone for a while but the challenge is no different. This article needs improvement quite desperately, and being a "former featured article" should be incentive enough for getting it back to FA. If someone would sit down and devote some time to it, I think it could be up to FA quality soon enough. Grim 03:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, it is at FA quality (that is to say, the quality of the articles we actually promote) now; and I doubt any of the tweaks (whatever they are) demanded by the MOScruft faction will measurably improve it. Fortunately, no one is likely to waste time on doing them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove, 1c, 2—poorly sourced and undercited, uses marginal sources for the few things that are cited. Uncited direct quotes. Numerous MOS breaches as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 19:18, 4 October 2007.

Congo Free State

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notifications, project: WikiProject Africa and WikiProject Former countries
Notifications, user: User:172 (FAC nominator), User:Kingturtle (many useful suggestions during FAC), User:Rexparry sydney (recent major contributor), and User:Tannin (many comments on article's talk page)

This article, promoted to featured status in April 2004, falls short of the FA criteria in several respects:

  • 1(a): The prose is at times informal/essay-like (e.g. "In a dazzling display of diplomatic virtuosity, Leopold ..."; "the most telling blows came from a most unexpected source")
  • 1(c): The article contains a total of 7 inline citations (added relatively recently) from three sources and a further five sources are listed as "General references". Most sections are not supported by inline citations. The article has been tagged as "missing citations and/or footnotes" since May 2007.
  • 1(d): The article at times seems to cast an admiring light on Leopold's skill and ingenuity and at other times seems to condemn the barbarity of his rule. This may largely be an issue of how content is worded.

I still think it's a good article ('good' in the normal sense, not necessarily a Wikipedia:Good article), but it doesn't meet our featured article criteria in its current state. — Black Falcon (Talk) 20:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), citations (1c), POV (1D). Marskell 19:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is an excellent article, and grounds for deleting WP:WIAFA. These are the complaints made against it:

  • It is written in decent, colloquial, and vivid English.
  • It expresses the (clearly consensus) views that the Congo Free State was an atrocity, but that Leopold was competently amoral in organizing, exploiting, and above all concealing the atrocity. I presume there is a lunatic fringe that contests these, but I do not know it, or any evidence that the present silence is not due WP:WEIGHT on controversies.
  • That it cites only some statements. Citation is required for statements which are challenged or likely to be challenged. None have been specified. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can understand your suggestion that the tone of the article makes it more interesting to read, but your third argument, that citations are needed only for controversial statements, is too extreme. ... Entire sections should not be unsourced. Quotes and statistics should not be unattributed. At heart, the article suffers from a problem of verifiability: it makes many claims of fact and opinion, but it's essentially impossible to tell if they are true.
  • As regards the issue of neutrality, you may have a point: if the consensus view is that Leopold was both brutal and ingenious, the article should reflect that view. However, those claims should be attributed. Note, for instance, that I've not noted WP:OR as a problem because I suspect that many of the books listed in the "Further reading" section were used as references. Of course, the lack of inline citations prevents me (and anyone else) from ascertaining whether this is indeed the case. – Black Falcon (Talk) 03:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Challenged or likely to be challenged" is the language of WP:V, carefully chosen and consensus. Please do not call it too extreme unless you believe consensus has changed.
    • Footnotes do not guarantee truth; they don't even guarantee verifiability. Many footnotes are corrupt; some are fraudulent.
    • The lack of inline citations is not the barrier you seem to suppose. With the sources in front of you (equally necessary if there were a footnote at every semicolon), it should be no trouble to verify these assertions, and see which of the Further Reading were used as references.
    • All (five) direct quotations are attributed.
    • Clear, vivid, and vigorous English is not merely easy reading, but good writing. This is supposed to be one of our criteria. Imitation of the Britannica's more wooden moments is a bug, not a feature. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:V also says: "any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". If the article does not state what sources were used and where/how they were used, that is not possible.
      • Footnotes do not guarantee truth or verification, but they make verification possible. If a footnote is provided, it's at least possible to check whether it is used accurately.
      • Without inline citations, all I have is a list of 20 or so books. How can I know which statement is supported by which source? In addition, how can I know where to look within a particular book when page numbers are not provided?
      • All quotations are not attributed. The quotes by the "junior white officer" and the "Danish missionary" are not clearly attributed. The quote by Forbath can be traced to the book in the 'Further reading' section, but no page number is provided. Janssens' quote is not attributed at all. The quoted phrase "few isolated instances" is not attributed either. – Black Falcon (Talk) 15:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a genuine service to Wikipedia, especially since the original author is gone and not expected back, to list all the points which fulfill all of the following.

  • Not sourced
  • Challenged or likely to be challenged.
  • No source is readily apparent with Google books, or a general history of Africa. It does not help Wikipedia to demand sources for information that is trivially available (the Conge Free State was in Africa; the Congo river flows through it); and most of these assertions are only one or two steps up from that level.

This would probably be better on the talk page of the article than here, or as a to-do, which could be transcluded both places.

Again, this is a better article than most of the stuff we promote nowadays, and the author is gone. To demote it is a disservice; but it can be improved. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The number of sentences/points that meet your three criteria are really too many to list. The nature of information provided in the article goes far beyond what could be classified as 'general knowledge', even for someone with more than a passing familiarity with Africa's colonial history. I agree that this is a good article and you are certainly correct that the article can be improved, but improving it to the point that it meets the FA criteria (mostly by confirming content and adding inline citations) requires a significant investment of time and effort and is not likely something that can be done using only Google Books. Black Falcon (Talk) 23:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please supply a list; we may be focusing on different statements. I see a lot of statements which have no footnote, but which any competent history of the Scramble will support - and which are therefore verifiable by taking a book from the references almost at random; the mention of books.google.com was intended merely to keep both of us from wasting time on those. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simply knowing the title of the book is really not enough: for specific claims, page numbers (or page number ranges) should be supplied. As for your request, I have listed below those sentences which I think should be inline cited, taken from the section "Demographic catastrophe?":
  • According to Roger Casement's report, this depopulation was caused mainly by four causes: indiscriminate "war", starvation, reduction of births and diseases. The author is attributed, but the work's title and relevant page numbers are missing.
    • The title of the document itself is, as may be found at Casement Report, Report of the British Consul, Roger Casement, on the Administration of the Congo Free State. It may be found several places, including The eyes of another race : Roger Casement’s Congo report and 1903 diary edited by Seamas O Siochain and Michael O’Sullivan. It is the length of a journal article, and it is not our practice to require page number in citing those. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sleeping sickness ... was used by the regime to account for demographic decrease.
  • P.G. Janssens ... wrote ... [quote from Janssens]. Again, the author is attributed, but the work's title and the location of the quote in the work are not provided.
  • In the absence of a census (the first was made in 1924) ...
  • Forbath, at least 5 million; Adam Hochschild, 10 million; the Encyclopædia Britannica gives a total population decline of 8 million to 30 million. The source is identified (using the 'Further readings' section), but page numbers (and in the case of EB, edition) are not given.
  • On 24 May 2006, a motion (EDM 2251) was presented to the British Parliament, recognising the tragedy caused by King Leopold II as genocide and calling upon Belgium to apologise to the people of Congo for it. As of 16 June 2006, EDM 2251 is officially backed by 42 British MPs.
Most other sections lack even the amount of attribution present in this section, where authors' names are at least provided. Black Falcon (Talk) 00:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dead certainty remove. It reads as though copied straight from a textbook or second-rate source. Is that why there are precious few citations? This will not do. The writing isn't as appalling as I was expecting, but there are problems in it. The lack of citations, however, is the killer.
    • "5 million to 20 million"—MOS breach in the repetition.
      • I don't find this anywhere in MOS; in fact, the following sentence suggests that it is permissible, but may in some cases be avoided by using M: Where values in the millions occur a number of times through an article, upper-case M may be used for million, unspaced, after spelling out the first occurrence. (“She bequeathed her fortune of £100 million unequally: her eldest daughter received £70M, her husband £18M, and her three sons each just £4M each.”)
      • More importantly, this introduces pointless ambiguity. "5 to 20 million" could be read as implying a David Irving of the Congo, who insisted that there were fewer than half-a-dozen proven deaths. This "correction" therefore degrades the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spaced en dash in the infoblot: MOS breach.
    • Periods at the end of non-sentence captions: MOS breach.
    • "Through corrupt treaties with native chiefs, rights were acquired to a great area along the Congo, and posts were established"—Yeah, the piped link on "posts" goes to "military bases", but we shouldn't have to click it to learn what the hell "posts" means.
      • "Military base" would be misleading for a hut with a handful of soldiers. "Posts" is both contemporary and modern usage for such things and should be retained; Black Falcon's "military posts" is good. Use English; the simple English Wikipedia exists for a reason, and our articles should not be cut to its standards. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The treaties were extremely one-sided in favor of Leopold. In some cases chiefs not only handed over their lands, but also promised to help provide workers for forced labor." UNREFERENCED! Hello.
    • Why the bullets under "Other powers ..."?
    • Not comprehensive: we learn nothing of life, culture, the economy during this period. Tony (talk) 11:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've tried to address some of the more minor points you raised, but (as I've noted above) I don't think that anything short of a sustained/dedicated effort will solve the sourcing issue. On your last point: since the Congo Free State was essentially a private corporation/colony, it may be understandable that the article does not focus as much on things like life, culture, and the economy. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC) P.S. could you clarify what you mean by "spaced en dash in the infoblot". Thanks.[reply]

Closing: Kudos to Black Falcon for working on this. But as s/he admits "a sustained/dedicated effort" is needed on citations. (Compare to the recent TFA on Chad.) As for "life, culture, and the economy," the last is woven throughout but the former two are fair: the article never pauses to consider the people in their own light, even when describing the depopulation. Marskell 19:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.