Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of Alaska/archive1
- 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 13:22, 9 April 2007.
History of Alaska[edit]
Review commentary[edit]
- Messages left at the article's talk page and Wikispork --Miskwito 00:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Messages left at History, United States, and U.S. states. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails 1c; there are very few inline citations. A number of reliable print references are cited at the bottom of the page, however, so I think the main task is just indicating which statements in the article itself come from which reference source. Otherwise, the article seems excellent. --Miskwito 00:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Numbers and units of measurement must have a non-breaking hard space between them. Is it "The Department of Alaska" or "Department of Alaska"? (Pls see WP:MSH). Full dates (Month day, year) should be wikilinked; some are not. Footnotes should include publisher in all cases, author and publication date when available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sooooo...15 days later, and nothing changed. I don't have any Alaska-related reference works to dig through for citations myself (nor does the topic really interest me enough that I'd be able to focus on doing that for very long). I'm not sure who decides when to change this to a FARC, though...? Or if that's appropriate yet, since hardly anyone has weighed in? --Miskwito 04:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am absolutely 100% against removing this article. Soapy 05:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, do you have a reason? The problem is that the article is simply not well-cited. For example, the Spain's attempts at colonization section (seven paragraphs) doesn't have a single in-line citation. In fact, very few sections have more than one or two in-line citations (by which I really mean <ref> tags--of which the entire article has a total of 15), if they have any at all. Of the 17 sections, I count seven with no references cited (including five in a row, beginning with Spain's attempts at colonozation through District of Alaska). Russian Alaska (eleven paragraphs long) has only three references cited--one in the first paragraph, one in the second, and one in the sixth. And it goes on like this. I don't think it's necessary for an article to cite every single sentence to be FA-class, but this is pretty unacceptable, in my view. --Miskwito 05:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that there is not enough citation but that should not mean deletion/removal of this article. It needs to grow, not be torn down. Wikipedia has enough problems with editors vandalizing (not you) and deleting articles. In my opinion you are only adding to the problem, not solving it, and you seem to be in a hurry to remove it. That got me looking at your contributions to see if there was a clue as to why. I saw mostly Native American articles you have edited and I can't help but think there is an underlining issue at stake here for you. I am sorry for what seems like a personal attack. I am just being honest in my thoughts.
- Well, do you have a reason? The problem is that the article is simply not well-cited. For example, the Spain's attempts at colonization section (seven paragraphs) doesn't have a single in-line citation. In fact, very few sections have more than one or two in-line citations (by which I really mean <ref> tags--of which the entire article has a total of 15), if they have any at all. Of the 17 sections, I count seven with no references cited (including five in a row, beginning with Spain's attempts at colonozation through District of Alaska). Russian Alaska (eleven paragraphs long) has only three references cited--one in the first paragraph, one in the second, and one in the sixth. And it goes on like this. I don't think it's necessary for an article to cite every single sentence to be FA-class, but this is pretty unacceptable, in my view. --Miskwito 05:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's just sickening what Wikipedia has become in a short amount of time. There are far more important problems in Wikiland to worry about than deleting an article that lacks citations. Very recently I had to abandon the Alaska article and several others because I just could not keep up with the vandals that attack literally by the hour. This is a problem I would like to see you and others sink their teeth into, not trying to delete articles that just need help. No, I won't take the time to work on this article as I already have other pressing projects, but I admit the history of Alaska is very important to me and I would like to see this article stay around. If you still feel the need to delete then go ahead. I have done my best to get a hold of Wikipedia about the main problems of vandalism but have never heard a word from them. I was invited to come to Wikipedia a few years ago but I resisted because I knew the problems it had at that time would only get worse if left unchecked. That prediction has come true and Wikipedia still won't fix the problem. All it would take is a mandatory sign-in to edit an article but Wikipedia won't implement it. One by one the articles I watched and edited have become more of a burden than a joy and one by one I opt to abandon them due to daily having to fix the vandalism. Vandalism is not a problem on this article but I guess perhaps I will stop watching it as well because I just don't want to be there when you actually delete it. Wiki can ignore the problems but that does not make them go away. Lastly, I want to report that a couple of weeks ago my daughter's high school history teacher announced to his classes that he will no longer accept Wikipedia as a reliable source of information on their projects. Vandalism is to blame not lack of citation. That about sums things up. I apologize for digressing. Soapy 23:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think people might be misunderstanding what a Featured Article Review is...this isn't the same thing as nominating the article for deletion. I definitely, definitely don't want the article deleted! What its purpose is is to try to fix some potential problems with the article, and if that isn't done, then to have a discussion on whether the article's status as a "Featured Article" should be removed. It would still exist, and it could still be renominated to be a FA in the future. I'm sorry for any misunderstandings. --Miskwito 22:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Miskwito, I apologize to you. I mistakenly saw you as just wanting to destroy rather than build. I went to the Far page again and see now that I was mistaken with their definition. Wiki needs to clarify that page better. They also left out what becomes of an article once it is removed from Featured Article status. Does it become a Stub? Soapy 00:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary[edit]
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), and formatting issues (2). Marskell 09:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 09:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c. Jay32183 20:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove for citations. It would make a fine WP:GA if nominated, though. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove—1c and 1a. Tony 08:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Status: This had very large work today and I'm not comfortable rm'ing yet if there's someone ready to work. I will contact them. Marskell 17:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I completed refs in the final section as a sample of work needed: [1] It looks as if the Columbia.edu source may be a student website? Not sure, but may not be a reliable source. If someone is on board, I can complete the rest of the footnotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Completed all the refs that were there; some may not be reliable and need to be reviewed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I completed refs in the final section as a sample of work needed: [1] It looks as if the Columbia.edu source may be a student website? Not sure, but may not be a reliable source. If someone is on board, I can complete the rest of the footnotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c. I was doing some work on the article yesterday, but I don't have the time or the energy to do the referencing to print sources that will be necessary. My other concern (1b and 1c I guess) is that the weight given to different sections is not necessarily reflective of their overall importance in Alaskan history, and that the little blurbs on the main Alaska history page do not do a good job of summarizing the longer articles (highlighting unimportant facts, not mentioning other important ones). This is what I was (and will be, at least a little more) working to fix. Calliopejen1 22:13, 8 April 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.