Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/April 2007
- 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 07:45, 10 April 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Messages left at 168... and Molecular and Cellular Biology. LuciferMorgan 17:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Message left at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine Announcements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed in May 2006 here. Parker007 brought this article to my attention, and I agree that it needs some work to get back to featured article quality. I'm concerned that an article of this length is not comprehensive; specifically, it lacks any historical information about the discovery of chemical synapses, and each section is only one paragraph long. It was also a very poor read for me since the jargon used is poorly (if at all) defined. There are very few inline citations too. I know science articles have their own guidelines for that, but I don't see why the citations can't be of the same quality as those in Proteasome. ShadowHalo 07:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I also want to state that the section "Anatomy and physiology" is in horrible condition and I removed 2 sentences and left this message on the talk page of the article:
Second Sentence
- The biological membrane of the two cells side each other across a slender gap, the narrowness of which enables signalling neurotransmitters to pass rapidly from one cell to the other by diffusion. This gap, which is about 20 nm wide, is known as the synaptic cleft.
- Which 2 cells? --Parker007 06:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Third sentence
- Such synapses are asymmetric both in structure and in how they operate.
- Which such syapses? --Parker007 06:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've mostly reverted to the version from before this review started, saving some minor changes. Basically all edits had reduced article quality. To Parker: (1) The two cells talked about in the previous sentence. (2) The prototypical synapses that have been the whole topic of the section thus far. I really don't see how you would have trouble with this, nor do I see how simply deleting the sentence is helpful. That said, the article could use some work. It doesn't appear, for instance, to treat metabotropic receptors, instead discussing NT receptors only in terms of ion channels. In general there is an awful lot to say as this is a pretty fundamental article for neurobiology. On the plus side, inline citations do not appear to be a serious problem; this is all pretty fundamental and unlikely to be challenged. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(1) The two cells talked about in the previous sentence. So can you name the cells? Because it is very ambiguous. --Parker007 04:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC) (2) The prototypical synapses that have been the whole topic of the section thus far. What is a prototypical synapse? --Parker007 05:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A prototypical synapse is a synapse that is prototypical, that is model. I have changed the term to archetypal to make this clearer. The two cells are any two cells at a synapse, I am not sure what you mean by naming them. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem probably stems from the fact that there are many related articles that could form part of a greater article. For example Postsynaptic potential, Neurotransmitter, Neuromuscular junction, Receptor, Electrical synapse, etc. could all form part of this article. Maybe we can work to have clearer redirects to the sub-articles. Otherwise we could basically have a whole encyclopedia-length article on Synapses alone. Nrets 00:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good to have some quantitative information e.g. the statistical distribution of the number of synapses per brain cell in the brains. (JRi)
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b), and citations (1c). Marskell 11:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 09:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove, 1c. Some improvements during review, but not at all adequate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. Per 1c. Notes and references need some cleaning. And why all these words in bold?--Yannismarou 10:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove—what a pity. Ic plus 1a. My copy-edit of the lead alone suggests that the whole thing needs a good massage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 23:02, April 8, 2007
- 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 12:25, 14 April 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Talk messages left at Ta bu shi da yu and Computer science. LuciferMorgan 17:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very simply, this was made an FA almost two years ago (21 1/2 months, to be exact). It contains zero footnotes/citations and only six references, along with no external links. This is the only real problem I see with the article (I have no idea what Btrieve is or how it works, so I can't really say if it's well-written, but it looks comprehensive enough and NPOV), but it's a pretty severe problem for an article that's supposedly of Featured quality. -- Kicking222 18:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kicking, per the FAR instructions above, would you mind notifying the original article author/nominator and the WikiProjects listed on the article talk page, with {{subst:FARMessage|Architecture of Btrieve }}~~~~ Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I already did notify the nominator last night. Sorry for not mentioning that. Here it is, five minutes after I posted this FAR. As for the WikiProject, I just left a message on the talk page of WPCompSci. -- Kicking222 20:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In my own defence, this was a FA at a time when footnoting wasn't really a requirement of FA. I did think that things weren't going to be removed due to footnoting issues. However, all the material for this article is in the references section. Perhaps that could be taken into consideration here? The information is good. Btrieve, incidently, is a database, which is what is stated in the lead section. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this; adding footnotes with the exact pages where one should look for the facts stated in this articles (which are undisputed and uncontroversial) in the documents mentioned in the references sections wouldn't hurt, but is far from essential. Both Btrieve and Architecture of Btrieve are quite short by today's FA standards, perhaps the should be merged? —Ruud 22:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- At the time, the article was about 50KB or so. I think that's a little large. Best to keep split, but then again I'm biased :-) Ta bu shi da yu 07:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this; adding footnotes with the exact pages where one should look for the facts stated in this articles (which are undisputed and uncontroversial) in the documents mentioned in the references sections wouldn't hurt, but is far from essential. Both Btrieve and Architecture of Btrieve are quite short by today's FA standards, perhaps the should be merged? —Ruud 22:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In my own defence, this was a FA at a time when footnoting wasn't really a requirement of FA. I did think that things weren't going to be removed due to footnoting issues. However, all the material for this article is in the references section. Perhaps that could be taken into consideration here? The information is good. Btrieve, incidently, is a database, which is what is stated in the lead section. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I already did notify the nominator last night. Sorry for not mentioning that. Here it is, five minutes after I posted this FAR. As for the WikiProject, I just left a message on the talk page of WPCompSci. -- Kicking222 20:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concern is citations (1c). Marskell 10:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 21:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c. Jay32183 20:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove—1c. Not a jot has been done on it since nomination. Tony 23:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, the reason was because I didn't get around to it, but I thought articles weren't going to be defeatured because of lack of ref tags! What is wrong with my references?! I must protest! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:32, 18 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.
- 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 12:25, 14 April 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Talk messages left at DanielNuyu and Video games. LuciferMorgan 02:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well written article. Cman 19:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ummm, unless I'm missing something this article is currently a featured article ?!?! Dr pda 20:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but it was a feature article back in 2005. Cman 20:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So you want this featured article to go under review? See WP:FAR. CloudNine 21:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrongly listed at FAC, but moved to FAR by myself per WP:BOLD. Now it's here, what criteria does Cman feel is at fault? LuciferMorgan 21:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- At quick glance, perhaps only 5 inline citations, a picture without a source, and a gallery (which isn't used anymore)?--Clyde (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrongly listed at FAC, but moved to FAR by myself per WP:BOLD. Now it's here, what criteria does Cman feel is at fault? LuciferMorgan 21:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So you want this featured article to go under review? See WP:FAR. CloudNine 21:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but it was a feature article back in 2005. Cman 20:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't think it was Cman's intention to have this at FAR. Rather I think the intention was to have it appear on the main page again. So far no article has ever appeared on the main page twice, and it's not likely to happen in the near future. FAs are being produced faster than one per day, so there is no shortage. Gimmetrow 23:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well this'll end up on FAR sooner or later regardless - fails a few criteria points. I think it should stay here to be honest. LuciferMorgan 23:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine, if you will be taking responsibility for this FAR nomination. Gimmetrow 23:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Me? I'm not taking responsibility for anything at FAR other than my own FAR nominations after recent FAR events. LuciferMorgan 23:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what that encompasses, but I could help.--Clyde (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think I have the knowledge or drive to handle the major work this thing needs to stay FA on my own (I certainly know the work amount in an FA). Drop some messages, see who comes. I know it fails 1(c), 3, and maybe 1(a).--Clyde (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree that although it came here via a strange route, it does need to be here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If all reviews by the FAR regulars is going to be in checklist fashion, then we'll have to make sure that those checklists are applied correctly. FAR is not about footnote counting, so please produce some detailed and constructive criticism. And don't do it by simply adding random fact tags that simply amount to "I don't believe this but I have no counterarguments for my doubts". As far as I'm concerned it's a mild form of WP:POINT-making. Try to show some commitment to your task as reviewers and produce reasonable doubt or justification for the blanket accusations of "not enough inlines". Peter Isotalo 12:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I kind of take offense to that. I've never worked in a FAR before, and whenever I read about them, they always start by listing the criteria that the article fails. This came here in a weird fashion, so I was under the impression that needed to be done. The reason why I thought this was short on citations is because many FAs around now have at least 1 citation per paragraph. In this case, history has only two, and there are zero in hardware or software. There is a group of references at the end that need to be integrated, which might help take care of the lack of citations. According to you, I can't help the citation problem by adding fact tags (it's violating WP:POINT apparently), so I guess we'll have to wait for someone who knows a lot about the Commodore 64 to come around and specifically tell us what needs to be citied. I don't understand, stuff like "Due to its advanced graphics and sound, the C64 is often credited with starting the computer subculture known as the demoscene (see Commodore 64 demos)." probably needs a fact tag. There is enough stuff like that in there that it wouldn't have to be random. Oh, and by the way, I doubt there will be much "commitment" or "reasonable doubt", since there is no one who wants to see this burn unless it's improved, and there's no one who really wants to save it.--Clyde (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If all reviews by the FAR regulars is going to be in checklist fashion, then we'll have to make sure that those checklists are applied correctly. FAR is not about footnote counting, so please produce some detailed and constructive criticism. And don't do it by simply adding random fact tags that simply amount to "I don't believe this but I have no counterarguments for my doubts". As far as I'm concerned it's a mild form of WP:POINT-making. Try to show some commitment to your task as reviewers and produce reasonable doubt or justification for the blanket accusations of "not enough inlines". Peter Isotalo 12:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree that although it came here via a strange route, it does need to be here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think I have the knowledge or drive to handle the major work this thing needs to stay FA on my own (I certainly know the work amount in an FA). Drop some messages, see who comes. I know it fails 1(c), 3, and maybe 1(a).--Clyde (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine, if you will be taking responsibility for this FAR nomination. Gimmetrow 23:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well this'll end up on FAR sooner or later regardless - fails a few criteria points. I think it should stay here to be honest. LuciferMorgan 23:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A good first step would be eliminating the gallery of fair use images, it violates the fair use criteria. Jay32183 00:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Should the article have KiB or kB? At the time of promotion it had kB, and this was the common use during the period this article is about. Gimmetrow 16:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd prefer KiB to avoid confusion. Most people will assume the modern usage of kB. Jay32183 20:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was only converted to KiB in early March. I would prefer kB for historical computers, but as long it stays with KiB (no "kibinybbles" please), it's probably tolerable. The fair use image for the game doesn't seem justified; the other images appear to be PD or freely licensed. Gimmetrow 05:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd prefer KiB to avoid confusion. Most people will assume the modern usage of kB. Jay32183 20:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article only has ONE reliable inline citation. That's horrible. How did this become a featured article? --Teggles 06:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), images (3), and prose (1a). Marskell 13:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove While images have been removed and some terminology has been changed, nothing is being done regarding inline citations; there are currently 6. If work gets done please notify me or if I'm away and it get's a significant amount of citations disregard my comments. Aaron Bowen 20:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 22:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c. Jay32183 17:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per Aaron Bowen, also notify me if anything changes. Quadzilla99 09:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove—1c, and the overlinking with trivial items calls into question the "professional" standard of formatting that is required. Tony 23:43, 13 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.
- 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 09:39, 13 April 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Messages left at HighwayCello, Video games, Nintendo, and Pokemon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has horrible sources. It fails WP:N and (1c) of the FA criteria. Some references don't even back up the claims made. There are some references that don't mention the subject at all. User:A_Man_In_Black has highlighted some of the problems Here on the article's talk page. Funpika 01:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My commentary from talk, in toto:
This article is pathetically sourced, and seems to fail WP:N miserably. I was looking at the references closely, and they don't stand up to scrutiny.
Some highlights:
- Many of the cited references don't even back up the claims made. For example, take the reference to [1]; this isn't cited as a source that Combusken is a flying Pokémon; it's cited as a source that it isn't a flying Pokémon. WTF?
- The claim of the origin of the name, a debatable linguistic analysis, is sourced to a Pokémon fansite.
- Reference #3 is directly to a Japanese-English dictionary, which makes no reference to Torchic at all.
- At least a third of the references (I gave up counting) are to poorly-written, not-at-all-analytical anime episode summaries on Serebii.
- The references to Gamespy, IGN, and Gamespot don't mention Torchic at all.
- The article is laden with references to primary sources for facts of questionable importance. How are any of the toys important? Nobody has seen fit to comment on them but Hasbro. How is the recall important? The only party to comment is the recalling party.
Additionally, this article doesn't have a single word on the creative process that led to the creation of Torchic, nor a single word of sourced analysis or critical reception.
I'm not sure if this is FA quality. I'm not sure if this is GA quality. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThat creation point is unnecessary. And references need to be interpreted carefully as they might not be the citation for an entire statement, maybe only the last part. I added episode templates for the anime paragraphs, so it's time we stop questioning Serebii's quality and continue improving Torchic.
I have erased all the citations that are being manipulated for the sake of stating misconceptions and asserting vague facts like the flying type Torchic and Bulbasaur's seed. I also feel that the toys section is needed.
Talking about etymology, Pokedream is the only site that provides it. I don't mind if that citation is removed, but what is the debatable linguistics in torch + chick = Torchic? There is no dispute possible about the name unlike that of Lugia or Milotic, right? Vikrant Phadkay 13:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In reply to the comment about the article's notability - notability is not a consideration for the FA process. We inherently presume that all articles nominated are notable (FAC and FAR are not AFD and should not attempt to replicate its function). So that criticism is irrelevant. Raul654 06:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not arguing that the subject isn't notable, but that its sources don't allow for any sort of useful explanation of the importance of this subject. Would you not agree that an article that fails to explain how the subject of the article is important isn't a comprehensive article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the problems should be fixable. If there isn't any analysis in the anime or manga sections then the Serebii refs can be replaced by citing the episodes and issues directly. The comprehensiveness problem will probably be the hardest issue to tackle. Will there actually be sources about the creation or reception of Torchic, or any Pokemon other than Pikachu. This doesn't hold a candle to some of the other featured articles on fictional characters. Jay32183 04:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't solve the problem that this article is completely lacking in critical analysis from reliable sources, just the fact that Serebii isn't a great way to cite things. I don't think Torchic can actually support a comprehensive article; this is filled out with inane, empty fragments of fictional stories or settings. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I absolutely agree. I'd just like to push WP:PCP away from using Serebii as much as possible. Jay32183 04:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't solve the problem that this article is completely lacking in critical analysis from reliable sources, just the fact that Serebii isn't a great way to cite things. I don't think Torchic can actually support a comprehensive article; this is filled out with inane, empty fragments of fictional stories or settings. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually wondered about the reliability of Serebii before, given that I had been misled before in their gaming sections. I guess the issue hasn't died down yet. Hbdragon88 04:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, every discussion seems to go....
- Hey, is Serebii really a reliable source? It's run by one person, often has long-uncorrected errors, is a fansite, often doesn't update pages, etc.
- So what else are we going to use?
- ...
- So what else are we going to use?
- Hey, is Serebii really a reliable source? It's run by one person, often has long-uncorrected errors, is a fansite, often doesn't update pages, etc.
- Thread gets archived
- We need to actually do something about this, this time. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I know. That error totally screwed up my Gardevoir. I stopped EV training halfway before it would have completed (as I was under the impression that they would be doubled), so I have a personal vendetta against that place. (Fortunately, those EV reducing berries in Emerald fixed that problem). Hbdragon88 05:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- let's keep discussion of serebii to a minimum - only what is pertinent to the article, we can discuss it further at the project page. For a rebuttal, if we were to guage accuracy with the amount of content that serebii covers (450+ anime epiguides; 3 advanced pokedexes for RBYGSC(251 pokemon), RSEFrLg(386), DP(493); 2 attackdexes (354 and 467); several detailed pages on game mechanics; complete item lists; walkthroughs and strategy guides for 29 games; not to mention the detailed lists on manga, movies, and the TCG) their error rate is probably as low as wikipedia's and wikipedia's is reportedly lower than Brittanica's and the errors eventually get fixed. There are several other issues, like this one that i brought up on Highway's talk page, which was never fixed. I guess he was trying to quote serebii epiguides to say that the show promotes people liking it because of its attractiveness, but the real arguable claim, "...Torchic's popularity is partially due to its aesthetic appeal." is completely unsourced. In fact, a comparison is made to the previous fire starter (no Stephen King jokes) Charmander and the source isn't the one making the link, i think it is meant to establish the fact that Charmander's popularity has to due with aesthetic appeal, but that source is just some personal website gallery of Charmander merchandise. At least the Hasbro stuff is from a more legitimate website. Of course this is only one example. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 05:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um. Serebii isn't a reliable source not just because of the errors, but because of the source of those errors. Serebii is full of mistakes because it's one guy's fansite. It's not even close to independently reviewed. It's just not a reliable source.
- let's keep discussion of serebii to a minimum - only what is pertinent to the article, we can discuss it further at the project page. For a rebuttal, if we were to guage accuracy with the amount of content that serebii covers (450+ anime epiguides; 3 advanced pokedexes for RBYGSC(251 pokemon), RSEFrLg(386), DP(493); 2 attackdexes (354 and 467); several detailed pages on game mechanics; complete item lists; walkthroughs and strategy guides for 29 games; not to mention the detailed lists on manga, movies, and the TCG) their error rate is probably as low as wikipedia's and wikipedia's is reportedly lower than Brittanica's and the errors eventually get fixed. There are several other issues, like this one that i brought up on Highway's talk page, which was never fixed. I guess he was trying to quote serebii epiguides to say that the show promotes people liking it because of its attractiveness, but the real arguable claim, "...Torchic's popularity is partially due to its aesthetic appeal." is completely unsourced. In fact, a comparison is made to the previous fire starter (no Stephen King jokes) Charmander and the source isn't the one making the link, i think it is meant to establish the fact that Charmander's popularity has to due with aesthetic appeal, but that source is just some personal website gallery of Charmander merchandise. At least the Hasbro stuff is from a more legitimate website. Of course this is only one example. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 05:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't help that this article's relatively best references are to a fansite noted for being somewhat flakey among Pokémon fans. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The last spur was meant in jest, of course I'm not going to want to revoke Torchic's FA status merely because Serebii gave me incorrect game guide info (they're unrelated). But there are other outstanding issues with Serebii. AMIB is willing to argue them. I'm just in the background. Hbdragon88 07:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Serebii is a self-published source, therfore it fails to be a reliable source. The claims that nothing else could be used doesn't matter because if there isn't a reliable source then Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on it. Jay32183 18:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I picked a couple of Serebii citations at random. The first one: Synopsis of Pokémon Adventures manga; Chapter 183. "VS. Mightyena" Serebii.net. URL accessed 13 May 2006. -- shouldn't this be citing the the manga directly? There seem to be quite a few citations of this type. The second: Bulbasaur Pokédex entry - "A seed was planted on its back at birth. The plants sprouts and grows with this Pokémon." Serebii.net. URL accessed 5 July 2006. -- I don't see that quote on that page. Even if Serebii were a reliable source, there are still issues here. Side note: citation 6 is broken. Pagrashtak 19:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When no analysis is being performed then citing manga, anime, or the video games directly is perfectly acceptable. The lack of analysis may keep the article from being comprehensive, but that's no reason not to cite the most reliable source available. Jay32183 21:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With no analysis whatsoever, this article's prose is far from brilliant. It merely slaps together trivial scraps of plot and setting. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It needs to be noted that a lot of things can be cited directly from the appropriate media - episode guides are a backing, but seeing as to their source, and some inaccuracies that could come in that source, it's best we stick to simply citing the media. Since Torchic is full of citations that could be attributed to media, that too, should be rectified. And, agreed with AMIB. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 09:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth is all this happening?
[edit]- Keep for sure - The article has been provided with all possible sources and if we keep questioning their reliability, the project will never get another FA and we'll rather lose this one and the other one too!
Never shall the official site give us episode guides, game guides, manga guides etc. So eventually either the project fails in its aims because of one criterion. Then why not introduce another two citations at all places where Serebii can't be relied on? Criticism is easy, after all!
The Internet has 1 billion web pages and none of them is 100% reliable; they are all 99.99999999.......%. Still those who don't rely can glide across Google and locate and compare many more sites. Or best is to play the game and clarify all the so-called doubts.
And all the minor problems with a few sources can be rectified with ease or removed presuming them as OR. There's absolutely no need to dethrone the article for that. Vikrant Phadkay 12:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing about this is, if Torchic continues to fail to meet the requirements (as it has been doing even since its nomination) its position here should no longer be held. It fails attribution, the article itself isn't so well-written, and writing compatible sections isn't going to happen like magic. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 12:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On that note, it was bad enough that when it appeared on the front page, editors immediately and consistently picked on its citation problems. Not very good at all. And this isn't a vote yet; it's a discussion to address the shortcomings that need to be addressed before we all either feel it's still eligible or whether we need to bring it up for removal. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 12:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a reminder, the internet is not the only resource. Serebii is not reliable by definition because it is a fan run website. The article's worst shortcoming is it's comprehensiveness, meaning the article is incomplete. There is no discussion of creation or reaction, which is required when discussing a fictional character. Jay32183 18:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns is quality of citations (1c). Marskell 10:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Article appears to additionally fail "comprehensive" (1b), as suggested in discussion. Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 21:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. The prose does not seem brilliant; nor are the citations. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, the prose was always brilliant, it is once again and the citations are recovering their damage! Criticism is easy but patience and perseverance will soon pay off as I save this article. Vikrant Phadkay 13:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove It appears that no attempts are being made to replace the unreliable sources, such as Serebii. Jay32183 02:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here come the attempts (most of them are accomplished). Vikrant Phadkay 13:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will still be remove per 1b. No discussion of the character/species concept and creation and no analysis of its role in the games/anime/manga means the article is not comprehensive, and you won't find reliable sources for that content. Jay32183 18:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here come the attempts (most of them are accomplished). Vikrant Phadkay 13:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. It's not at all our fault that unreliable sources aren't being replaced, because there aren't any others that source all the information in the article. But that doesn't make it featured material. -Amarkov moo! 03:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- if it's not our fault then why refrain from saving our FA? Improve the sources! How long does it take? Vikrant Phadkay 13:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. Support is gradually building to deal with individual Pokémon as components of an encyclopedic whole, instead of trying to force the treatment of them as individual subjects. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove as per users A Man In Black and Jay32183. Citations aren't good at all, and the efforts are low on improving it and the prose, the lack of commentary on what was suggested, or anything else. It's deadbeat. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 06:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per above Hbdragon88 07:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per above reasoning. LuciferMorgan 21:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove — 1a, 1b, 1c.
- There is no out of universe information. How was the character created? Cosplay? How was the pokemon received by critics? I suggest looking at Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. If you can find translated interviews from Japanese magazines (which is about as reliable as we can get due to these topics being from Japan, translation reliabilities aside; work with what you can for the subject at hand, because people will understand if you can't exactly find a new york times interview, heh) or secondary analyses that in turn cite sources, then 1b will be met. If not even a borderline reliable/self-published source (which may be fine in relation to this subject) can be found with out of universe information, then this needs to be transwikied, then compressed and merged into a article about this generation of Pokemon. I don't have a problem with most the sources being used, to be honest; it's the fact that if you're using this level of sources (which is probably quite accurate in relation to this subject), why not find out of universe material at least on this level?
- Prose issues throughout.
- 1c. Some of the sources are just plain unreliable, like fansites. Usually, the only things good from fansites are sourced analyses with an author and contact, and interviews with contact information or sources (were they taken from a magazine? if no source is provided and its a fan-run interview, I recommend not using it to be safe). We must be careful when using fansites. — Deckiller 03:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That creation thing is unnecessary. Where on earth will we find information about it? If anyone can write that, either he's Satoshi Tajiri or he should be showered by barnstars. Vikrant Phadkay 14:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove.' Unacceptable sources. Thank god people are considering that rationally now. - Taxman Talk 02:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. Hell yeah, take the source 14 for example. What the hell? I have to read the book to get a source? TheBlazikenMaster 19:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- yes, if a book is cited YOU MUST READ IT and if an episode is cited YOU MUST WATCH IT. Vikrant Phadkay 15:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Are citations such that they cant be improved? I prefer ending this nomination and putting a cleanup tag on the article so as its quality recovers.Vikrant Phadkay 15:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Number 14 is good. It's the over reliance on websites that's causing the problem in this article. Jay32183 20:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: That's not a valid grounds for declaring Remove; note 14 is to a magazine article. It's correctly sourced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I admit it is idiotic reason for deletion. But my vote is still remove, per the rest of remove voters.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlazikenMaster (talk • contribs) 18:18, April 10, 2007[2]
- Note: That's not a valid grounds for declaring Remove; note 14 is to a magazine article. It's correctly sourced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is theoretically possible that there might be a way to improve the citations. However, that would require a rethink of the entire method of sourcing Pokemon articles, so it's not some trivial matter that can be fixed fast enough to keep it a FA. -Amarkov moo! 15:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Number 14 is good. It's the over reliance on websites that's causing the problem in this article. Jay32183 20:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove due to source issues. Pagrashtak 23:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think I need to point out that a lack of reliable sources does not excuse a lack of comprehensiveness. That does mean that certain articles can never be FAs, and we may need to reconsider whether they should have been their own articles in the first place. Jay32183 18:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's being done with Pokemon articles, at least; the long standing idea of merging them is getting attention now. -Amarkov moo! 18:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, don't do it. Think about it, if all pokémon would be merged into one article, the article would either be too long or too unspecific. It also wouldn't make sense. Besides, in my opinion they are encyclopdia articles. TheBlazikenMaster 20:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not one article, of course. But we have large numbers of Pokemon that are simply not notable, with zero sources. Some aren't even discussed on Serebii, because nobody cares about them. -Amarkov moo! 03:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think any article about pokémon will be merged any time soon. Whismur is one of these so-called nonnotable. And guess what? It did survive an AfD. TheBlazikenMaster 08:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not one article, of course. But we have large numbers of Pokemon that are simply not notable, with zero sources. Some aren't even discussed on Serebii, because nobody cares about them. -Amarkov moo! 03:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, don't do it. Think about it, if all pokémon would be merged into one article, the article would either be too long or too unspecific. It also wouldn't make sense. Besides, in my opinion they are encyclopdia articles. TheBlazikenMaster 20:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's being done with Pokemon articles, at least; the long standing idea of merging them is getting attention now. -Amarkov moo! 18:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. Completely fails to meet 1a, and is not really meeting 1b or 1c, either. More than anything, I would ask any supporter of the article remaining an FA to read a really high-quality FA (look at Joan of Arc for just one example) and compare the quality of prose. Oh man, this article is not all that interesting, it's not altogether informative, and it's maybe, maybe a GA. But certainly not an FA. Sanity will prevail. (Phadkay, your efforts to improve the article are appreciated and useful and helpful, regardless of whether or not the article remains an FA. Nicely done.) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:15, 12 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.
- 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 12:25, 14 April 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Talk messages left at Harro5, Schools and Australia. LuciferMorgan 02:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original FAC shows indecision:
This article passed in 2005, when standard for articles was a lot lower than it is now. It currently does not meet FA criteria.
- 1a) It does not contain brilliant prose. Some paragraphs are two sentences long. Some of the grammer may be questionable. A thorough copyedit is required.
- 1b) Leadership program is not mentioned. Extra-curricular academic opportunities are forgotten. Information on school philosophy, motto, song, past achievements, mission etc. are not given.
- 1c) This is the biggest problem. Half of the article is unsourced. A featured article shouldn't have [citation needed] tags lying around everywhere.
- 1d) The article contains a very pro-Caulfield point of view. For example: "Five debates are held each year, and Caulfield teams debate against other Melbourne schools - both independent and government schools - on various current interest topics. Debaters in Year 12 compete in the A-Grade division, many having begun in the Year 9 D-Grade and been involved in all four divisions of the DAV competition." It gives a feeling of experience and strength in debating when this is quite the norm in all schools in Australia.
- 2a) The lead doesn't summarize the topic. Mentions of the fee and of the school mission statement are not made in the rest of the article. Two paragraphs of the lead are unimportant and don't belong there.
- 2b) Very minor but the history seems awkwardly sorted into ToC.
- 3) More images might be nice.
Those are my views. Sfdasfr 02:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sfdasfr, per the FAR instructions above, pls notify the original article author/nominator and the WikiProjects listed on the article talk page, with {{subst:FARMessage|Caulfield Grammar School}}~~~~ Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They have been notified. Sfdasfr 02:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Lucifer (just thinking it's time we started prompting nominators to do this, per instructions.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah you have a point. Perhaps we can instruct them to do so and give them two days before we take action ourself? LuciferMorgan 21:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will do it next time. Sfdasfr 05:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries. LuciferMorgan 09:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will do it next time. Sfdasfr 05:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah you have a point. Perhaps we can instruct them to do so and give them two days before we take action ourself? LuciferMorgan 21:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Lucifer (just thinking it's time we started prompting nominators to do this, per instructions.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They have been notified. Sfdasfr 02:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the main contributor to this article, but am currently not able to edit very much. (Hint: Great Firewall of China). I will do what I can to address any concerns, but need more specifics from the original comments. Harro5 02:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe most of my comments are fairly specific. I have added cn tags in places in which the comments are not verifiable. The school uniform is unsourced but I'm being lax there because it's harder to find a source for. There are numerous other completely sunsourced sections. There is pro-Caulfield POV in places. The VCE section is POV and unsourced. The Nanjing campus section is POV and unsourced. A major copyedit would do well. The article isn't deserving of FA status in current times. Sfdasfr 04:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No-one at all is working on this article and the problems have still not been addressed. Should we go to FARC?? Sfdasfr 06:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b), citations (1c), and POV (1d). Marskell 13:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove - I don't see anyone ready and knowledgeable enough to fix the problems this article has. It certainly doesn't meet the standard of currently promoted FAs. Sfdasfr 05:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove No real progress to fix 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d. Jay32183 20:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove—the four criteria specified; no progress. A school FAC has to be pretty special, IMV. Tony 08:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per Jay's reasoning. LuciferMorgan 20:19, 7 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.
- 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 12:25, 14 April 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Talk messages left at Sj and Backpacking. LuciferMorgan 17:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Found this one while going through hiking-equipment articles for the newly-created backpacking project. Approved back in the days of looser standards. Well-illustrated but sorely lacking in citations. I as surprised to see the gold star; it would not be approved now. Can it be fixed or do we have to remove it? Daniel Case 03:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is probably as comprehensive as it needs to be, however it is listy and comprised of stubby sections and paragraphs. Ceoil 21:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), stub sections etc. (2). Marskell 10:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong remove. Very lacking in comprehensiveness and citations. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. Not many people seem interested in fixing this one, and it's trending this way. Daniel Case 02:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 21:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c. Jay32183 20:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove - it would be a good GA though.. Baristarim 04:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't pass GA as it isn't well referenced etc. LuciferMorgan 04:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- GA?! Not even as a joke!--Yannismarou 09:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't pass GA as it isn't well referenced etc. LuciferMorgan 04:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove—GA is a joke, so it matches. Here, 1c is the problem. Inadequate attempts to address reviewers' concerns since nomination. Tony 23:50, 13 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.
- 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 09:39, 13 April 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Talk messages left at Ireland and Countries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 1a, prose is not brilliant, in my opinion the most obvious example of this is over usage of parentheses.
- 1c, very light on inline citations, and has dubious statements, some of which have already been questioned on the talk page.
- 1d, although possible not an issue, POV has been brought up on the talk page
- 2a, lead section is too long, especially considering this article is smaller than most featured articles
- 2b/c, 5 headings and no subheadings, heading names include the title of the article, also section sizes vary widely
- 3, only 3 images, one of which violates fair use
On a side note, this article was featured an indeterminate but long time ago and has no FAC page. Vicarious 13:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I add the following:
- 1a: footnotes: the Browne/MacBride and Lenihan footnotes are chatty (and utterly irrelevant).
- 1b: there is no mention of:
- the fact that many foreigners mistakenly think that Éire is the official name of the country in all languages, and that many Irish people hate to see/hear "Éire" used as such in English, French, etc, and may even view such usage as egregious ignorance or a calculated snub. There was an amount of contentious and uncited assertion along these lines (see Talk page), now reduced to the inadequate "Since 1949, the term Republic of Ireland has generally been used in preference to Éire, when speaking English."
- other etymological theories besides the etiological "Ériu"
- 3: the map of Ireland serves no purpose in this article other than decoration.
- 4: aaaaaggghhhh! I get the impression the article was written with much youthful enthusiasm in the early days of Wikipedia and crammed with various goodies to get it up to what passed for Featured Article status then, and has since been left to twist in the wind while other articles covering similar ground have caught up and overtaken it. It seems originally to have served as "History of the Irish state from 1937 to 1949". A grossly misleading infobox to that effect survived until 3 weeks ago. Most of what is still there belongs on another article. Éire should be about the Irish word Éire, its etymology, official and unofficial usage and meanings; even if it covered that far more comprehensively than now, I doubt there would be enough substance for FA status. The entire Éire#From Éire to the Republic of Ireland section should be removed from Éire and merged with Republic of Ireland Act and/or Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949. There is also overlap with Names of the Irish state, British Isles (terminology)#Ireland_2 and Constitution of Ireland#Historical origins. A co-ordinated reworking of all these would certainly help; at the end of that daunting task, I think Éire will be left with very little content.
I think there is no hope of this article regaining FA status any time soon. jnestorius(talk) 23:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Its unfortunate but a majority of the article should be merged into the Republic of Ireland Act. The text is blatantly partisan (see treatment of both Costello &, oh dear..."the controversial" Noel Browne). Prose is weak in places: "in front of an affronted Costello". Ceoil 20:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Progress is unlikely, propose a move to FARC and a merge with Republic of Ireland Act, which when neutralised will be a very strong article. Ceoil 20:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I take it you mean merge the relevant section(s)? We still need a separate article about the word Éire. jnestorius(talk) 23:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, yes, I mean those sections only. Ceoil 14:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I take it you mean merge the relevant section(s)? We still need a separate article about the word Éire. jnestorius(talk) 23:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), citations (1c), LEAD (2a), TOC and sections (2b&c), and images (3). Marskell 10:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove as insufficient content, coverage, and citations, as well as prose issues. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 22:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 2a, 4 (too much detail on 1930s and 1940s), 1a and 1c. -- Avenue 10:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per all of the above, plus sub-professional formatting in its trivial linking. It's a pity, since there are attractive aspects of this article. Tony 23:17, 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.
- 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.
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]
- Snowy, don't worry. The page isn't turned into a stub, deleted, or in any other way altered. It may lose the little star in the corner, but that's all. Of course, if improvements occur it can also keep the star. Marskell 09:01, 24 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: [3] 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: [3] 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]
- I did want to thank you for all your work yesterday, though, even if this has its FA status removed. Thanks for the work! --Miskwito 22:16, 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.
- 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 10:33, 28 April 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Messages left at User talk:Lord Emsworth, United States, Law, Politics, and U.S. Supreme Court cases. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are several issues: 1a) Some areas are a bit disorganized, such as "Quarters"; this section is very short and lacks general information on the structure of the building. 1c) There are only 5 inline citations for a moderately large article. 3) The seal at the top is corrupted, and should be replaced. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur with everything you said. Let's see if anyone responds. Maybe if I have time I'll track down some of the people who helped make it an FA and notify them. Aaron Bowen 19:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I edited some sections for clarity, but I don't want to be the final arbiter of the entire article because some of it, particularly the historical sections, are outside my area of expertise. ---Axios023 03:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments. See also needs attention, per WP:LAYOUT. Important articles should be incorporated in the text where possible, minimizing See also. External links should be pruned per WP:EL and WP:NOT. References are incompletely formatted and have no recognizable consistent bibliographic style. All web sources should have publisher, last access date, and author/pub date where available. Quotes section has one quote—could be worked into the text. Dashes are used incorrectly—see WP:DASH. Templates (e.g.; further information) are employed mid-section—see WP:LAYOUT. The current membership table is unsightly, with one long column last. Mixed reference styles—some inline, others cite.php. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- remove not nearly enough citations or footnotes.--Sefringle 20:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are organization (2), citations (1c), and images (3). Marskell 09:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Citations (not footnotes) are a problem here. I'd also like to see a copy-edit, which shouldn't take long. Here are examples in the lead of easy-to-fix problems:
- "United States" occurs three times in the opening, short sentence; reword the middle occurrence.
- "Each term consists of alternating two week intervals. During the first interval, the court is in session ('sitting') and hears cases, and during the second interval, the court is recessed to consider and write opinions on cases it has heard." Hyphen for "two week". Remove "and hears cases" as obvious. Lots of "ands", so use a semicolon after "cases" instead. Better structure.
- Ungainly repetition: "the Court's caseload. The court's".
It's worth fixing. Tony 00:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. Little attempt has been made to increase the number of citations. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 21:37, 18 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.
- 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 08:09, 2 April 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Original author aware. Message left at Physics. LuciferMorgan 23:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has no inline citations and only a few references so it fails 1(c) of the Featured article criteria.
Atomic1609 13:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Concerned — I'm concerned that the primary editors won't (or are no longer) around to work on this article. Plus, the article has fewer than 50 edits in the last year and a half, so it's going to be quite an interesting development. Once I see some interest, I'll provide some ideas. — Deckiller 13:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Fails 1c. LuciferMorgan 13:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll fix it, but I can't do it quickly. I was the largest contributor to the article, and I have a strong interest in keeping it in good shape. However, I have little time for Wikipedia at the moment, and my interests and obligations on Wikipedia are considerably broader than they once were, so I can't fix it immediately. I do hope that nobody is proposing to remove the FA status in the meantime? -- SCZenz 13:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles are reviewed for two weeks until they are placed on FARC, which can last up to a month sometimes. — Deckiller 13:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's not much more to be "reviewed" really, until I (or others) have time to make edits to add sources. Unless you're implying that there's a precise procedural time limit? -- SCZenz 13:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles are reviewed for two weeks until they are placed on FARC, which can last up to a month sometimes. — Deckiller 13:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If work is being done, time can be extended. LuciferMorgan 13:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I don't understand why one would make it a requirement to have a lot of inline citations just for the sake of having a lot of inline citations. In this case a few citations e.g. to the ATLAS manual, is more than enough. This article is about an extremely technical subject and explains it to interested lay persons. This means that 99% of what is written is, from the technical point of view, trivial and there are then no appropriate citations for that.
- E.g. when mentioning the Standard Model, it is not appropriate to give an inline citation to original journal articles on this topic. To understand such journal articles requires years of study and it would thus not be helpful as they cannot be used for verifiability purposes by lay persons. Count Iblis 23:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- However, it's appropriate to link, paragraph-by-paragraph, to the section of the ATLAS TDR that is applicable to that paragraph. Note also that the article reflects in many cases details that have changed since the TDR was published; it's quite reasonable to expect that those facts be cited in particular. -- SCZenz 09:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm going to try to add some references for basic facts, but this really isn't my field so I won't be able to track down everything that might need a ref. — Laura Scudder ☎ 00:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments. The article is undercategorized; full biblio info (including publisher and last access date) should be given on web References and footnotes; I corrected one instance per WP:DASH—there may be others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comments not enough references.--Sefringle 20:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are citation sufficiency and formatting (1c). Marskell 14:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Question. Several editors (above) mentioned they would/could do the work, but it hasn't happened. Is this stalled? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's an awful lot of uncited hard data in here, and
the References are just blue links that need to be expanded.Is anyone working on this? There have been less than a dozen edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's an awful lot of uncited hard data in here, and
- Remove. I did what I could on referencess and footnotes. Work seems stalled, there are 1a and 1c issues. For example, there is a single-sentence paragraph hanging in Background (which is an unencylopedic section heading): Particles that are produced in accelerators must also be observed, and this is the task of particle detectors. And there are broad statements without attribution: Due to this violation of "naturalness" most particle physicists believe it is possible that the Standard Model will break down at energies beyond the current energy frontier of about one TeV (set at the Tevatron). Also: If the Higgs boson is not discovered by ATLAS, it is expected that another mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking that explains the same phenomena, such as technicolour, will be discovered. There is so little to do to meet FA standards here; it's a shame it hasn't been done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per Sandy and 1a. This is a subject I am not very familiar with, so I won't be much of a help. The lead is at least a paragraph too long per WP:LEAD, and there are some redundancies, such as "in order" to and "a variety of different", and perhaps "many different".— Deckiller 03:16, 2 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.
- 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 07:55, 5 April 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Original author aware. Messages left at Biography and Physics. LuciferMorgan 03:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm proposing a review of Robert Oppenheimer's featured status because I don't think it meets the Featured article criteria, specifically 1c (sourcing) and 1d (neutrality). With regards to sourcing, there are entire sections (several paragraphs long) that are without citations. I'm not saying there needs to be a ref tag every other sentence, but sections like #Security hearings, regarding the more controversial events of his life, certainly need to cite their sources. That section is also clearly not neutral in its defense of Oppenheimer against the government, and will need a touchup to make sure the sides are represented equally. Finally, the #Legacy section is mostly unreferenced, and contains hints of original research. Other thoughts? Picaroon 21:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can add references without difficulty, but in any case, there is no neutrality issue re: the government side of things, it is a very solid account of how it is depicted in the relevant scholarly literature. I suspect things look un-neutral to you, or like original research, because you are not familiar with the relevant literature, but in any case I can add more citations if that is desired. I see a total of one sentence with a "citation needed" tag though so it might help if you determined which of the things you think need to be referenced. Large sections don't have footnotes, correct, but that is because they are very general and well-known and the information can frankly be found in any of the large-scale biographies of Oppenheimer referenced at the bottom. --Fastfission 04:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I went through, btw, and added a few extra references for most everything that stuck out to me as needing one. Feel free to add fact tags to anything you want further references for, it is quite easy to for someone who knows the literature to do and there are a number of us who edit the article. --Fastfission 16:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I am unfamiliar with the literature; if I was familiar with the books cited, I'd have been able to fix up the parts I disagree with myself and remove the things which are more the views of the various Wikipedians than concrete, attributable facts found in books. However, as I'm unfamiliar with the literature (and don't want to make major changes in a way that might wreck the article in the view of somone knowledgeable like yourself), I can only say that things like the very first sentence of #Legacy stand out as a synthesis of opinions towards him. While these attitudes themselves are certainly sourcable, is the sentence "Robert Oppenheimer's life is usually seen to highlight a number of cultural and historical trends in the transformation of science from the 1920s through the 1950s" attributable to a source? Other things I wonder about sources for are "As a cultured, intellectual, theoretical physicist who became a disciplined military organizer, Oppenheimer represented the shift away from the idea that scientists had their "head in the clouds" and that knowledge on such previously esoteric subjects as the composition of the atomic nucleus had no "real-world" applications" and "When Oppenheimer was ejected from his position of political influence in 1954, he symbolized for many the folly of scientists thinking they could control how others would use their research. Oppenheimer has been seen as symbolizing the dilemmas involving the moral responsibility of the scientist in the nuclear world."
- With regards to the neutrality of the #Security hearings section: as someone who knows little about Oppenheimer, I come across with the view that the elements in the government were cruel and revenge-driven. The opinion of scientists who supported Oppenheimer is presented, but I don't see anything about contemporary opinions from supporters of Hoover's stance. Granted, this may be because McCarthyism is out of fashion, but has there really been no one looking back on the hearings with the opinion the government did the right thing? Picaroon 21:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, these ideas are attributable to sources. Historians and scholars can be quiet synthetic you know -- none of the language used in the article is at all uncommon to historical accounts; if you want perfunctory references then just let me know and I'll add them in. The literature is in fact full of such comments -- any of the introductions to the biographies of Oppenheimer contain the statements you ask about up there. Are there individual sources? No -- these are statements about Oppenheimer which are common to many of the books cited in the article, including but not limited to the volumes by Bird & Sherwin, Carson & Hollinger, Schweber, and McMillan.
- I've never read anything relevant (i.e. not just crazy) that thinks the government did the right thing. As for it being revenge-driven, that's pretty much the case. The article gives all the weight to the government story that there is: that Oppenheimer was inconsistent, that he sometimes lied to security officials, that he had previous left-wing connections, that his stance on the H-bomb was not as hawkish as Strauss and Teller would have liked. In the end that's all the government side adds up to. As the article states in that section his security clearance would have expired in days anyway; it is well-established in the historical scholarship (see, i.e. the McMillan book) that the case against Oppenheimer was formulated by a number of either bitter (Strauss) or unstable (Borden) individuals who were just trying to tarnish his reputation because they disagreed with his personal and political opinions. Oppenheimer was, of course, no saint, but the article points that out with candor you would not find in most popular writings (try reading anything else about Oppenheimer from a more "mainstream" source and you'll see how relatively sober our article is; it doesn't make him out to be a martyr and in fact offers rather critical discussion of the "martyr" designation).
- I don't want to say just that you don't know what you're talking about, but I do want to urge that this is an article which has been gone over pretty carefully by a number of people, one of which (myself) is what I would call a certified academic expert on the topic. It is actually a far more balanced and perceptive article than you would likely find on the internet, steering quite clear of hagiography (which is what one normally finds in the case of Oppenheimer).
- Anyway, if you want more references, or you want some of the specific statements to be converted into quotes from others, that's fine with me, just mark the passages you want and I'll substitute them. I don't think this needs a FAR though. --Fastfission 00:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While I'm not a person who tends to inflate their knowledge of a subject - I make no secret that I'm no expert on Oppenheimer, or, in fact, even remotely knowledgeable about related subjects like the Manhattan Project, Hoover, and McCarthyism - I do think my observations have been things that would've snagged this had it been an FA nowadays, and were consistent with the guidelines laid out in Featured article criteria. Opinions that are widely held and facts that are widely acknowledged in the physics community still need be clearly sourced and attributabed to sources for lay-people, like me and the rest of the general audience who reads the article. The several passages mentioned above are things I'd appreciate it if you could dredge up citations for, as is the '"wounded animal"' sentence at the beginning of #Final years - does the tourist brochure cited really say that? (And no, I'm not going to quibble about whether the tourist brochure is a reliable source, even though I suspect it isn't!) If you'd like me to withdraw this request and list the specific things I'm wondering about on the article talk page instead, I'm open to doing so. Picaroon 00:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, well I'm happy to provide references, as I said. Some are quick and easy, some require a bit of selection of something which is indicative of the general trends summarized, but it's not a hard thing to do. --Fastfission 23:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While I'm not a person who tends to inflate their knowledge of a subject - I make no secret that I'm no expert on Oppenheimer, or, in fact, even remotely knowledgeable about related subjects like the Manhattan Project, Hoover, and McCarthyism - I do think my observations have been things that would've snagged this had it been an FA nowadays, and were consistent with the guidelines laid out in Featured article criteria. Opinions that are widely held and facts that are widely acknowledged in the physics community still need be clearly sourced and attributabed to sources for lay-people, like me and the rest of the general audience who reads the article. The several passages mentioned above are things I'd appreciate it if you could dredge up citations for, as is the '"wounded animal"' sentence at the beginning of #Final years - does the tourist brochure cited really say that? (And no, I'm not going to quibble about whether the tourist brochure is a reliable source, even though I suspect it isn't!) If you'd like me to withdraw this request and list the specific things I'm wondering about on the article talk page instead, I'm open to doing so. Picaroon 00:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Footnotes need a lot of cleanup of formatting. I started, but there's a lot to do. Book references would be easier to follow if they were listed last name of author first, alphabetically, and then only referred to in the Footnotes with Author (year), p. and a page number. Page numbers aren't given on most book refs in the Notes. Is "Non-scientific by Oppenheimer" supposed to be listed in References, or should that be a Works section? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously it would be nice if it were standardized though I think this is a minor quibble and not worth really going over as part of a FAR. --Fastfission 23:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- More: em-dashes should be used consistently (space around them or not). There is unattributed opinion and quotes—example: Many people thought that Oppenheimer's discoveries and research were not commensurate with his inherent abilities and talents. Weasly unattributed statements;—example: Some scientists and historians have speculated ... Book sources don't have page numbers. Full dates need to be wiki-linked. Tony or Deckiller might want to look at the prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and POV (1d). Marskell 08:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is anyone still working on this? There are many cite tags, many more needed. Goodness that first paragraph in Scientific work is long. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove unless the prose is fixed. It's mostly well-written, so is worth the effort to attain professional standards. Here are random examples from the top of why a copy-edit throughout is required. I suppose this alone is not enough to require removal, but it should be added to other reasons, if they are not addressed.
- There are many links, most of high value. That is why an attempt should be made to delink the trivial ones, such as "English", "New York City", "Europe", "chemistry" and "horseback riding". The page looks very messy and is unnecessarily hard to read spattered with that much blue. Why is one "1953" linked?
- "Oppenheimer was known for being a quick study"?
- "citing it later as one of the most influential books to shape his philosophy of life"—Bit excessive; try: "citing it later as one of the books that shaped his philosophy of life".
- "was encouraged to go to Europe for future study"—not past study?
- "eminent but aging J.J. Thomson"—I wonder why the ageing thing is relevant; I'm ageing too.
- "Ph.D." then "Ph. D."—Why not get rid of those dots, anyway?
- "at the young age of 22"—Remove "young".
- A few stubby paragraphs that impose unnecessary chopiness on the text. Tony 23:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per citation needed tags and prose glitches. These prose deficiencies may influence the POV problems as well. POV often boils down to excessive and flowery adjective use. — Deckiller 03:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove, 1a and 1c. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1a and 1c. Jay32183 20:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per above. LuciferMorgan 22:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c, unless citations are provided.--Yannismarou 12:55, 4 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.
- 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 09:39, 13 April 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Brilliant prose promotion. Messages left at Bio, UK notice board, Politics, and Political figures. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is full of loads on unsourced statements and has only a few references! NO Feature article should have a statement like "By the 1997 general election Major had come to be seen as an unfashionable, ineffectual and grey figure unable to control an increasingly divided and sleaze-ridden party." Not only should this phrase be reworded but the article status should be changed. Its a B class at least. It definately needs to go through a review process and needs improving. Other examples include unsources quotes e.g. "when the curtain falls, it is time to get off the stage". Similar examples include:
Major's recent low-profile political career was disrupted by the revelation in September 2002 that, prior to his promotion to the Cabinet, Major had had a four-year extramarital affair with a fellow MP, Edwina Currie. Commentators were quick to refer to Major's previous "Back to Basics" platform to throw charges of hypocrisy. Max Hastings in his book Editor in 2002 also commented on Sarah Hogg, a colleague at The Daily Telegraph, "Sarah knew Major intimately, in a way none of the rest of us did".
There is a lot of stuff here, just in the one above paragraph that would support its review. I would argue that the article does not meet FA criteria any more. This is because it is
- 1.) Not Well written, the prose is not good, the article is fragmented.
- 2.) The article is not "Factually accurate" - there are loads of unsourced statements, only two references to any of his comprehensive biographies or those about his government and there are no page numbers!). LordHarris 23:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, the lead does not summarize the body of text and there is a trivia section. Jay32183 00:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There were two seperate honours section! Have merged the two, needs a few references though. Also removed the see also category (as only had a link to Majors cabinets) and moved that to the PM section of the article. Have tidied up some of the last sections, moved the wiki link to the end and put them together. Ive also removed the ridiculous speculation (unsources) that John Major was the PM in Harry Potter! Ive also edited the introduction to introduce Major and his PMship better, as well as summarise in reference to the above comment.LordHarris 17:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have done a bit of a tidy to media representation section, as well as a few references and a quote box. Ive picked up a biography of Major from the library, will try to add some references over the coming days. Some help in the review on references would be most appreciated. LordHarris 18:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added about 10 more references from news sites to his 'since leaving office' section. There were two '1997 defeat' sections and have merged those into one, making it flow until the after office section. Ive added some citation needed facts as well.LordHarris 19:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have tried to improve, but its still several grades away from being an FA. We need more users to try and tidy up the article + provide references. Definately think this needs to go to FARC at this rate. LordHarris 18:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments. Full dates are not wikilinked when they should be, and solo years are linked when they shouldn't be. The footnotes are a wreck of blue linked URL's; they need to include title, publisher, last access date, and author, publication date when available, presented in a standard biblio format. (cite templates can be used if editors don't know how to format refs; see WP:CITE/ES). It's surprising that very few book sources are used. There are punctuation errors and numerous cite tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how this is a featured article. Poorly referenced with many uncited sentences and sections. You can't trust it as it seems it's written from one person's point of view. Citations would solve this - or more of them.There could be more images or relevance, references are not cited in the correct format. Nowhere near a FA, but I will try and help. Whataboutbob 21:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are factual accuracy and citations (1c), POV statements (1d), and prose (1a). Marskell 10:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 22:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c and 1a LordHarris 08:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. Per above.--Yannismarou 15:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove above concerns not addressed. Jay32183 20:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove As all above Whataboutbob 21:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove— 1a issues and 1c decificiencies. — Deckiller 09:28, 11 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.
- 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 07:45, 10 April 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Messages left at Jwrosenzweig, Religion, and Christianity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the primary contributors to this article, I don't think it meets current FA standards. In particular, it doesn't cite its sources. --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As a minor contributor to the article, I deferred to Flex's expertise throughout my work there, so I won't disagree fully. But, Flex, I wonder if we shouldn't simply decide what needs citations and add them, rather than decertifying and recertifying the article? Certainly it's informative, and accurate as far as I can tell, and there are a few citations (although I admit more could be added). Anyhow, if we are going to de-FA for this reason, maybe some kind of list should be made of what, specifically, needs citation so that it's clear what work is ahead? Jwrosenzweig 01:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm all for making it fit the current FA criteria and keeping it an FA, which would certainly mean adding the sources of which you speak. However, I have my hands full working on other articles at the moment (trying to get Christianity and alcohol to GA and then to FA). So if that can't be done in relatively short order by someone other than me, I tend to think it should be demoted for now. Making a list of what needs to be sourced, as you suggest, would be a good first step and would allow multiple people to contribute to the improvement effort. --Flex (talk|contribs) 01:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All right, some fact tags were there already, and I added an exhaustive list of my own. In my opinion, some of these tags may be a little unnecessary, but resolving them would prevent any allegation that a key piece of information is unsourced. Sadly, I lack expertise to track sources for many of these topics. Here is the list, as described by me:
- the basic definition of PA
- its origins and current use in Reformed churches
- the "key discriminator" of PA from other types of apologetics
- PA criticisms of the "block house" method
- the evidentialist conclusion about the Bible
- the central idea of the Van Tilian argument
a quotation of C.S. Lewis- two paraphrases of Van Til and Bahnsen in a parenthetic remark
- a paraphrase from Romans
- Frame's perspective on the Holy Spirit
- Clark's axiomatic approach,
- Clark's translation of John 1:1
- Clark's allowance of competing worldviews,
- the distinction between Van Til and Clark
- Clark's dismissal of Thomistic arguments,
- the allegation of circular reasoning
- the beliefs of Van Tilians about presuppositions
- the Van Tilian approach to fideism
- a defense of the concept of circular argument
- Clarkians' reliance on the axioms of Scripture,
- the unbeliever's demonstration of the truth of theism
- the use of evidence to argue in "broader circles" by Van Tilians.
Daunting, I know. All of these are currently marked with fact tags, and appear in the order I have listed them, should any of my descriptions be confusing or vague. I will copy this list also to the article's talk page. I guess we need volunteers to help resolve these questions. Anyone? Jwrosenzweig 01:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lead section should say something very briefly about the history of the subject e.g. when it started. Andries 21:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concern is citing sources (1c). Marskell 11:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 10:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c, and the "references" and "notes" sections need a better organization.--Yannismarou 12:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, Remove—1c. Don't the contributors care? Tony 23:05, 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.
- 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 19:31, 8 April 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Messages left at Jeronimo, Biography and France. LuciferMorgan 18:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No inline citations, only one very generic reference, too short lead, sub-FA prose level (one-sentence paragraphs)... would be B-level now. —Onomatopoeia 12:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some inline references I have added. What I find missing in the article is mention of her influence on women tennis in terms of style, dressing sense and her media darling image. STTW (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments WP:LEAD is inadequate; WP:DASH review needed—incorrect use throughout; footnotes need publisher and author, publication date when available, and last access date on websources; the article has a lot of unattributed opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Work needed per WP:LEAD, and the structure should be tweaked. Referencing is a problem. Ceoil 23:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), and LEAD (2a). Marskell 09:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 09:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c & 2a. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove no improvements to list of deficiencies above. (Gosh that's a long sig ahead of me :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 3 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.
- 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 03:50, 21 April 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Message left at GWO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Messages left at Seabiscuit and Thoroughbred racing.
Doesn't satisfy 1(c). One source, and for something that barely matters in the article. Doesn't really satisfy 1(a) either. Jerichi~Profile~Talk~ 15:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Jerichi. We don't "sup", "opp", "rm" or "kp" at this point. We try for a couple weeks of commentary, and hopefully improvements, and then move the review to FARC. Marskell 16:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad. I'm a little new to the Featured Article area; I tend to work more around the GA area. Jerichi~Profile~Talk~ 19:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- remove there are no secondary sources, and only one thing is sourced.--Sefringle 20:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concern is citations (1c), and prose (1a). Marskell 08:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional concern There are two unfree images, neither of which contain a fair use rationale. Jay32183 18:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Remove for deficiency of references. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c. Send me a message if things change drastically change. Quadzilla99 09:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove - If anyone can help add citations and fair use rationales, let us know. This article needs a lot of citations and the two unfree images must contain fair use rationales. This article really needs a lot of work on the citations and fair use rationales on the two unfree images. Sjones23 20:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, wait, prose is needed. Sjones23 20:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added "citation needed" tags to various places where applicable. Anything else? Sjones23 20:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 22:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per Nomination Jerichi~Profile~Talk~ 01:29, 9 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.
- 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 08:05, 27 April 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Messages left at MilHist and Kafziel. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel really terrible listing an article for FAR, but it's a learning experience as I've never done it before. Well, basically I think the article isn't quite up to FA standards. It's close, but I think the criteria back then is different to the very high standards now. Well, the bottom of the list feels a bit listy, with a very short description of a select group of invasion examples. The see also section is in the wrong place (I'd do it myself, but I thought I'd leave it for now to show the article's state...) On top of that, it is a lot shorter than one would hope for a large topic such as this. Other minor stuff is there, but over all I think the article needs a big expansion & removal from the listy elements (Maybe a larger section on the invasions?). I have no intentions of removing the article's status, merely hoping for it to get a makeover. Thanks Spawn Man 11:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Spawnman, can you please notify any relevant WikiProjects (usually listed on the talk page) and original author (usually on the FAC) with {{subst:FARMessage|Invasion}}? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did actually (forgot author though). Thanks for making me feel like a newb again who doesn't know how to edit on here.... :( Spawn Man 23:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry — I didn't mean to do that :-) Just trying to get more nominators to do that work, as it's so tiring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did actually (forgot author though). Thanks for making me feel like a newb again who doesn't know how to edit on here.... :( Spawn Man 23:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- remove not enough material is sourced--Sefringle 20:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sefringle, please don't declare "remove" unless/until it's moved down to FARC. Tony 23:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the prose can do with a run-through during this process. Tony 23:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are lists and sectioning (2), comprehensiveness (1b), and prose (1a). Marskell 07:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove—significant issues with excessive headings and mini-sections. Refs aren't a major issue, but the prose needs a massage (an example: "There are many different methods by which an invasion can take place, each method having arguments both in their favor and against.") — Deckiller 00:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per above reasoning. LuciferMorgan 18:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove as for Tyler's reasoning. 1a's a problem, too; take the opener: "An invasion is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of conquering territory, or altering the established government." Strictly speaking (and we should be strict about the exposed openings), the first clause is ungrammatical—there's a possessive–gerund issue (nominal group possessive plus gerund ("entering"); "the entering by ..." is required. Why a comma after "territory"? Tony 23:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. Per Deckiller.--Yannismarou 13:04, 17 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.
- 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 17:18, 1 April 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) informed via email. Messages left at Leithp, Biography and MilHist. LuciferMorgan 16:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Message left at UK notice board. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails 1c, as there are zero inline citations. Seems pretty well-written, not sure if it fails anything else yet though, hence sending it here.--Wizardman 16:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Rather, I'd like it to be looked at and possibly delisted because it fails 1d with it's POV language. Let's ignore 1c during the debate (to prevent more people quitting) and just concentrate on 1d.--Wizardman 15:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Actually, in this case, the problems with 1c are problems with 2 as well; see WP:MILHIST#CITE. Kirill Lokshin 13:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The last part of that guideline is completely ridiculous. It means that anyone, no matter how incompetent, can demand a citation anywhere. How is that compatible with consensus building? / Peter Isotalo 00:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We can discuss that particular point at our leisure, but it's the first five parts that are actually the issue here. Kirill Lokshin 12:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The last part of that guideline is completely ridiculous. It means that anyone, no matter how incompetent, can demand a citation anywhere. How is that compatible with consensus building? / Peter Isotalo 00:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, in this case, the problems with 1c are problems with 2 as well; see WP:MILHIST#CITE. Kirill Lokshin 13:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The intro could be reworded to be more encyclopedic and less promotional. Wandalstouring 17:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems perfectly well written and informative. I see no problem with it. If other editors, as at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Restoration literature, have a problem merely because it lacks footnotes or whatever, I suggest they add them rather than expect other people who see no problem to do so. The references are all listed, so it is just a quick trip to the library for those that feel so strongly on the subject. Giano 10:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly a good point. Alas in my case, I just check the library databases and none of the books are in any libraries near me. It is very well-written, except for the lead which kinda sounds pov to me.--Wizardman 13:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Fails criterion 1. c., listed at WP:WIAFA. If nobody addresses the problem, the article will be defeatured in one month'ish. LuciferMorgan 22:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No Lucifer, it will not. That is not the way these things happen, as you very well know. If you don't like the page - fix it yourself. Giano 22:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ghost on Cite-countitis
[edit]The whole point of this wondrous review process, as I understand it, should be to see if an article's QUALITY has declined over time. It hasn't. Except for some minor, mostly positive, additions/corrections it is essentially the same as when it appeared on the mainpage on Boxing day 2005. Go on, check the history and see. The only major thing which has changed since then has been the tumor-like growth of citation-countitis. When I wrote the bulk of this article, inline cites were not a writ in stone requirement...they were a suggestion and stylistic choice. But over time more and more started suggesting and doing it that it became derigueur...almost to the point now that many FAs and FACs suffer from deriguer-mortis due to over-citation. Is it really necessary for Half-Life 2 to have over 5 dozen cites?! Some Pokemon articles have even more! So Quality here now means verifiability which means cite-counts...all else has become secondary. Overtime this means all Wiki-FAs will read like a bunch of Ibids, which no one really wrote and no one really wants to read either. It is unfair to apply new standards to old FA's unless the quality has notably and drastically decayed. This is clearly not the case here. Wikipedia is not an academic institution nor a professional journal, nor should it put up the pretense that it is in anyway. Requiring every sentence in every FA to be cited will not make the project better, nor improve its notorious reputation for inaccuracy and mediocrity.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 15:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was reading through the LHCMA online source and was disturbed to find that the prose of the "Early life and the First World War" section in the Wikipedia article adheres quite closely to the LHCMA text. Compare, for example:
- LHCMA: "Richard Nugent O'Connor was born in Srinigar, Kashmir in India on 21 August 1889"
- WP: "O'Connor was born in Srinagar, Kashmir, India, on August 21, 1889."
- LHCMA: "He was posted to Colchester in January 1910 where he attended a signalling and musketry course. During 1911 to 1912, the battalion was stationed in Malta, with O'Connor as Regimental Signal Officer."
- WP: "In January 1910, the battalion was posted to Colchester, where he received signals and rifle training. It was then stationed in Malta from 1911 to 1912 where O'Connor served as Regimental Signals Officer."
- LHCMA: "O'Connor's early service during World War I included periods as Signal Officer of 22 Brigade in 7 Division; Captain, in command of 7 Division Signal Company; and Brigade Major in 91 Brigade, 7 Division. In February 1915 he was awarded the Military Cross, and in March of that year saw service in the Battle of Arras, and attacks on Bullecourt."
- WP: "During World War I, O'Connor served as Signals Officer of 22 Brigade in the 7th Division and captain, in command of 7th Division's Signals Company and brevet brigade major in 91 Brigade, 7th Division. He was awarded the Military Cross in February 1915. In March of that year he saw action at Arras and Bullecourt."
- LHCMA: "In June 1917, O'Connor was appointed temporary Lt Col and commander of 2 Infantry Battalion in the Honourable Artillery Company, as part of 7 Division, and was awarded the DSO."
- WP: "O'Connor was awarded the DSO and appointed brevet lieutenant-colonel in command of 1st Infantry Battalion of the Honourable Artillery Company, part of the 7th Division, in June 1917."
- LHCMA: "The Division was transferred in November that year to the Italian Front, near the River Piave, for operations against Austrian forces. In late October 1918, O'Connor was directed to capture the island of Grave di Papadopoli on the River Piave. The operation was successfully carried out by 2 Battalion between 24 and 27 October, and O'Connor was awarded the Italian Silver Medal of Honour and a Bar to his DSO."
- WP: "In November, the division was transferred to the Italian Front at the River Piave to assist the Italians against Austro-Hungarian forces. In late October 1918, O'Connor was directed to capture the island of Grave di Papadopoli on the Piave River. This mission was successfully accomplished by 2nd Battalion, and O'Connor was awarded the Italian Silver Medal of Honour along with a bar to add to his DSO."
- LHCMA: "O'Connor worked alongside Maj Gen B L Montgomery, Commander of 8 Division, to monitor and control areas of unrest between the Arab and Jewish communities.
- WP (Inter-War years): "It was here he worked alongside Major-General Bernard Montgomery, commander of the 8th Division, to try to quell unrest between the Jewish and Arab communities."
- LHCMA: "In August 1939, 7 (later 6) Division was transferred to the fortress at Mersa Matruh, Egypt where O'Connor was concerned with the defences of the area in view of the massed forces of the Italian Tenth Army over the border in Libya."
- WP (Inter-War years): "In August 1939, 7th Division was transferred to the fortress at Mersa Matruh, Egypt, where O'Connor was concerned with defending the area against a potential attack from the massed forces of the Italian Tenth Army over the border in Libya."
- Although there are certain tweaks to the phrasing, this basically amounts to plagiarism (this is why citing sources is essential!). Much of the rest of the article diverges from the LHCMA summary format and goes into much greater detail. However, it would be a good idea to check the WP article against the print sources (to which I don't have access) for possible plagiarism as well. Gzkn 08:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The information you say is plagiarism. looks to me like reporting of basuc facts, which can only be written in so many different ways, for instance:
- LHCMA: "Richard Nugent O'Connor was born in Srinigar, Kashmir in India on 21 August 1889"
- WP: "O'Connor was born in Srinagar, Kashmir, India, on August 21, 1889."
I don't see how that could be written in any other way - would "While crying lustily [1] on the 21st day of August 1889 [2], in the little known [3] town of Srinigar located [4] in Kashmir a province of India, the small, pink but beautifully formed [5], Richard Nugent O'Connor made his first joyous appearance into the world" be any better of more encyclopedic? I think the same could be said of the other points you have found. There is a limit to readable encycloped phraseology of basic facts. Giano 09:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, yes, I certainly agree that it would be hard to write his birth in any other way. But I fail to see how taken as a whole, this doesn't constitute plagiarism. If you had submitted this as a college paper, you'd be kicked out. If you wrote this up and published this in the real world, you'd be fired by your editor. Gzkn 09:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Damn I wish I'd used that opening Giano! And thank you for giving me the first genuine laugh I've had on here in many moons:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 15:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is my understanding that plagiarism isn't the problem for wikipedia that copyvio is - In fact, really as all we do is report what secondary sources tell us - all of wikipedia is plagiarism. Copyright violation is another matter. You cannot copyright facts, only verbiage - so if you've included the same facts and changed the verbiage then you're ok (I'm no lawyer, but this is how I understand the law). This article seems to sail a bit close to the wind on the verbiage and there are sentence clauses which need looking at, but the author has obviously gone to the trouble of rewording most of the sentences. --Joopercoopers 11:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, plagiarism isn't reporting what secondary sources say; it's reporting it using the same or very similar phrasing (see here for a good example of paraphrasing that is OK and paraphrasing that is not OK), which is what is done here. Also, I'm not sure where it's stated that plagiarism is OK in Wikipedia. If Wikipedia allows plagiarism in articles, that policy/guideline surely needs to be changed. Gzkn 11:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that site includes the phrase plagiarism is: "any facts, statistics, graphs, drawings—any pieces of information—that are not common knowledge." In that case when writing about the obscure people and subjects I write about - I can't even ref an obscure fact to a particular reference book - because I didn't discover the fact, and as "own research" is banned - looks like half the pages on wikipedia are going to have to be deleted for plagiarism. C'mon we need to get real here Giano 11:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Couldn't you just, y'know, cite where you got the fact from? Plagiarsm doesn't refer merely to taking things from other sources; that's perfectly fine. It's only when you take things from other sources and don't credit them that it becomes a problem. Kirill Lokshin 12:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Gzkn, I don't dispute this article has been plagiarised, I don't think it's a good idea, but as far as I'm aware there's nothing to prevent plagiarism on wikipedia - the policy relates to copyright violation. That's a nice link you provide for any student wanting to know how not to fall foul of a university/college/shool's rules - but wikipedia is neither of these. In any event the article says authors need to be cited if they are paraphrased - I see the reference is provided as no.1 in the references section. We just need to decide whether or not the prose constitutes copyright infringement. --Joopercoopers 12:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So if we just cited that website for those chunks of text, are we getting somewhere? And Giano, I find it how you're so adamant about refs not beign a big deal when you could certainly take care of that as well. That's onyl plaigarism currently due to no citations, is it still plaigiarism if we add them in? Probably not. I think I opened a can of worms on this FAR...--Wizardman 15:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ignoring the issue of prose, which doesn't look to be a problem anyway, there's no need to cite this material to avoid plagiarism, of all things. The items you identify, like the guy's birthdate and military appointments, are obvious common knowledge. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So if we just cited that website for those chunks of text, are we getting somewhere? And Giano, I find it how you're so adamant about refs not beign a big deal when you could certainly take care of that as well. That's onyl plaigarism currently due to no citations, is it still plaigiarism if we add them in? Probably not. I think I opened a can of worms on this FAR...--Wizardman 15:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Gzkn, I don't dispute this article has been plagiarised, I don't think it's a good idea, but as far as I'm aware there's nothing to prevent plagiarism on wikipedia - the policy relates to copyright violation. That's a nice link you provide for any student wanting to know how not to fall foul of a university/college/shool's rules - but wikipedia is neither of these. In any event the article says authors need to be cited if they are paraphrased - I see the reference is provided as no.1 in the references section. We just need to decide whether or not the prose constitutes copyright infringement. --Joopercoopers 12:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Couldn't you just, y'know, cite where you got the fact from? Plagiarsm doesn't refer merely to taking things from other sources; that's perfectly fine. It's only when you take things from other sources and don't credit them that it becomes a problem. Kirill Lokshin 12:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that site includes the phrase plagiarism is: "any facts, statistics, graphs, drawings—any pieces of information—that are not common knowledge." In that case when writing about the obscure people and subjects I write about - I can't even ref an obscure fact to a particular reference book - because I didn't discover the fact, and as "own research" is banned - looks like half the pages on wikipedia are going to have to be deleted for plagiarism. C'mon we need to get real here Giano 11:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't flatter yourself too much...all you've really done is start another tempest in a teapot...an all too common sin of late round these parts. Still, I hope it works out for you and your IRC buddies let you into the cabal for performing this lil service for them. You deserve eachother.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 15:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying above - could you rephrase? Giano 16:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, plagiarism isn't reporting what secondary sources say; it's reporting it using the same or very similar phrasing (see here for a good example of paraphrasing that is OK and paraphrasing that is not OK), which is what is done here. Also, I'm not sure where it's stated that plagiarism is OK in Wikipedia. If Wikipedia allows plagiarism in articles, that policy/guideline surely needs to be changed. Gzkn 11:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article very badly needs inline citations. It doesn't look like it should be a problem article, since there are books listed at the end. Anyone interested in the subject should be able to cite it. Jay32183 01:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone interested in actually checking those sources should read them. Since you're assigning this task to other editors, I assume you haven't done as much. So what possessed you to assume that there are claims in the article that are controversial or difficult to verify? Not mere footnote counting, I hope. If you want to question fact statements you should have a good reason to do so. Blaming the lack of individual page citations without a specific reason to do so is not constructive criticism. Peter Isotalo 15:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Any claim that isn't made to a specific source, which is every claim in this article, is difficult to verify. The general reader should not be expected to read all of every book on a subject just to make sure the article is correct. I do not count inline citations, but this article isn't even close to "Good Article".This article either gets citations or gets removed, end of story. Jay32183 00:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jay, I'd like you to consider something if you'd indulge me. If I pointed you to page 36 of a book where a particular sentence said erm ".........Jay vanquished all of his enemies, ate their livers and would regularly play football with their heads before retiring to bed with his supermodel harem" but page 35 had said something like "The pattern of imperial defeat and humiliation stands in stark contrast to the propaganda of the day, which held that" page turns to 36 "Jay vanquished........" - This is probably an extreme example, but makes my point - pages in sources need to be read in context, what comes before and after, affects what is written in the text and often whole pages cannot be read in isolation. WP:ATT and WP:CITE only ask that sources be reliable and facts verifiable, not that we should feed verifiers with page numbers that might not tell the whole picture. --Joopercoopers 11:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is why you would need to cite the page numbers for all of the information, not just some of it. The example you give shows one part of that being cited and the rest uncited. I would now have the ability to verify that statement without reading all of every book listed as a source. This is a general purpose encyclopedia; every user needs to be able to verify any random fact without doing an independant research project. Otherwise there is no point for anyone to actually use Wikipedia. By the way, the only way for the amount of citation this article currently has to meet FA standards would be to make the Tropical cyclones project to stop making articles, because they always use citations to the level the FAR and FARC regulars expect. Jay32183 18:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. What I was suggesting is that pointing to specific page numbers might not necessarily be the panacea you think it is. Statements in sources often require context and for the purposes of verification, that context might be the entire book (horror of horrors!). Theses are established from premises and then tested - to dip into that at an arbitrary point might misrepresent the thrust of the book and so the whole purpose of citation - ie. verifiability is lost - the easy quick fix you seem to want is flawed. Anyway, thorough inline citations are simply not policy - why are you arbitrarily deciding that because a defacto standard has emerged from a small group of editors that are encamped at FAC and FARC that this is consensus of the community regarding policy? The policy wording is woolly I'll readily admit, the where necessary needs some definition, but blanket citations certainly aren't the spiriti of the policy. regards --Joopercoopers 23:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It does not matter how you rationalize it. The fact that this article has a significant portion of uncited text means it does not represent Wikipedia's best work. Either add citations or stop complaining that people are upset that they aren't there. As I've said in previous FARs and FARC, all arguments against adding inline citation boil down to laziness. The article can't be feautured and have people claiming that the article does not need to be held to the same standard that all the other articles are held to. Jay32183 00:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh, please read the policy 'complemented by inline citations where appropriate'. Wikipedias best work is thus not contingent, as you maintain, on inline citations. It does matter how things are rationalised, but you clearly haven't bothered to read or comprehend anything I've written if you can characterise it as an argument for laziness. Sticking you fingers in your ears and singing 'la la la' is no way to debate. --Joopercoopers 00:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jay, you do have a lot of nerve in trying to brand anyone who requests a specification as being lazy. I think we need to be blunt about this: ¡¡¡M0aR N0tZ0RS!!! isn't amendable regardless how hysterical other FA authors are about footnoting. Go read up on the topic and get back to us when you can specify reasonable doubts. / Peter Isotalo 00:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If inline citations are not added I will vote "remove" when this article goes to FARC. If there is not consensus to keep then the article will be removed from featured status. I am very familiar with FA criteria, anyone suggesting this article meets FA standards is clearly not. There are five complete sections that are uncited, which is ubsurd to consider for FA status. You should probably know that arguing against adding inline citations has never once saved an article, but adding inline citations has saved many. All FAs need to be held to the same standard. I can not be bullied into anything. This article flat out fails WP:ATT, because five sections of text are not at all attributed to reliable sources. If the infomation were harmful to the article or to Wikipedia as a whole I would delete it outright. There isn't anything harmful, but that doesn't mean it meets FA standards. Jay32183 01:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, well your position is clearly entrenched (and strident!). But you should realise that consensus is not unanimity and it would be a terrible shame if this article lost its status. --Joopercoopers 01:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It will be a shame if this article lost its status, which is why citations should be added. Don't kid yourself, it is one or the other. Consensus is not does not need to be unanimous, but one editor saying "this is a significant problem" out weighs a million editors saying "I like it". Jay32183 01:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So then please point to that which you think is unverifiable or from an unreliable source. Your assertion that every user needs to be able to verify any random fact without doing an independant research project is a misrepresentation of the policy and so you just saying 'I don't like it' and I'd like to implement a different policy should also be discounted. --Joopercoopers 01:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While you are having a think about that you might be interested in the actual poilcy formation that is going on here. --Joopercoopers 01:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So then please point to that which you think is unverifiable or from an unreliable source. Your assertion that every user needs to be able to verify any random fact without doing an independant research project is a misrepresentation of the policy and so you just saying 'I don't like it' and I'd like to implement a different policy should also be discounted. --Joopercoopers 01:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It will be a shame if this article lost its status, which is why citations should be added. Don't kid yourself, it is one or the other. Consensus is not does not need to be unanimous, but one editor saying "this is a significant problem" out weighs a million editors saying "I like it". Jay32183 01:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, well your position is clearly entrenched (and strident!). But you should realise that consensus is not unanimity and it would be a terrible shame if this article lost its status. --Joopercoopers 01:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If inline citations are not added I will vote "remove" when this article goes to FARC. If there is not consensus to keep then the article will be removed from featured status. I am very familiar with FA criteria, anyone suggesting this article meets FA standards is clearly not. There are five complete sections that are uncited, which is ubsurd to consider for FA status. You should probably know that arguing against adding inline citations has never once saved an article, but adding inline citations has saved many. All FAs need to be held to the same standard. I can not be bullied into anything. This article flat out fails WP:ATT, because five sections of text are not at all attributed to reliable sources. If the infomation were harmful to the article or to Wikipedia as a whole I would delete it outright. There isn't anything harmful, but that doesn't mean it meets FA standards. Jay32183 01:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It does not matter how you rationalize it. The fact that this article has a significant portion of uncited text means it does not represent Wikipedia's best work. Either add citations or stop complaining that people are upset that they aren't there. As I've said in previous FARs and FARC, all arguments against adding inline citation boil down to laziness. The article can't be feautured and have people claiming that the article does not need to be held to the same standard that all the other articles are held to. Jay32183 00:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. What I was suggesting is that pointing to specific page numbers might not necessarily be the panacea you think it is. Statements in sources often require context and for the purposes of verification, that context might be the entire book (horror of horrors!). Theses are established from premises and then tested - to dip into that at an arbitrary point might misrepresent the thrust of the book and so the whole purpose of citation - ie. verifiability is lost - the easy quick fix you seem to want is flawed. Anyway, thorough inline citations are simply not policy - why are you arbitrarily deciding that because a defacto standard has emerged from a small group of editors that are encamped at FAC and FARC that this is consensus of the community regarding policy? The policy wording is woolly I'll readily admit, the where necessary needs some definition, but blanket citations certainly aren't the spiriti of the policy. regards --Joopercoopers 23:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is why you would need to cite the page numbers for all of the information, not just some of it. The example you give shows one part of that being cited and the rest uncited. I would now have the ability to verify that statement without reading all of every book listed as a source. This is a general purpose encyclopedia; every user needs to be able to verify any random fact without doing an independant research project. Otherwise there is no point for anyone to actually use Wikipedia. By the way, the only way for the amount of citation this article currently has to meet FA standards would be to make the Tropical cyclones project to stop making articles, because they always use citations to the level the FAR and FARC regulars expect. Jay32183 18:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jay, I'd like you to consider something if you'd indulge me. If I pointed you to page 36 of a book where a particular sentence said erm ".........Jay vanquished all of his enemies, ate their livers and would regularly play football with their heads before retiring to bed with his supermodel harem" but page 35 had said something like "The pattern of imperial defeat and humiliation stands in stark contrast to the propaganda of the day, which held that" page turns to 36 "Jay vanquished........" - This is probably an extreme example, but makes my point - pages in sources need to be read in context, what comes before and after, affects what is written in the text and often whole pages cannot be read in isolation. WP:ATT and WP:CITE only ask that sources be reliable and facts verifiable, not that we should feed verifiers with page numbers that might not tell the whole picture. --Joopercoopers 11:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Any claim that isn't made to a specific source, which is every claim in this article, is difficult to verify. The general reader should not be expected to read all of every book on a subject just to make sure the article is correct. I do not count inline citations, but this article isn't even close to "Good Article".This article either gets citations or gets removed, end of story. Jay32183 00:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone interested in actually checking those sources should read them. Since you're assigning this task to other editors, I assume you haven't done as much. So what possessed you to assume that there are claims in the article that are controversial or difficult to verify? Not mere footnote counting, I hope. If you want to question fact statements you should have a good reason to do so. Blaming the lack of individual page citations without a specific reason to do so is not constructive criticism. Peter Isotalo 15:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (removing indent for spacing) Generally, any statement containing a number, including a date, should have an inline citation. I can get a lot pickier than that after this first step is taken care of. It's not worth the effort to add fact tags if I know no one will add citations. Jay32183 03:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So the verifiability of an article is judged by what individual editors think is a fact rather than what actually is a fact? I'm pretty sure that if you had taken the time and effort to do research, just like the article author(s), and explained why you thought certain statements had to have a citation, you'd probably have gotten a few of your requests granted by now. Or at least a good explanation as to why they would be unnecessary or even inappropriate. But you've already decided on your course of action. Hell, you're even telling us you're not going to specify your criticism properly until the FARC and that you're seeing this as punitive bureaucratic maneuver, rather than a review of article quality. That "any statement containing a numer, including, a date" has to be cited by default is patently ridiculous and results only in layout disasters. It makes a mockery out of proper citation formats and serves only to add the illusion of increased verifiability. Peter Isotalo 11:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To your first question, yes. WP:ATT and WP:V both state this quite clearly. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true". When I write articles I add citations as I go, I don't wait for people to tell me they're missing. After a few times of not doing that, every Wikipedia editor learns that or leaves the project. If none of the military history specialists are going to work on this then I will absolutely decide "remove" when it comes time for FARC, which will happen because no one is working on adding the citations. If your problem with cite.php really is a "layout nightmare" then I suggest you leave Wikipedia to work on a paper encyclopedia. Jay32183 18:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for sharing your views with us Jay. Although those are views not peculiar to us all, I note that yours is only one vote towards acheiving concensus. I very much hope Peter does not follow your suggestion and leave as he is a valued editor here. Giano 18:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When I originally put this up for FAR, I did it to see the consensus on where and when the 1c criteria should be applied, as well as if this article needs it to stay at FA status. I didn't intend for the war that it's turning out to be, with people threatening to quit. I mean, I've seen users who tag one-sentence stubs as unreferenced and whine that those need citations (which is going way too far), so I've seen the whole scale of ref necessity. I'm contemplating pullign this off of FAR just because it's clear that nothing's going to change on this article.--Wizardman 18:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One editor the author has quit, and it has just been suggested another does too because he does not agree with Jay. Quite a lot us do not agree with what goes on down here but we have no intention of quitting, no matter how hot it is made for us and the articles we edit. Giano 18:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If an editor quit because he or she refuses to use inline citations then good, it is beneficial to Wikipedia as a whole. If this article were not yet an FA and you submitted it to GAC it would fail. The article is at best B-class, I'm not even nit-picking yet; I only do that to A-class articles that already passed GA or an article with the people defending willing to do work. This discussion is showing that the primary editors of the article do not care to bring this article up to FA standards and would rather bring FA standards down to this article. That always results in removing the article from FA status. Giano it is seriously time to put up or shut up. Do the work or stop defending the article, because you are only wasting everyone's time with this piece of trash article that blantantly fails WP:ATT an official Wikipeida policy. Jay32183 19:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One editor the author has quit, and it has just been suggested another does too because he does not agree with Jay. Quite a lot us do not agree with what goes on down here but we have no intention of quitting, no matter how hot it is made for us and the articles we edit. Giano 18:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When I originally put this up for FAR, I did it to see the consensus on where and when the 1c criteria should be applied, as well as if this article needs it to stay at FA status. I didn't intend for the war that it's turning out to be, with people threatening to quit. I mean, I've seen users who tag one-sentence stubs as unreferenced and whine that those need citations (which is going way too far), so I've seen the whole scale of ref necessity. I'm contemplating pullign this off of FAR just because it's clear that nothing's going to change on this article.--Wizardman 18:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for sharing your views with us Jay. Although those are views not peculiar to us all, I note that yours is only one vote towards acheiving concensus. I very much hope Peter does not follow your suggestion and leave as he is a valued editor here. Giano 18:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To your first question, yes. WP:ATT and WP:V both state this quite clearly. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true". When I write articles I add citations as I go, I don't wait for people to tell me they're missing. After a few times of not doing that, every Wikipedia editor learns that or leaves the project. If none of the military history specialists are going to work on this then I will absolutely decide "remove" when it comes time for FARC, which will happen because no one is working on adding the citations. If your problem with cite.php really is a "layout nightmare" then I suggest you leave Wikipedia to work on a paper encyclopedia. Jay32183 18:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are the one who feels strongly that the work needs doing, so I suggest you prove your worth here, and do it. Giano 19:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not have the expertise in military history to do this article justice. The article will be much better off if it is improved by some one who is actually interested and fully understands the subject matter. In addition, if FAR regulars fixed every article that came through here, none of us would have time to do anything else. It's not really your unwillingness to do the work that bothers me, it's your blind defense of this article as if it actually meets FA standards that bothers me. The article doesn't meet FA standards and you need to accept that. It would be great if all articles were FAs, but it quality not quantity so we need to have strict quality standards or the overall quality of Wikipedia degrades. Jay32183 19:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My God... Get off that high horse and get realistic. There are no bloody FA reviewer privileges. You don't have the right to put down other people's work just because you feel like it or because it fails to please an extremely specific form of article referencing. Especially not when openly and shamelessly admitting to complete ignorance of the topic. We're protesting because we think that the FA requirements have become so narrowly defined that even a perfectly good article like this can be demoted by people who don't take article reviews seriously. Now if you want to put your money where your mouth is, why don't you come and try your fine skillz as a FA reviewer on the article I've recently nominated for an FAC? It's called medieval cuisine and is over 40k long and has less than 30 footnotes. Some paragraphs don't even have a citations... Scandalous! So let's put your sense of what FAC consensus really is to the test. C'mon. I dare ya. Don't forget to add a few lines to your objection about what a terrible burden my contributions to English Wikipedia have been. I'm sure you'll be quite the rabble-rouser! Peter Isotalo 20:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are flat out wrong that this article is anywhere close to FA standards. If the next words you say are not "I will start adding citations" or "I will find some who can add citations" or "This article needs a lot of work" then you need to stop talking all together. Defending this article is a bad idea. Your opinion of the FA criteria is irrelevant. This article meeting the FA criteria is the only thing that matters in this discussion. Like I said put up or shut up. You cannnot defend an article you have no intention of improving. I'm not nitpicking, I'm not counting citations. I don't care how many there are. I see numbers in the prose with no citations, which is a violation not only of Wikipedia policy and FA standards but of the Military History Project guidelines. I don't care what you opinion of me is, and I will continue to treat all articles that come through FAR in the same manner regardless of what you or anyone else, including Jimbo, says. Featured Article status is completely meaningless if the reviewers are not hardasses. So quit your whining. Jay32183 21:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you're combining all that attitude with overt ignorance of the topic I'd say you're actually being nothing but a smartass. And I'm certainly not whining. I just asked to receive the full brunt of your hardassness at an FAC of an article that you indirectly consider a threat to Wikipedia (after all, I wrote it). Just be careful. You might very well look like nothing but a dumbass... Peter Isotalo 21:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are flat out wrong that this article is anywhere close to FA standards. If the next words you say are not "I will start adding citations" or "I will find some who can add citations" or "This article needs a lot of work" then you need to stop talking all together. Defending this article is a bad idea. Your opinion of the FA criteria is irrelevant. This article meeting the FA criteria is the only thing that matters in this discussion. Like I said put up or shut up. You cannnot defend an article you have no intention of improving. I'm not nitpicking, I'm not counting citations. I don't care how many there are. I see numbers in the prose with no citations, which is a violation not only of Wikipedia policy and FA standards but of the Military History Project guidelines. I don't care what you opinion of me is, and I will continue to treat all articles that come through FAR in the same manner regardless of what you or anyone else, including Jimbo, says. Featured Article status is completely meaningless if the reviewers are not hardasses. So quit your whining. Jay32183 21:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My God... Get off that high horse and get realistic. There are no bloody FA reviewer privileges. You don't have the right to put down other people's work just because you feel like it or because it fails to please an extremely specific form of article referencing. Especially not when openly and shamelessly admitting to complete ignorance of the topic. We're protesting because we think that the FA requirements have become so narrowly defined that even a perfectly good article like this can be demoted by people who don't take article reviews seriously. Now if you want to put your money where your mouth is, why don't you come and try your fine skillz as a FA reviewer on the article I've recently nominated for an FAC? It's called medieval cuisine and is over 40k long and has less than 30 footnotes. Some paragraphs don't even have a citations... Scandalous! So let's put your sense of what FAC consensus really is to the test. C'mon. I dare ya. Don't forget to add a few lines to your objection about what a terrible burden my contributions to English Wikipedia have been. I'm sure you'll be quite the rabble-rouser! Peter Isotalo 20:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not have the expertise in military history to do this article justice. The article will be much better off if it is improved by some one who is actually interested and fully understands the subject matter. In addition, if FAR regulars fixed every article that came through here, none of us would have time to do anything else. It's not really your unwillingness to do the work that bothers me, it's your blind defense of this article as if it actually meets FA standards that bothers me. The article doesn't meet FA standards and you need to accept that. It would be great if all articles were FAs, but it quality not quantity so we need to have strict quality standards or the overall quality of Wikipedia degrades. Jay32183 19:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So the verifiability of an article is judged by what individual editors think is a fact rather than what actually is a fact? I'm pretty sure that if you had taken the time and effort to do research, just like the article author(s), and explained why you thought certain statements had to have a citation, you'd probably have gotten a few of your requests granted by now. Or at least a good explanation as to why they would be unnecessary or even inappropriate. But you've already decided on your course of action. Hell, you're even telling us you're not going to specify your criticism properly until the FARC and that you're seeing this as punitive bureaucratic maneuver, rather than a review of article quality. That "any statement containing a numer, including, a date" has to be cited by default is patently ridiculous and results only in layout disasters. It makes a mockery out of proper citation formats and serves only to add the illusion of increased verifiability. Peter Isotalo 11:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ghost on plagarism charges
[edit]The other night I was on my way to thank Gzkn for adding cites to Sir Richard...I, briefly, thought the old wiki-spirit of we're all in this together had not completely died off. Then I saw why, he took the time and effort. Not to try and help a fellow contributor, nor to maintain a featured article, but as part of an effort to smear me with the tar of plagarism. Well chuck me in a Turkish prison and call me Essjay!
So this is what it comes down to...lying and fraud are rewarded here, while honest, good-faith contributors are slandered and persecuted. I recieved no monetary rewards or fame for writing most of this article. I merely donated my time and efforts to try and help the project and do some justice to one of the forgotten heroes of the Second World War. Instead my reward is getting wrongly accused of fucking plagarism! Let me ask you this, Gz, since you are such an self-proclaimed expert on the subject, and probably as close to being professional copy-editor in real-life as I'm a candidate for pope; If I were a smart lil plagarist, then why did I list and link the Liddell Hart Centre at the top of the reference section? That is a rather dumb thing to do eh. Moreover, if I had plagarized this article, wouldn't it had been brought up on FAC or when it appeared on the mainpage or otherwise long before now? That would make all those who read and reviewed it as big of an idiot as me wouldn't it? Unless, of course, there was no plargarism and you don't really understand the meaning of the word or have your own, personal, twisted, definition. I did change the wording and I did give my sources, just not in a form that the anal, pinheads who are running this project into the ground now demand (see above). Last I checked that's not plagarism, unless the godkings of the day have adopted some obscure new policy on it. And last I checked, Wikipedia is no more a publication than the writing on a chalkboard, an Etch A Sketch, or the graffiti on a restroom wall.
Wikiland has become a through-the-looking glass Bizarro World, where lying, fraud and destroying the work and reputations of others is not only tolerated but rewarded. Fortunately, I still live in meatspace, where I've been spending a lot more happy time since the culture of this community turned sour. Out here in the real world, plargarism is a pretty damn serious charge. One you'd better be prepared to back up in court, unless you want to face counter-charges of slander and libel. This is one of many reasons why I keep a pair of meat-eating attorneys on retainer. I might discuss this matter with them and decide how to proceed should this witchhunt bullshit clusterfuck of a process continue in such a manner. We could probably make a good case for mental stress and emotional pain and suffering as well. One of the many advantages of living in a college town (one which, incidentally does not allow Wikipedia to be cited as a reference source) I also happen to know a lot of professors with real, not wiki, degrees who would gladly testify in my favor, especially in light of recent events.
Now if you wish to construe this as a violation of WP:LEGAL and use it as an excuse to block/ban me or delete my account here...go for it. It will not make me any less inclined to seek a legal remedy should myself and my consul deem it necessary. If you wish to de-list and de-feature Sir Richard, then go ahead. I no longer wish to have my name, or even my initials and pseudonym, associated with this project. I'm quite sure Sir Richard would feel likewise.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 15:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well done to the FARC regulars, another FA editor unlikely to write another - keep up the good work. Giano 16:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, making legal threats isn't looked on kindly in Wikipedia, and certainly won't get you anywhere, as the page you pointed to kind of highlights. Secondly, just because one user accuses you of plagiarism (their page claims they have left Wikipedia) doesn't really mean anything. (I've seen far less civil claims made, and generally it makes the accuser look worse than the accused, believe me.) Defend yourself from such claims if you must, but really, giving oxygen to things allows them to breathe and sometimes it's better allowing them to die a natural death instead - let's face it, most people really don't care what Person X thinks of Person Y, and in fact, if anyone's still reading at this point they're pretty determined. Thirdly, FA conditions *have* changed since 2005. The bar has understandably raised as the community has grown - what was the best the community could do in 2005 can be bettered now, just as Olympic records set 20 years ago no longer matter in most sports. The whole point of FAR with those old articles is to get those articles to meet the new standards. This should not be difficult, and should be entirely possible to achieve in a civil manner. Otherwise, we lose two or three good contributors, or at best, they hate each other and won't work together again, and nobody benefits - neither the contributors, nor the project. Orderinchaos78 10:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read the garbage spurted by Jay in this review? He actually considers the article writer lazy because he's not providing him with random and completely unspecified citations. There's not a single valid counter-argument of fact in the entire review! That's what most of the recent "raised standards" have lead to; run-of-the-mill ignorance being passed of as qualified and constructive criticism. Ghost has a very good reason to be upset about this careless, unqualified and overly pedantic review.
- Peter Isotalo 11:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unacceptable
[edit]Above, I notice Jay32183 declaring that "this article either gets citations or gets removed, end of story", and that "all arguments against adding inline citation boil down to laziness"; advising Peter Isotalo to leave the project; gloating that Ghost has left it; and telling Giano to "do the work or stop defending the article, because you are only wasting everyone's time with this piece of trash article". I have two things to say to Jay:
- 1) Please take a look at the current version of the criteria--it doesn't say "where appropriate" any longer, and what it should say instead is being discussed at the Featured article criteria page—I hope everybody noticed Joopercoopers mentioning it above. It's surely of interest to anybody editing WP:FAR.
- 2) Please don't be so rude. Telling people (let alone a fine FA editor like Peter Isotalo) that it would be a good thing if they left the project is completely unacceptable. Bishonen | talk 21:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Gosh, I only noticed this disaster area today. Another FA writer gone; another FA critic gone. Can we please try to stop eating each other?
I completely disagree with a number of statements that Jay32183 has made above:
- "This article either gets citations or gets removed, end of story"
- No, that is not how this process works. We discuss the article, some changes might be made, and then determine consensus.
- "every user needs to be able to verify any random fact without doing an independant research project"
- No, you should expect any direct quotations (yes, they should be cited) or facts that are "likely to be challenged" to be cited (i.e. inline citations "where appropriate") - are you aware of any?
- "Otherwise there is no point for anyone to actually use Wikipedia"
- Of course there is - an editor has read the sources, decided what is important, and written the article - that is why you read any encyclopedia rather than resorting directly to the primary and secondary sources.
- "all arguments against adding inline citation boil down to laziness"
- What an insult to the careful editors who spend time and trouble deciding which facts have to be cited and which don't, to create an article that is appropriately cited and also not littered with distracting superscript footnotes or parentheses.
- "The article can't be feautured and have people claiming that the article does not need to be held to the same standard that all the other articles are held to"
- I would suggest that the standard is not what you (and many other people) think it is.
- "If there is not consensus to keep then the article will be removed from featured status"
- No, it will only be removed if there is consensus to remove it. That is how this page has always worked.
- "If there is not consensus to keep then the article will be removed from featured status"
- No. That is not how the process works. (Are you familiar with recent FAR/FARC discussions on similar articles? This conversation is not new.)
- "one editor saying "this is a significant problem" out weighs a million editors saying "I like it"."
- No. This suggests that you are not aware of how FAR/FARC works.
- "any statement containing a number, including a date, should have an inline citation"
- What, "William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066"? "1+1=2"? "Half of 10 is 5"?
- "every Wikipedia editor learns [to add citations as they write] or leaves the project"
- <raises hand> I have written a substantial number of articles without adding citations as I write, and I am still here. Are you inviting me to find the door?
- "If your problem with cite.php really is a "layout nightmare" then I suggest you leave Wikipedia to work on a paper encyclopedia"
- Harvard citations, or indeed any other form of citation, is jsut as valid as cite.php. As it happens, I rather like cite.php, where it is appropriate, but it has its place.
- "If an editor quit because he or she refuses to use inline citations then good, it is beneficial to Wikipedia as a whole"
- What an outrageous statement. Are you seriously telling me that we are better off in the absence of the creators of featured content from before a requirement for appropriate inline citations was added to WP:WIAFA? If only editors of the calibre of Lord Emsworth and Filiocht were still active.
- "This discussion is showing that the primary editors of the article do not care to bring this article up to FA standards and would rather bring FA standards down to this article. That always results in removing the article from FA status."
- Well, the author and several others think that this article meets the featured article criteria, or at least does not fail the criteria to the extent that you are claiming (I think Kirill Lokshin has made some good points below, but it is notable that he is not demanding citations of every number, date, fact, dot, comma, jot and tittle).
- "You cannnot defend an article you have no intention of improving."
- Just watch. You clearly feel able to attack an article you have no intention of improving.
- "I'm not counting citations. I don't care how many there are."
- Really? I thought you were complaining that there were not enough?
As for the jibe that this is a "this piece of trash article" - well, honestly. Compare this article to what you see after hitting the random article button. Trash? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I maintain all of those statements. If you can't accept that, too bad. I can provide further explanation if you are confused, but everything I said is 100% true. Jay32183 19:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think ALoan is confused at all, perhaps as an editor who makes frequent main space edits perhaps he feels a greater empathy and understanding for an article and its author than you do and as such is better placed to comment than you are. You seem to delight in telling respected contributing editors they are not needed, but your own writing [4]seems to show a certain lack of experience. Please when addressing such editors in the future could you adopt a more polite tone. Thank you Giano 19:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You maintain that they are all 100% true? So FAR operates by some process other than consensus? [how exactly?] Every statement in every article needs a footnote? [no] All authors who oppose carpet-bombing of footnotes are lazy? [no] Everyone who does not like cite.php should leave? [no] Every editor must comply with the current vogue for footnotes, or leave? [no]
- Perhaps you should explain further, because I must be "confused". -- ALoan (Talk) 19:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For one burden of evidence falls on those trying to add or keep, not those trying to remove. FAR does operate on consensus, but unlike RM and no consesnus is not maintain the current situation, because to be an FA requires consensus in the first place. All encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source, which no one can confirm unless it is attributed. I'm practically quoting WP:ATT and WP:V which is weird since I've been told I've never read them. I feel insulted being told to take a more polite tone with "respected" editors, since editors who do not wish to cite their sources deserve no respect as an editor becuase they are completely unreliable, regardless of how much respect they deserve as people. Jay32183 20:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad we agree that FAR (and FARC) operate on consensus. Now, the question is, what happens if there is no consensus? I will gladly be corrected, but, in the past, in cases where there has been no consensus, the status quo ante has prevailed - that is, articles that are featured remain so. The purpose of a FAR is to examine an article and determine, by consensus, whether its featured status should be stripped or not (the point being that, to be "featured" in the first place, it had to obtain near-unanimity at FAC in the first place). FAR is not FAC; neither is FARC.
I am not sure if legalistic concepts like the "burden of evidence" are helpful, but there is clearly an initial burden on those seeking to remove a an article's "featured" status to identify areas where an article fails to meet the featured article criteria - an evidential burden, if you will. The question is then whether those objections are justified or not, and what should be done about them.
I hope you will agree that, as is apparent, there is a legitimate dispute regarding the extent to which inline citations are required to provide verifiability and attribution. This article clearly has sources, and I have no reason to doubt that the sources support the text; indeed, I have yet to see anyone saying that the text is wrong (quite the opposite: some are saying that the text follows some sources too closely). What is the purpose of inline citations, in this case? To demonstrate that the editor has read the sources?
I don't see how describing an article like this as "trash", or calling editors who disagree with you "lazy", or telling them to leave, helps very much. Nor do I see much support for your rather extreme position that every jot and tittle requires a specific citation. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My assessment of this article stands. It has five sections of unattributed text. That text either needs to be attributed or deleted. Here is a direct quote from WP:ATT: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material." Jay32183 20:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Jay, let's get started on deleting 90% of Wikipedia. Where would you like to begin? Biennial plant is as good a place as any. After wiping that one out (except for the last sentence, it's got a footnote), you could do Analgesic. Keep working on your uncited text deletions until you get blocked. You'll no doubt defend yourself as the paragon of the WP:ATT policy, but you'll also have gone completely over the edge. There are a lot of excellent editors here expressing concern with your black and white approach, and I agree with them. FAR/C is declining because of this blindfolded approach in which editors with no substantive article commentary keep a) nominating fine articles, and b) pushing their favorite policy outside of any context (citation policy does have a context). I have followed this FAR with (sad) interest, and even though we've seen two editors leave during this FAR (one for reasons I can't assume, but...), you're still going with this "my way or the highway" talk. You're only decreasing the chance of having anyone improve this article, as I doubt they'd want their contributions to be seen as placating you. If this comes off as offensive, I only intend it to be as offensive as your comments here, summarized by ALoan above. –Outriggr § 03:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We're talking FAs here. They have to be perfect, which means everything is cited, no excuses. Jay32183 03:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who ever said that FAs have to be perfect? WP:WIAFA makes no such demand - just that it "exemplifies our very best work" - and, as Wikipedia:The perfect article, says that it "may not be attainable". Kindly nominate any one FA that you think is perfect, and I will give you a list of faults (although hopefully only minor ones) as long as your arm.
Thank you for your quotation from WP:ATT. It may help to remember that policies and guidelines are descriptive, derived from community consensus, not impose in a prescriptive manner, and that they should be read purposively, not in a legalistic manner. This quotation is quite a good example of what someone else said above - like any quotation, it needs to be read it in context:
- Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material.
"The material" here clearly refers back to the "material" mentioned in the previous sentence, being "quotations and ... any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". I agree, quotations should be specifically cited, as should material that is "likely to be challenged" (these are occasions when it is "appropriate" to add specific citations). But I still don't see which statements in this article you think are "likely to be" challenged - what evidence do you have that any of them are wrong? You have simply traduced the whole article.
And I still don't understand how you can maintain that all of those statements above are 100% correct. Perhaps that was just a rhetorical flourish, but I don't think it helps the discussion. I find the opinion that editors who don't agree with you should leave particularly offensive. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's perhaps best if we leave Jay to find his way back to earth on his own; our help is clearly unwelcome. Can we satisfy Kirril's concerns without Ghost and are they all reasonable? --Joopercoopers 10:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's the thing you guys. Five sections of unattributed text is unacceptable in an FA. Kirill pointed out several sentences that need citations because they are pure speculation without them. I don't care if a statement is likely to be challenged. I did mention before that I was deleting the information because it was unharmful, but that does not excuse your unwillingness to cite the article. The only excuse I've seen you guys give for not wanting to add them is that it will clutter up the page. If you guys really think that being pretty is more important than being well sourced then there is something seriously wrong with you. Why can't you guys accept that the article needs work. I'd have added fact tags if there was some one here willing to take them seriously. I will admit that this isn't the worst article to come through here and that this article is sourced well enough to pass AFD with flying colors. Read some of the hurricane and tropical cyclone articles, then you'll see how inline citations are supposed to be used. You also need to remember that "surprising" does not just refer to "I assumed the opposite of that was true" but also to "I didn't know that at all". I'm sure if you asked a bunch of random people about details in this article one of the most common responces would be "Who's Richard O'Conner?" especially after leaving the UK. Don't forget that the US, Canada, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand all speak English and have as much right to know where the information is coming from as those in the UK. Be careful about what you deem "common knowledge", just because you knew it doesn't mean anyone else did. Jay32183 18:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to have one more crack at this for you....."Five sections of unattributed text is unacceptable in an FA" is simply incorrect, 'citations where appropriate' is the policy it is quite possible that citations are not appropriate in those five sections. Running around wikipedia, making up your own rules against consensus is starting to look like disruption - you might want to consider this policy though "Users who aggressively and repeatedly violate fundamental policies may be blocked if there is a consensus among uninvolved users that it is necessary" from WP:BLOCK. But as you don't seem interested in reading WP:ATT I don't imagine the blocking policy is any more chastening to your zeal. --Joopercoopers 19:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop accusing me of having not read WP:ATT. The reason the "where appropriate" is being removed is so people stop whining when they're told to add them, that's the biggest problem with discussions like this. You never realize this discussion has happened many times and the people saying citations are not necessary have lost everytime because their points are in direct contradiction with policy. Most of the things you're telling me I am wrong about are written directly in WP:ATT, WP:V and WP:NOR. This article is written as orignal research and does not maintain a neutral point of view, simply because it is uncited. I'm glad you don't work for a journal, cause you'd have been fired for presenting this attitude to your fact checkers. There are zero valid reasons to be against adding citations. Did you know people can be blocked for continually adding material without citing sources? Jay32183 19:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources are all there - present and correct - what you are arguing about are the special instances when the text says something so surprising that we need to be sure it is accurate. In those circumstances, it is appropriate to add citations to ease the fact checking process, otherwise - read the reference work. --Joopercoopers 20:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop accusing me of having not read WP:ATT. The reason the "where appropriate" is being removed is so people stop whining when they're told to add them, that's the biggest problem with discussions like this. You never realize this discussion has happened many times and the people saying citations are not necessary have lost everytime because their points are in direct contradiction with policy. Most of the things you're telling me I am wrong about are written directly in WP:ATT, WP:V and WP:NOR. This article is written as orignal research and does not maintain a neutral point of view, simply because it is uncited. I'm glad you don't work for a journal, cause you'd have been fired for presenting this attitude to your fact checkers. There are zero valid reasons to be against adding citations. Did you know people can be blocked for continually adding material without citing sources? Jay32183 19:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to have one more crack at this for you....."Five sections of unattributed text is unacceptable in an FA" is simply incorrect, 'citations where appropriate' is the policy it is quite possible that citations are not appropriate in those five sections. Running around wikipedia, making up your own rules against consensus is starting to look like disruption - you might want to consider this policy though "Users who aggressively and repeatedly violate fundamental policies may be blocked if there is a consensus among uninvolved users that it is necessary" from WP:BLOCK. But as you don't seem interested in reading WP:ATT I don't imagine the blocking policy is any more chastening to your zeal. --Joopercoopers 19:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Look JC you are wasting your time here now Jay is just being facetious. The page is now referenced to and beyond the standards required. Please stop banging your head against a brick wall. The reasons given for nominating this page here have been more than met. I'm now looking for other motives here - I can't imagine there are any but there does seem to be a vindictive air about the place, but then there always has been at FARC. Giano 20:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is still no where near the standards for GA. FA is stricter than GA. You need citations in those five sections. Still, no valid reason has been given as to why the article does not need citations. Jay32183 20:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's the thing you guys. Five sections of unattributed text is unacceptable in an FA. Kirill pointed out several sentences that need citations because they are pure speculation without them. I don't care if a statement is likely to be challenged. I did mention before that I was deleting the information because it was unharmful, but that does not excuse your unwillingness to cite the article. The only excuse I've seen you guys give for not wanting to add them is that it will clutter up the page. If you guys really think that being pretty is more important than being well sourced then there is something seriously wrong with you. Why can't you guys accept that the article needs work. I'd have added fact tags if there was some one here willing to take them seriously. I will admit that this isn't the worst article to come through here and that this article is sourced well enough to pass AFD with flying colors. Read some of the hurricane and tropical cyclone articles, then you'll see how inline citations are supposed to be used. You also need to remember that "surprising" does not just refer to "I assumed the opposite of that was true" but also to "I didn't know that at all". I'm sure if you asked a bunch of random people about details in this article one of the most common responces would be "Who's Richard O'Conner?" especially after leaving the UK. Don't forget that the US, Canada, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand all speak English and have as much right to know where the information is coming from as those in the UK. Be careful about what you deem "common knowledge", just because you knew it doesn't mean anyone else did. Jay32183 18:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Getting back on track
[edit]As enjoyable as the general philosophical debate here may be for some of the participants, why don't we get back to discussing the specifics of the article? ;-)
Ignoring, even, the question of citing statistics (although, broadly speaking, there's rarely such a thing as an undisputed casualty count), the article has a serious problem with presenting subjective qualitative judgements and opinions as fact, omitting even the expedient of citing them to the specific historians who are presumably their source. Some of the more flagrant examples:
- "Though arguably one of the finest generals of WWII, O'Connor's modest, unassuming manner has caused historians to overlook him in favour of more flamboyant figures."
- Kirill, I'll see what I can do to satisfy your concerns tonight regarding this, but I'm of the opinion that citations should be provided where the article is likely to surprise the average adult reader. Given that the online reference says "The life of O'Connor is usefully described in The 'Forgotten Victor' by John Baynes" I think it's reasonable to assume this statement is correct. --Joopercoopers 10:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Yet for demonstrating a dignity, courage and character which extended well beyond the battlefield,..."
- Reworded
- "The British, however, were better trained, better led, had (for the most part) better weapons and equipment and greater mobility."
- "O'Connor intended to use all these advantages to the utmost."
- "What followed was a masterpiece of manoeuvre, concentration of forces, firepower, and combined arms."
- "a remarkable military achievement and a true British blitzkrieg."
- "he responded in his usual modest, unassuming manner, 'I suppose one could characterise it as a complete victory.'" (an uncited quote, to boot)
- "In a grand strategic sense, however, the victory of Operation Compass was not yet complete."
- "a formidable foe under a commander whose brilliance, resourcefulness, and daring would prove a worthy match"
- "a virtual Club Med for senior allied prisoners"
- "O'Connor proved more than up to the task"
- "Such actions, if taken, might have bypassed the main German defences which had bogged down XXX Corps, and could have salvaged Market Garden, saved thousands of lives and shortened the war in Europe by weeks or months."
(Avoiding things such as these is essentially the thrust of point 4 of WP:MILHIST#CITE, for anyone that cares; but I would hope that the problem is obvious even without reference to any formal guideline.)
The article is at some points more hagiography (even if, perhaps, justified hagiography) than serious encyclopedic assessment. It may indeed be that the consensus of historians on the topic is that O'Connor was a great military genius; but, even if it is, the reader really has no way of knowing that the opinions given in the article are those of actual historians if this is not indicated explicitly in the text. Kirill Lokshin 21:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with your assessment of those statements. Jay32183 21:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And how do you feel about my assessment of your input, just above, Jay? Bishonen | talk 22:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- I don't care, and I'm confused as to why you think this is keeping on track when it has nothing to do with the state of the article relative to the guidelines of FAs or relevant WikiProjects. Jay32183 22:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And how do you feel about my assessment of your input, just above, Jay? Bishonen | talk 22:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- I think Jay it may be a good idea if you forget the FARC pages for a while, and returned to basics etc. You will find some useful advice and information here [5]. You semed to be very confused over what constitutes a good page, or even what is currently meeting the criteria for a FA. I can't fix this page, because it is not my subject and I have never edited it. You are obviously far more wise and more caring about it than me, so when you have brushed up on criteria etc I'm sure you will be able to do a fine job in making meet your own exacting standards. Good luck. Giano 22:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What constitutes a good page is debatable, wouldn't everyone agree? LuciferMorgan 22:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can agree to that, LuciferMorgan, and hope we can return the focus to the problematic statements that Kirill pointed out above. Instead of attacking each other. Jay32183 23:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please come up with some detailed criticism of your own from now on, Jay. You going "what he said!" after all those remarkably insolent invectives (even though you hadn't said a peep about any of the points raised by Kirill) doesn't exactly smooth things over. Peter Isotalo 23:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did say I would go into more detail after you cited all the statistical information, which includes dates. You shouldn't need me to point you to it. Kirill's assessment is just a starting point as well. If that doesn't get done there's no point in delving deeper. Now stop attacking me and either work on the article or help others find what parts of the article need work. Jay32183 23:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:KETTLE, Jay. That being said, Kirill makes a great point, I'd say forget about the citations and let's concentrate on that language first.--Wizardman 23:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did say I would go into more detail after you cited all the statistical information, which includes dates. You shouldn't need me to point you to it. Kirill's assessment is just a starting point as well. If that doesn't get done there's no point in delving deeper. Now stop attacking me and either work on the article or help others find what parts of the article need work. Jay32183 23:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please come up with some detailed criticism of your own from now on, Jay. You going "what he said!" after all those remarkably insolent invectives (even though you hadn't said a peep about any of the points raised by Kirill) doesn't exactly smooth things over. Peter Isotalo 23:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can agree to that, LuciferMorgan, and hope we can return the focus to the problematic statements that Kirill pointed out above. Instead of attacking each other. Jay32183 23:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What constitutes a good page is debatable, wouldn't everyone agree? LuciferMorgan 22:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Kirill makes a curious point, I just wonder where the page has changed since Kirill made this comment here [6] and if he felt it was so awful why not say so then instead of making it a featured article over on his War Portal. Giano 10:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The portal's featured article queue isn't meant to second-guess the featured article process; if an article achieves FA status, it's eligible to get put into the queue, regardless of my personal opinion of it. This article had just recently been promoted at the time I made that comment. (And, of course, the general attitude concerning inline citations was a bit different then, due in part to the difficulty in actually setting up footnotes correctly before cite.php was introduced.)
- But you weren't asking just out of idle curiosity, were you? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 12:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wording is a little unusual in places, "cut a swath" is ok, but "gobbling up strongpoint after strongpoint ". Can strongpoints be gobbled? Could do with citations for paragraphs like:
- "In two months, the XIII Corps/Western Desert Force had advanced over 800 miles (1,300 km), destroyed an entire Italian army of ten divisions, taken over 130,000 prisoners, 400 tanks and 1,292 guns at the cost of 500 killed and 1,373 wounded - a remarkable military achievement and a true British blitzkrieg."
- - Francis Tyers · 08:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't mind such wording if it was made clear that it is the opinion of a historian and for this reason a direct quote from a source. As far as citation goes, the problem is not about citing everything, but using page numbers to cite at every spot of the article. If you do want to verify the statements in an article you usually have to read the complete chapter, except for numbers and direct quotes. I suggest to add some references at the end of each chapter where it is listed which chapters of the books in the bibliography can be used to verify the presented information. This boils the whole footnoting issue down to a requirement of 25 notes. Wandalstouring 13:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns were lack of citations (1c) and POV language (1d). Marskell 11:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 17:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove no actions being taken to remedy problems with 1c and 1d. Jay32183 17:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the peer review script the article also has some issues with 1a, by not sticking to only British spellings. Jay32183 06:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you specify any of those inconsistencies? Peter Isotalo 15:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the peer review script the article also has some issues with 1a, by not sticking to only British spellings. Jay32183 06:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. Even ignoring 1c, no attempt was made to remedy 1d (except for adding an accuracy disputed tag...)--Wizardman 18:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm not going to bother voicing further opinions here, presumably this is an example of giving "FACers a dreaded fright" as described by the regulars here [7] Anyone currently with a page on FAC should take note because "Mark my words; January through March 2007 (Tony's absence) will be key FA nom dates for future FARs ".................yuk! I think I shall go back upstairs and stay there. Giano 23:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove, unless citations are added.--Yannismarou 14:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold your horses I'm going to have a go at proofreading the article tonight and see if I can smooth out the glorifying passages, but we certainly have not had any proper discussion as to how the article is in violation of 1c. Could the editors voting to remove because of lack of citations please specify their demands? What fact statements are in doubt and why? Peter Isotalo 16:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are {{fact}} tags in the article. They were there before this moved from FAR to FARC. Jay32183 19:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't suppose anyone has a reason to contest either the quotes of figures (that for some reason are seen as harder facts than those written without digits) other than not being aware of them before reading the article. Except for quotes, there doesn't seem to be an overall pattern in the citation requests. At least not tat I've been able to discern. Peter Isotalo 22:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are {{fact}} tags in the article. They were there before this moved from FAR to FARC. Jay32183 19:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've made some adjustments and smoothed out or removed the last of the questionable wordings. I don't think it's fair to say that 1d is an issue anymore. As for citations, I'm fairly distressed at how bluntly they've been handled. Sandy's somewhat random addition of fact tags just before the FARC wasn't particularly smooth consider that the FAR was filled with so much mudslinging and off-track pedantry. In fact, the only editor voting to remove who has actually produced more than "what he said"-criticism is Wizardman. Peter Isotalo 08:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Peter, the fact remains that this article has almost no inline citations, and that if it was now a FAC it wouldn't pass.--Yannismarou 11:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have already addressed 1d and I have signaled my willingness to work on the perceived lack of citations, so I would like to see those objecting to meet me halfway and motivate their doubts. Sandy has tagged a lot of random facts, Jay has only produced over-generalized and belligerent bluster about wanting de-star any FA that doesn't have as many footnotes as he's used to, and the rest of you (except Wizard) are really just adding "what they said"-votes. Again, there has been little or no constructive discussion during the course of this review. Peter Isotalo 13:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Sandy wants to defeature any article that does not have the volume of footnotes which is demanded for the current FACs, and I agree with that. I don't understand what you want us to do in terms of the citations. The deficiency is clear here: Any assessment in the article should be cited; this is what happens with all the currently promoted FAs. Old FAs like this one must reach the current standards. Otherwise, we have FAs with double standatds: the old and the new ones. Do you want to add tags throughout the article wherever I think they are needed? I am afraid they are everywhere needed. And the only solution is to add the missing citations. At least, that is what I did, when two other FAs were endangered, and I worked adding citations (among other things) trying to save them.--Yannismarou 16:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, ignoring the slippery slope of what FAC consensus actually is, you've mentioned citing assessments. What assessments would those be? Peter Isotalo 17:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Sandy wants to defeature any article that does not have the volume of footnotes which is demanded for the current FACs, and I agree with that. — HUH? Whoa !!!! No, that's not the case at all. I don't look for a certain density or volume of footnotes at all in articles I review, nor have I ever supported that notion. I am out of time today on a slow dialup, and just saw this comment. I will get back to this review over the weekend, or as soon as I can. Without double checking the article today, I recall that I tagged specific examples of items that need to be cited (although I doubt that I tagged everything; I usually tag only samples). I recall direct quotes, opinions without attribution, and other items highlighted per Kirill as failing 2. There may be more; I'll check this weekend or sooner if I can get back online. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'm starting to realize more of the problem now. The inline citations really came aboard in later 2005 (before I ever joined), yet this was an FA in 2004. However, we have to hold it to these standards, and that means inline citations. Without them, it we were to want to confirm a sentence, we'd have to go through all the books listed to find out if it's fact or not, the inline citations make this a far easier task. We don't do it because we think the article's fake, we do it for easier researching and referencing.
- Now, as for 1c, I added a couple fact tags myself in. I'll explain why I added them to try and show you guys the reason for them. First off, the sentence "O'Connor was now forced to hold the line at El Agheila with a single understrength division, negligible air cover and over-extended supply lines." How do we know the air cover ws negligible, and the supply lines overextended? Certainly it is located in one of the books, but if it can be cited directly from one of them, then it proves the statement, as opposed to WP:AGF. Another one was, "The two while returning to safety after a night reconnaissance mission were captured by a German patrol on April 7, 1941, mostly due to Neame driving the wrong way." Okay, how do we know Neame was driving the wrong way? Maybe he was driving the right way. But if it's right from one of the books, then we can say, "okay, he was in fact driving the wrong way". I think this explains everything.--Wizardman 17:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, how do you know that he died in 1981, that he was in charge of the Experimental Brigade or that he fled from captivity in 1943? This still strikes me as being random stabs with the primary intent of simply racking up an unspecified number of footnotes.
- Peter Isotalo 23:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is still uncited text, not the number of citations. Jay32183 04:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly.--Yannismarou 07:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so if I cite the passages currently tagged, you'll consider the article referenced enough?
- Peter Isotalo 07:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly.--Yannismarou 07:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is still uncited text, not the number of citations. Jay32183 04:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jay32183 says that "The problem is still uncited text, not the number of citations". Firstly, if the number is not important, then perhaps only a handful of citations (of whatever form: footnotes, parenthetical, whatever) would be the appropriate number in a particular case such as this one - even, in some cases, none. Secondly, the "problem" is not uncited text, per se: as Peter Isotalo says, it is determining which points it would be appropriate to support with a citation.
- More worryingly, Yannismarou says that "Sandy wants to defeature any article that does not have the volume of footnotes" - volume of footnotes? Volume?!? Of footnotes??!!?? Per litre, perhaps? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, come on! Let's not play with words! It is clear what I mean, and irony does not help. Per substance ALoan! Cite what should be cited, and the article will not lose its star. Instead of exchanging arguments here, do that and save the article. At least, that is what I did, when I defended tow articles in FAR. It is that simple!--Yannismarou 21:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you haven't done so here, so I don't think you're entitled to wag your late-coming finger at us. And I have worked on improving the article. I'm just making sure that we pin down what needs to be cited and why so I won't become some Sisyphus of the League of Footnote Counters.
- Peter Isotalo 08:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Peter, I am not obliged to improve the article. I am here as a reviewer. This is the role I chose and I am entitled to do so. You are here also as a reviewer and a defender of the article. Good! It is also your right to do so! And I am not wagging any of my fingers at you or anybody else! I just present arguments. And I am happy you won't become a Sisyphus of footnote counting; but I also hope that this article will not be sacrificed like Tantalus' child after an endless discussion about footnote.--Yannismarou 10:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, come on! Let's not play with words! It is clear what I mean, and irony does not help. Per substance ALoan! Cite what should be cited, and the article will not lose its star. Instead of exchanging arguments here, do that and save the article. At least, that is what I did, when I defended tow articles in FAR. It is that simple!--Yannismarou 21:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- More worryingly, Yannismarou says that "Sandy wants to defeature any article that does not have the volume of footnotes" - volume of footnotes? Volume?!? Of footnotes??!!?? Per litre, perhaps? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep with more specific citations Having read most of the above discussion, I have been moved to sign in in order to comment. Not wishing to stir things up I was surprised at the level of controversy this one unassuming article seems to have brought about (especially the recommendations that article writers should leave!). Having looked at this and other FA's I was initially surprised about the low level of inline citations, but looking more closely I assume that it is because other military history FA's I've seen have cited most statements with specific page no's etc and then listed them individually, and therefore have similar numbers of actual sources, but long reference lists.
- I believe a citation for every sentence is almost certainly going overboard (Military History Project may not agree with me), I think most people would expect one citation per paragraph/section for ease of fact checking (1 is probably sufficient for simple bio details), just as a guide to say which pages or chapters of a particular work or works one could find information in the same vein, ie the initial bio paragraph having a citation to the initial bio pages/chapter of one of the references should be sufficient. More complex/frequent citations may be thought necessary by most for military manoevures etc as it's not always possible to be sure who is right in these circumstances. For personal preference I would like the following edits to be considered.
- A general section citation for Early life (already there I think), Inter war years and Retirement and more complete referencing for Italian offensive, Reversal and VIII Corps and OMG as military manoevures are being described.
- Still needed I feel, but I think other people are better placed to decide what needs to be cited. Had I got the references and knew how to do inline citations then I would be prepared to help. Terri G 18:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A title for the Preceded by/Succeeded by box at the bottom as I'm not sure what position it relates to.
Done (maybe I missed it before actually) Terri G 18:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With these changes I think it more than satisfies the FA criteria as I understand them. Even without the changes I would have a neutral stance on the article. I hope whoever is currently working on the article finds my comments constructive. Terri G 18:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No one has asked for every sentence to have a citation, but for every claim to be cited. If an entire paragraph comes from the exact same source then it is perfectly acceptable to cite the entire paragraph at once. Just for clarity, are you a "conditional keep" or a "keep, but there's always room for improvement"? Jay32183 18:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't trying to imply that every sentence needs citations (or that anyone had requested them), but I have seen plenty of FA's where it seems almost every sentence is cited, so I was just trying to point out that whoever is good enough to do the work needn't see the changes I've suggested as a massive chore. I'm a "keep, with room for improvement" I suppose, because if it wasn't done, I wouldn't change to remove as the references are there at least and I have no reason to doubt what has been written (I'm no expert). Please don't take offense if I don't pop back regularly, I drift around a lot. Terri G 19:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I strongly believe that the criterion for a good encyclopedia is exactly the opposite: I am entitled to doubt whatever is not cited. We are not Britannica, which has its name behind each article - a name synonymous to quality and credibility. Here we are anonymous users, not professors or well-known experts, and we have to prove and verify whatever we write. That is what I believe, and that is why I always defended the inline citing as a necessity for high quality Wikipedia articles, a necessity preserving and prompting quality. And that is why all the currently promoted FAs are adequately cited. I ask you once again: does anybody of you arguing against citing honestly believes that this article would be promoted if it was now a FAC?--Yannismarou 21:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No but we're arguing that a lot of FAC-reviewers these days engage in more or less random and gratuitous footnote counting. "Cite this (more than you already have) because I tell you to" seems to be the current slogan. And, no, you don't need to answer that. We already know where you stand on this.
- Peter Isotalo 08:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To give some criticism on the "can be improved" claim, the article became an FA in 2004. Inline citations became common in 2005 (sometime before I began my wikicareer). So, in theory, one could say that this article has had well over a year to meet the "new" FA criteria. Part of me's thinking that these people who refuse to vote delete are saying that citations are no big deal just because the others say they are. I'm not saying we need 100 citations; if 1 per paragraph or even 1 per section suffices, that's fine. The problem is that instead of improving the article, there is still whining that the article doesn't need citations. Yannismarou's right on this one. I mean, if this article came to WP:GAC now, it would probably be failed, let alone FAC. As I've said, I sent it here in hopes that it could be improved to an FA-quality article by people finding those references, adding in footnotes, and making this article great. Instead, we have people bashing each other that the article doesn't need footnotes. But like I said, ideally I want this to be an FA, it just isn't though.--Wizardman 22:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you even noticed that 1d has been amended?
- Peter Isotalo 08:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well done! Then time to focus on 1c.--Yannismarou 10:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I strongly believe that the criterion for a good encyclopedia is exactly the opposite: I am entitled to doubt whatever is not cited. We are not Britannica, which has its name behind each article - a name synonymous to quality and credibility. Here we are anonymous users, not professors or well-known experts, and we have to prove and verify whatever we write. That is what I believe, and that is why I always defended the inline citing as a necessity for high quality Wikipedia articles, a necessity preserving and prompting quality. And that is why all the currently promoted FAs are adequately cited. I ask you once again: does anybody of you arguing against citing honestly believes that this article would be promoted if it was now a FAC?--Yannismarou 21:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't trying to imply that every sentence needs citations (or that anyone had requested them), but I have seen plenty of FA's where it seems almost every sentence is cited, so I was just trying to point out that whoever is good enough to do the work needn't see the changes I've suggested as a massive chore. I'm a "keep, with room for improvement" I suppose, because if it wasn't done, I wouldn't change to remove as the references are there at least and I have no reason to doubt what has been written (I'm no expert). Please don't take offense if I don't pop back regularly, I drift around a lot. Terri G 19:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No one has asked for every sentence to have a citation, but for every claim to be cited. If an entire paragraph comes from the exact same source then it is perfectly acceptable to cite the entire paragraph at once. Just for clarity, are you a "conditional keep" or a "keep, but there's always room for improvement"? Jay32183 18:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, I don't think any of us are "whining" that the article doesn't need citations - I have been objecting to the idea that there is some "density" or "volume" of inline citations that is a requirement - they are required when appropriate; no more and no less - and Peter Isotalo has been asking people what they think should be cited, so he can actually do the necessary (which is what I thought this process was about).
- It may be worth mentioning that HighInBC was asking for more citations for medieval cuisine recently, just days after it was promoted! -- ALoan (Talk) 11:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Many things need citing ALoan, and do not compare a recently promoted article where, with very few exceptions, almost every paragraph is cited with this article whare almost no paragraph is cited! Citation tags had been added, but (I think) they were removed without the addition of the demanded citation (If I am wrong, I apologize). Now, do you want to start form scratch? OK, then! Let's do it:
- "If O'Connor's suggestions had been followed, the main German defences which had bogged down XXX Corps might have been bypassed and Market Garden salvaged." Who says that? Who argues that this would be the outcome of O'Connor's suggestion? What sources support this assertion?
- "O'Connor's unassuming manner has been less noted by historians compared to more colorful Allied military leaders". What historians mentioned his "unassuming manner"? Mention; otherwise, it is WEASEL.
- "His imprisonment during the conflict's truly decisive phases robbed him of many prime opportunities to prove his abilities further." "Robbed him" is a strong expression; who supports the assertion that if hh was not imprinoned, he would have proved his opportunities further (where and how? Blur and vague assessment).
- "In late October 1918 the 2nd Battalion captured the island of Grave di Papadopoli on the Piave River for which O'Connor received the Italian Silver Medal of Honour and a bar to add to his DSO.[1]" This in the only inline citation. But it is not properly formatted! Only title I see and url; publisher? Work? When was it retrieved? And why don't you use Template:cite web.
- "Many of the theories of mechanised, combined arms manoeuvre warfare put forth by J.F.C. Fuller (the brigade commander), Basil Liddell Hart, Heinz Guderian, and others at the time were being practiced by 5 Brigade." What source verifies that the 5th Brigade practiced such methods? Source needed here.
- "He returned to his old unit." Who returned?! The subject of the previous sentence is different. Such things make me wonder if the prose of this article is up to "brilliant". And somebody should also take care of the many typos I encounter.
- "He would later say the lessons he learned in mobility during this time would serve him well later in Libya." Say when, where and how? Sorce, please! Even "indirect" quoted like this one should be cited and verified.
- "In August 1939, 7th Division was transferred to the fortress at Mersa Matruh, Egypt, where O'Connor was concerned with defending the area against a potential attack from the massed forces of the Italian Tenth Army over the border in Libya." Source verifying the "concern" of O'Connor is needed here.
- "These would stop the Italians long enough for reinforcements to arrive, bolster the defence and, eventually, launch a counteroffensive." According to whom? Which analyst verifies that?
- "The British, however, were better trained, better led, and possessed (for the most part) superior weapons, equipment and mobility. O'Connor intended to use all these advantages to the utmost." Who verifies their higher training and equipment, and O'Connor's intention?
- "As a result, O'Connor, his adviser Brigadier Eric Dorman-Smith, and his men began to realise just how poorly led and ill-prepared their foes were, despite having a huge numerical advantage." What source verifies that O'Connor indeed felt this way? How do we know that he regarded their foes as "poorly led and ill-prepared"?
- "By mid-December the Italians had been pushed completely out of Egypt, leaving behind 38,000 prisoners and large stores of equipment." Verify the numbers, please.
- "Despite this setback, the offensive continued with minimum delay, and by the end of December the 6th Australian besieged and took Bardia, which fell along with 40,000 more prisoners and 400 guns." Again these numbers need verification. Which is your source.
- "O'Connor cabled back to Wavell, "Fox killed in the open..."[citation needed]" Provide citation as requested here.
- "In two months, the XIII Corps/Western Desert Force had advanced over 800 miles (1,300 km), destroyed an entire Italian army of ten divisions, taken over 130,000 prisoners, 400 tanks and 1,292 guns at the cost of 500 killed and 1,373 wounded.[2]" Oh! Another citation, saying "Dupuy". Is this enough?! Of course, not! Citation, please!
- "In a strategic sense, however, the victory of Operation Compass was not yet complete; the Italians still controlled most of Libya and possessed forces which would have to be dealt with." Another uncited assessment.
- "O'Connor was now forced to hold the line at El Agheila with a single understrength division, negligible air cover and over-extended supply lines.[citation needed]" Provide requested citation.
- "But the two, while returning to safety after a night reconnaissance mission, were captured by a German patrol on 7 April 1941, mostly due to Neame driving the wrong way.[citation needed]" Provide requested citation, please.
- "Montgomery suggested that O'Connor be his successor as Eighth Army commander but that post was instead given to Oliver Leese and O'Connor was given a corps to command." What source verifies Montgomery's suggestion?
- "In later life, he would remain in touch with his fellow prisoners from the Vincigliati escape club and the members of the Italian resistance, who had aided him during his escape." How do we know that? Who verifies that he indeed was in touch with his fellow prisoners?
- "These concerns would later prove to be well-founded." Proved how? Incomplete and uncited assertion. Who argues that his concerns would later prove to be well-founded?
- "Churchill was impressed by O'Connor and the two would continue a correspondence.[citation needed]" Provide requested citation, please.
- "O'Connor raised concerns that the Germans might launch a counterattack, and strongly recommended the ground gained by VIII Corps be consolidated before continuing on further against Caen. This was ignored, however, and the Germans did exactly as O'Connor had feared. VIII Corps was pushed back over the Orne. O'Connor tried to re-establish a bridgehead during Operation Jupiter, but met with little success." Important assessments and events about O'Connor's proposals and the way they well received that should be cited.
- "O'Connor maintained an active correspondence with Churchill, Montgomery and others, making suggestions for improvements of armoured vehicles and addressing various other problems such as combat fatigue. Some of his recommendations were followed up (such as for mounting "rams" on armoured vehicles in order to cope with the difficult hedgerow country), but most were ignored." What sources verify the correspondence with Montgomery? Who tells us about which of his recommendations were followed and which weren't?
- "If O'Connor's suggestions had been followed, the main German defences which had bogged down XXX Corps might have been bypassed and Market Garden salvaged." This assertion definitely needs citing: who says that this would be the outcome if the suggestions were followed? This is not even an event; it is an hypothesis. Who support this hypothesis? Are there any different opinions?
- "When he wrote to Montgomery about this, he was assured this was unlikely." Citation needed: how do we know that Montgomery reassured him? Who verifies the particular correspondence between the two of them?
- "As was O'Connor's habit, he stayed in touch with members of VIII Corps after his transfer to India, and closely followed the accounts of their advances." Again, how do we know that they were in contact, and that O'Connor "followed the accounts of their advances"?
- These are the major issues which IMO should be fixed so as this article to keep its star. And, as I tried to make clear, it is not enough to provide the necessary citations, but to provide them in the right formatting and to properly format the current very few (2) citations. And something else: I don't want to make a lecture here, but if you want to see how a proper war-related article should look and how it should be cited, just check all the articles of Cla68. If this article starts to look like any of these in terms of quality and citing, I'll be a "keep" voter. Until then, I am a "remove" one!--Yannismarou 13:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, there was exactly one relevant comment in there, but that had nothing to do with citation, but rather with how a certain sentence was worded; I tweaked the statement about his notability. And complaining about a bloody reference format? It's completely bloody obvious from the reference list. They're but centimeters apart! Otherwise this is exactly what I was talking about when expressing my fear of becoming the wikipedian Sysophus of citation pedantry. The "assessments" you're talking about here are pretty much just assessments in the sense that they can't be reduced to fact statements like "X is Y". Saying they need a citation merely because of that is patently absurd. You're going to pile your subjective requests for citations on top of one another haphazardly until you reach that gratuitous "volume" of footnotes that you checklist-type reviewers without any knowledge of the topic want because it looks good. This is not constructive criticism, and the only alternative I see is to combat ballot-stuffing with ballot-stuffing. So keep the article.
- And the idea that all articles on military history should have a particularly pedantic form of footnoting, no matter the topic, is ridiculous. The members of the WarProject may think that their favorite topic is the absolute pinnacle of academic verifiability, but I don't and pretty much the entire historical establishment would scoff at such haughty arrogance. I believe you're an incompetent and sloppy reviewer and that your modus operandi is nothing short of an overt attempt to encourage anyone to demand random demands for random facts in random articles. I have nothing more to say other than I hope to God that you and rest of your nitpicking ilk who flaunt their astounding ignorance in every topic imaginable ever sniffs out an article that I've been involved with.
- Peter Isotalo 14:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ho! Ho! So your answer is a personal attack: "I believe you're an incompetent and sloppy reviewer and that your modus operandi is nothing short of an overt attempt to encourage anyone to demand random demands for random facts in random articles...I have nothing more to say other than I hope to God that you and rest of your nitpicking ilk who flaunt their astounding ignorance etc.etc." Nice! Thanks, pal! The Tantalus myth seems indeed stronger in your case than the Sisyphus one!--Yannismarou 14:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Peter - article is attributable and the claims the article makes are not so surprising to justify citation. If Yanni would like his citations put in a particular way and the (unidentified) typos fixed - I suggest he FIXIT, but for me it's fine. --Joopercoopers 18:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove, as the article is still laced with uncited hypotheticals and subjective judgements; all quibbling over the other details aside, anything that is inherently a matter of opinion must be attributed to the person promulgating that opinion. For example:
- "O'Connor's unassuming manner meant that he is less notable compared to more colorful Allied military leaders..." - I assume that whoever wrote this meant that he had been noted less than them, rather than that he was less notable; but, as it is, this is an extremely controversial assertion.
- "These would stop the Italians long enough for reinforcements to arrive, bolster the defence and, eventually, launch a counteroffensive" - according to whom?
- "the two finest remaining divisions in the British Army following the Battle of Dunkirk" - according to whom?
- "The British, however, were better trained, better led, and possessed (for the most part) superior weapons, equipment and mobility" - according to whom?
- "just how poorly led and ill-prepared their foes were" - according to whom?
- "a formidable foe under a commander whose cunning, resourcefulness, and daring" - I'm aware that this is a widely-held opinion, but it is an opinion nevertheless, and we therefore need to know who espouses it.
- "If O'Connor's suggestions had been followed, the main German defences which had bogged down XXX Corps might have been bypassed and Market Garden salvaged." - another hypothetical; which historians have argued this?
- Not to mention the two direct quotes that are still uncited, despite already having been tagged.
- (Frankly, I find the hostility expressed by some people towards highly-productive writers of featured articles—and towards the Military history WikiProject as a whole—rather baffling and disturbing, all things considered; but that's another issue.) Kirill Lokshin 03:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, all the attacks in this discussion have been anything but consructive. I don't want to bring other discussions into this, but maybe I should ask Peter about the article I have on FAC. That may be WP:COI, so I won't touch it, though if someone else wanted to bring it up that's fine. More importantly though, I find Peter's position to be very undermined by his resorting to personal attacks. Plus, I have no idea what that PA is even tryign to say... I may ass that it now lacks a photo in the userbox. (Though I can add that myself).--Wizardman 19:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely there must be a page somewhere in this great encyclopedia you lot could go and write/improve instead of pontificating down here about what is one of Wikipedia's better pages - the conversation here is pathetic to read - Everytime I look at the calibre of behaviour here I become more disgusted. Giano 22:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, all the attacks in this discussion have been anything but consructive. I don't want to bring other discussions into this, but maybe I should ask Peter about the article I have on FAC. That may be WP:COI, so I won't touch it, though if someone else wanted to bring it up that's fine. More importantly though, I find Peter's position to be very undermined by his resorting to personal attacks. Plus, I have no idea what that PA is even tryign to say... I may ass that it now lacks a photo in the userbox. (Though I can add that myself).--Wizardman 19:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. The article has improved dramatically at FAR, with a good deal of the uncited hagiography removed, but cite tags have been removed, and there is still far too much uncited opinion and judgment, including uncited direct quotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ghost On Two-Faced gods
[edit]Indeed, I'm beyond disgusted. It is in this context that I write what follows. First, my sincere thanks to Peter, Joopercoopers, ALoan and of course Giano for defending what is largely my work from being torn apart by the pedantic Wiki mob mentality.
Second, those who sanctimoniously preach civility should try practicing it themselves. My camp was not the first to invoke the charge of plagiarism. If anyone has had their charachter slandered by this sad farce it is I. Riping apart someone's work, though technically not a personal attack, can often be tantamount to it and is bound to lead to hard feelings and due retaliation. Which, of course, gives you fucking Pollyannas the chance to act all shocked, and hurt and whine about personal attacks. Haughty words of civility are meaningless without the true spirit of such behind them. Most of the criticism levelled here are destructive rather than constructive and clearly violate this spirit. Further evidence of the vast chasim between the core principles of Wikipedia and current practices.
Now Kirill, my old colleague, Giano asked you a very pertinent question above; I just wonder where the page has changed since Kirill made this comment here [8] and if he felt it was so awful why not say so then instead of making it a featured article over on his War Portal. I find your response very slick but unsatisfactory. And even if you did not wish to "Second guess" the FAC processs, you still had ample opportunities to raise your objections there and afterwards. It would have been a LOT easier for Leithp and myself to have added cites then or at least fixed the wording which you now seem to find so wanting. It is highly unfair to the writers to come after us now, over a year and a half later, and demand citations. Leithp has moved at least once (not all of us live with our parents) so his books have gotten mixed up and we both have (gasp) actual lives outside of Wikipedia.
So why tear the article apart now? How will that improve it? How will it improve Wikipedia? If we were to remove every uncited statement to satisfy you and the others then all that would be left would be a single paragraph stubb...which is basically all it was when we found it. Surely since it has been so long you should be able to grandfather it through, after all the recent edits made by Peter, Joopers and others? Or is it too much now to ask you to be reasonable rather than rigid?
Back then, Kirill, you may not have wished to second guess FAC's standards, but today, as the prime mover and shaker of the mighty mighty military history project, you have no qualms about setting up separate standards and processes for peer review and classification...adding to the instruction creep gauntlet any poor FAC author must pass through. But you are right, since you place the standards of your project ABOVE those of Wikipedia at large, then I conceed it does not meet current MilHistProj standards. I therefore vote to REMOVE the mil hist project tag from this article, since it was written without the project's current enlightened guidance and has become such an embarrassment to it.
As for the wording, well Peter raises a very good point, why not JUSTFIXIT yourself. You are, afterall, a master of dry, bland, dull prose...charges I defended your FACs against, if you recall, back in the days when compelling narratives were considered more important than cite counts.
If Peter is the Sisyphus of this drama and Yannismarou the Tantalus, then you, Kirill, are Janus. I, for my part, shall be Timon. I cast my contempt at the lot of you and return to my cave. I will never contribute so much as a single sentence stub to Wikipedia again. I regret that I ever wasted my time here. My gift to you is dirt.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 01:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now, maybe I'm wrong on this, but I find that when I'm writing articles, making it well-written, the prose compelling, and creating a great article is the hard part. Referencing and citing sources are the easy part. Here's the catch-22 though. No one wants to change the article, which defeats the purpose of having submitted this in the first place. And now, instead of reaching a consensus or improving the article, we have a 100kb document that encompasses personal attacks, whining on both sides, and a great user who's fed up with this site. Even though I still think it should be delisted, I regret ever nominating this after seeing how this has played out, and I'm disappointed with both sides. There's never gonna be consensus, so I have no idea what to do with this article... I mean, I have access to roughly 20 college libraries, and here's what I turned up for whether or not I have access to references: Barclay, no; Barnett, yes (2nd edition though, not 1st); Baynes, no; Docherty, no; Dupuy, no; Keegan, most likely (Churchill's Generals is at a library where it would take me a while to get it); Smart, no.
But I have thought of a compromise. If this does get delisted, I will cite whatever I possibly can, and upon that re-submit it to FAC. I'll try and cite some things before that, but who knows. But I honestly don't know where this is going anymore, so hopefulyl this will be closed soon.--Wizardman 02:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please spare us your crocodile tears and half-hearted offerings of help. I have a better idea, as suggested above, NUCLEAR CLEANSING. If it is delisted, delete everything but the first paragraph. Then you, or more likely someone else, can start over from scratch. No muss no fuss.--70.171.22.74 02:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ay, there's the rub. Nuking it seems to be suggested by some, yet I'd be surprised if anyone supports it enough to go and do it, because the nuclear option is the last thing I want. Plus the lead was one of the parts I didn't care for to begin with. But hey, at least I'm trying to create a compromise, even though it'll probably be futile...--Wizardman 03:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Compromise..Ha! Your "compromise" is offering to put a band-aide on a gapping chest wound and calling 9-1-1. Peter, Coopers and others have made many edits over the last several days to try and address some of the concerns. But instead of acknowledging their efforts, you and your ilk keep raising new objections, making new demands and adding more of those fucking [citation needed] tags. A REAL compromise would involve accepting the wording changes that have been made and only demanding citations for statements that truly scream out for them, which is really not that many. Failing this, I support the nuclear option...I not only support it, but I'll do it. And I'll do it with a gleam in my eye and a song in my heart. Just watch.--70.171.22.74 06:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So your solution is "waa, waa, I'm taking my article and going home". Wow, how constructive. Oh, and adding references is not hard, just add some already. I added one earlier without really trying. And if I'm putting a bandaid on a gaping wound, then you guys are just starting at the half-dead body and saying "it's fine", which it's clearly not or else we wouldn't be here. If nothing else just add a citation on the quotes! It's common sense for those to need citations. Besides, if you were to go nuclear I'd just put it back up anyway.--Wizardman 21:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh I understand what you're trying to do now. Once you get this article defeatured, you will "fix" it with cites, then resubmit it to FAC and voila! Thus you can claim credit on a Featured Article. What a clever lad you are. You and Janus should hook up, the two of you would make for a very scary team. And if you're going to accuse me of assuming bad faith here, then I plead no contest. Dealing with the likes of you has taught me that it is safer to assume the worst of human nature.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ay, there's the rub. Nuking it seems to be suggested by some, yet I'd be surprised if anyone supports it enough to go and do it, because the nuclear option is the last thing I want. Plus the lead was one of the parts I didn't care for to begin with. But hey, at least I'm trying to create a compromise, even though it'll probably be futile...--Wizardman 03:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everytime I see the time and effort some users spare to attack all those users asking for citations, I just wonder why they don't spend this time in adding the citations, and get over with it. A series of rhetorical schemes and exhibitions (some of which are indeed of high quality, but this is not the place for that), but nothing about the substance. I'm afraid to say that, but I tend to believe that some users are not interested in whether this and other articles will keep their star, will be delisted, upgraded etc. It looks to me as if their only interest is to make clear their point. Because I can't see any other explanation when a user proceeds to a long intense and passionate analysis of his point, and then declares that he leaves Wikipedia. And something else: The innuendos about who wants the best for Wikipedia (which sometimes are getting straightforward attacks and insults), the effort to undermine other user's quality and contributions add nothing here; the contempt with which users and projects are treated by some Wikipedians reminds me of a discussion in my country, Greece, about who's more patriot! Oh, come on now! We all spend hours and hours in Wikipedia! More than the normal, in a way that some others, some outsiders may regard us as sick bastards or some kind of fricks! So, let's cut the bullshit here! Nobody is more "patriot" than the other!
Giano is one of the best editors around. Kirill is the driving force behind the encyclopedia's best project, and a writer of some of our best articles as well. Sandy reviews almost every FAC and FARC; he is now travelling and still reviews; he was reviewing when nobody of us was interested in FARC. Wizardman assesses hundreds and hundreds of articles in WP:BIO. So, I don't see the reason for expressions like "disgustion", "dirt", "pathetic". I really don't understand that! Why are you taking it that personal guys? It is just an encyclopedia! And you may regard this article as one of the best of Wikipedia. I respect your opinion, but I regard this article as a poorly cited and needing improvement article; therefore, for me it is a mediocre article. If you don't respect my opinion, Ok, I can live with that, but this is my opinion, and I stand by it, refusing to prove who I am, why I am here and what I or you have done for Wikipedia, because this is irrelevent. I also refuse to attack anybody else here, because I do appreciate all your contributions and effors here - and this is not a hypocrisy but an honest belief. And you know something else, Wikipedia would be a much better place if we learnt to respect one the other, and if we realised that despite our disagreements we work harshly for this dum project that has intruded into our life. And RHD you declare that you are out of the project, but how do I have this strange impression that you are so passionate with it that you'll be soon back. And, RHD, if I had to chose a role for myself (and not to be assigned by others) ... no ... I wouldn't like it to be Sisyphus neither Tantalus ot Ianus ... No no ... I would travel to France of Enlightment and I would pick Voltaire's role, and I would hope that every other Wikipedian choses the same role.--Yannismarou 10:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yannis, we'll start respecting your self-assigned role as an FA reviewer when you start taking the task seriously. As long as you believe that it is your God-given right to demand a footnote for anything you deem unfamiliar enough, no matter the counterarguments or your own ignorance of the topic, you're nothing but a footnote counter.
- Peter Isotalo 16:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Peter that is the attitude that caused me to lose my cool in the first place, and right now you're only begging Yannismarou to do the same. The reasons Yannismarou has given for requesting those citations are explicitly listed under Wikipedia:Citing sources#Why sources should be cited. Jay32183 18:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One last thing, (I'm glad the conversation has died down, let's keep it at that) I went and looked over the article again, and I am proud of the keepers, who actually did do a lot of work on this in between when this was put up and now. Although my vote stands, 1d was fixed, and the article was fixed up very well. I asked for this FAR to be closed now that things have finally settled down. (Plus, it caused more harm than good anyway, too many people quit.)--Wizardman 17:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- NEWSFLASH...it hasnt...see above. You opened this can of worms, it is only fitting you dine upon your share before it closes. Also I want to address Tantalus/Voltaire/Yanni first:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:27, 1 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.
- 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 07:49, 2 May 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Messages left at User talk:Khaosworks, England and Doctor Who. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While this still seems to be a quite well written comprehensive article, it has just 3 inline citations (plus one note) hence violating 1 c).--Konstable 13:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the references are from external book sources, as you can see from the bottom of the page, so the sheer number of inline citations does not matter, as the references are quite clear. Anything else? Smomo 17:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but there aren't enough specific inline citations for all the facts presented in the article's prose. While book citations are nice, they need to be more specific, i.e. what book (and possibly which page number) the sources come from for each fact presented. To cite all the necessary stuff could take a while. While I would like to help, I don't have enough time at the moment. For anyone who takes on this job, I would reccomend the site of the Doctor Who Restoration Team, which contains plenty of information on the restorations and conditions of episodes for citations. Green451 17:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The "References" don't provide page numbers, so to be considered to cover 1c they would have to do so. Harvard referencing or inline citations usually cover 1c. LuciferMorgan 19:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will try to provide Harvard-style citations with page numbers in the next week — I've been quite busy in real life lately, but I'll try to make some time for this. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to have a go at some of this in the next few days too. Angmering 01:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok cool. I prefer inline citation personally, but up to you whichever you wish to use. LuciferMorgan 14:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought I'd let you know that I have begun citing this article — I've only started the job, and there's still a lot more needs doing, but I thought I'd reassure you that work is being done on it. Angmering 13:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My invisible hat tips off to you :) LuciferMorgan 19:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article now has 82 footnotes tied to 40 separate references. I don't know if this satisfies the review yet, but I have dropped User:Konstable a line on his talk page asking if his concerns are being satisfied, and I await a reply. Angmering 13:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You said your books etc. are 160 miles away at present? Well, if you make a pledge to add specific page numbers when they're at hand I'd be very happy. Criterion 1. c. has definitely been met anyway, and congratulations to you. LuciferMorgan 16:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For two of the magazines and one book I was working from web versions, yes, but I cited the print versions because they look much better as cites. Still the same text content, though. I can certainly add the specific page numbers next time I'm back in Sussex, probably next month sometime, although I have asked on the project talk page if anybody else can supply them sooner. Angmering 16:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds cool. LuciferMorgan 15:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For two of the magazines and one book I was working from web versions, yes, but I cited the print versions because they look much better as cites. Still the same text content, though. I can certainly add the specific page numbers next time I'm back in Sussex, probably next month sometime, although I have asked on the project talk page if anybody else can supply them sooner. Angmering 16:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys, sorry I have been off-wiki for a while due to real life. I think the citation is working quite well now. I don't have any further concerns with it.--Konstable 04:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concern is citations (1c).
Comment: People seemed happy, but I thought I'd move it to get official comments on status as it's been up a while. Marskell 11:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Criterion 1. c. has been addressed. LuciferMorgan 16:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the citation criteria has been fulfilled. Nice job. Bob talk 10:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, looks good now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 29 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.
- 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 06:11, 28 April 2007.
- Messages left at Emsworth, Bio, Royalty, UK notice board, Ireland, Scotland, England, LGBT, and Calvinism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An old (2004) featured article on a King of England. Compared to other Kings of England featured articles I've read, this one is badly organised and flabby. Lots of the information in different sections (templates, infoboxes, ancestors, successors, predecessors, dynasty) overlaps and is not presented in context (compare the succession boxes with the paragraph I wrote here). Possibly the article has expanded in an untidy and uncontrolled manner since it was promoted and just needs tightening up again. The summary and lead section should be merged and expanded. The painting gallery of descendents is nice, but probably excessive. Many of the sections are single paragraphs and need to be expanded. Oh, and inline citations, of course... Carcharoth 02:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that descendants gallery is nice at all. See my comment on talk. It's quite a recent addition, I suspect. This article has really become a mess. I could reference most of it from books on my shelf, but it needs a total rewrite and I'm just too committed on other articles at the moment. However, I'll try to do a little bit here and there because we mustn't allow this important king not to have a featured article. qp10qp 04:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The lead is short and doesn't summarize the article. The summary section shouldn't exist because the lead is supposed to summarize the article. There are lots of stubby sections, including a one sentence section. There are vast amounts of text uncited, including quotations. Jay32183 04:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed the bibliography to "Further Reading" because we don't know which books provided which info. I've started a ref section and will add three standard biogs there and then chuck in some notes based on them. The existing notes are largely ramshackle internet ephemera, which I'll kick out for something better when I come to them. I'm going to start reffing from the top, so that other people can join in in an orderly fashion. If several of us get stuck in, we can sort this blighter pretty quickly. qp10qp 15:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks to be improving nicely, in my opinion. I hope you don't mind if I just watch from the sidelines and make the odd contribution here or there, as I don't have the books you are referring to. I might try and expand the context using material from other articles (eg. He was x years old when such and such an event took place, etc), and making clear his relationships to Elizabeth, Mary, and the other people in his life. He does seem like an interesting king, and I agree with Qp10qp that we should try and bring this article up to scratch. Carcharoth 19:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You could copy edit in my wake. The prose is not very good. On the whole, I am leaving that as it is for the time being, because if I copy edit and ref at the same time, I'll get bogged down. At the moment I'm only changing the text where I feel it drifts away from historical accuracy. I'm somewhat over-noting at the moment, just to give other editors an idea of what I'm up to. (Basically, to judge by its assumptions, this article could have been written thirty years ago, so I am adding a layer of recent scholarship, which has tended to revise James's reputation considerably.) qp10qp 21:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're doing fine as it is. I'm going to stand back and watch in awe! :-) Carcharoth 02:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I seem to have slipped from just reffing into reffing and rewriting, because a more complex text is required once we get into parliaments and Catholicism. I'm about half through now, which doesn't mean all is satisfactory in the first half (the politics of James's last fifteen years in Scotland aren't much mentioned, for example; I'll go back to that after I've finished my bulldozing and ref-abrication spree). I thought there'd be loads of us rushing to the aid of England's most interesting monarch (I wouldn't say Britain's—his mum takes that biscuit), but still. qp10qp 12:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No rushing to his aid, as that would disturb you. :-) I have put a few questions on the talk page. As for his poor ol' Mam, she isn't featured... Carcharoth 13:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - shall we close this FAR now? The article is nearly completely referenced except for the birth and death dates of the children, and the ancestor table. One question I have is how to mark this massive improvement and citation labour in the article milestones template. Is there a way to note there that it went to FAR, was improved, and remains a featured article? Plus linking to the new and updated version for any future releases? Carcharoth 13:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The bot that updates FAC closures also updates FAR/FARC closures. If people are still working on the article based on concerns raised here then we should leave the review open. Articles don't get removed when this much work is being done. When those editors feel they are finished, they should leave a note here and request that reviewers judge the new state of the article. Jay32183 18:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through the article and, with Carcharoth, addressed the issues:
An old (2004) featured article on a King of England. Compared to other Kings of England featured articles I've read, this one is badly organised and flabby.
- Reorganised. Flab cut. The article is now longer but with strong material added.
- Update: I have been shipping parts of the article out into Wikipedia: Summary style articles. For the purpose, I created James I of England and the English Parliament and James I of England and religious issues, and I have substantially added to Spanish Match and Thomas Overbury as well as decanting some material into Gunpowder Plot. I still have some more bits and pieces to farm out, though nothing major. I would point out that though the article stands at about 60 kb, compared to about 44kb when this FAR was called, the readable prose is now about the same (I just counted the surface prose [not counting notes, booklists etc. but including infobox and side words] at 4,562 words, compared to 4,627 words on April 10. So the basic article is somewhat the same in length. qp10qp 04:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of the information in different sections (templates, infoboxes, ancestors, successors, predecessors, dynasty) overlaps and is not presented in context.
- Lots of this cut. Other parts rationalised, for example the Stuart dynasty box and repetitions.
Possibly the article has expanded in an untidy and uncontrolled manner since it was promoted and just needs tightening up again.
- Tightened up. Random additions cut.
The summary and lead section should be merged and expanded.
- Done.
The painting gallery of descendents is nice, but probably excessive.
- Removed.
Many of the sections are single paragraphs and need to be expanded.
- Addressed. Paragraphs are now carefully focussed and relate to the overall structure of the article.
Oh, and inline citations, of course...
- Article now fully referenced, with inline citations.
Please add any further points and they will be addressed in short order.
I will continue to edit the article in order to rectify minor omissions and nuance the referencing using more specialist sources. I intend to move some material to daughter articles to make it shorter. But please don't mistake these edits for continuing work on the FAR. I now believe this article is worthy again of its FA status, but I leave that decision to the reviewers. qp10qp 10:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you haven't restored FA status, then you're really close. The article would pass a GAC quite quickly, and definitely make A-class if the relevant projects had reviews for that. If I were a primary editor of this article, I'd say "Nitpickers welcome!" Jay32183 17:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Status: So people are happy here? At a glance, I'd actually suggest the lead is a bit over-cited... Marskell 10:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly note 7 and 8 could be removed because the points they reference aren't very controversial. But the other seven notes in the lead address thorny questions that are by no means as straightforward as they look (the usual principle of leaving notes until the main body is unhelpful here because people have tended to edit the statements in the lead the most). My reading of the labyrinthine archives is that most of these points have been the subject of long, ill-informed debates (but read the comments of user:JKenney which are spot on throughout—whether he's a professional, I don't know, but he speaks like a historian). For this reason, I felt it necessary to nail these statements in place; otherwise the potential for renewed deterioration in this article is enormous. qp10qp 14:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the things being cited in the lead have a history of being contraversial on Wikipedia, then I would leave them cited. Preventing edit wars is one of the listed reasons to cite sources. Jay32183 16:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What happens, and we've even had a little of this since the FAR began, is that people edit on the basis of their own POVs. So, for example, they may change wording to give pre-eminence to one of James's kingdoms over another, or they may fuss over words like "union". And these matters are indeed complex. For example, James proclaimed himself "King of Great Britain", and so some people think that therefore he was King of Great Britain, and that a so-called "union of the crowns" took place not only by proclamation but by statute in 1603. In fact, the term "union of the crowns" is problematic (our article on the subject is, in effect, a sustained explanation of why such a union did not take place). The technical term for what took place is a "personal union", and that is now referenced and will help repel those who think that might be the same thing as the union of crowns, which was only a royal policy. One king wore three crowns, but despite his own proclamations, those three crowns remained separate.
- The mere mention of the fact that James succeeded Elizabeth invites messy explanations of how he came to inherit, almost certain to be misleading. Tight referencing will now refer that question to good sources. The sentence on majority took ages to research and word craftily, because that was a gradual and often contradictory process. There has been a tendency also for editors to assume that James's problems with Parliament led to those of Charles, and this is a long-established and acceptable view: but it has been repeatedly modified by historians in the last fifteen years, so now both views are set out in the lead antithetically, with references. Editors have also wanted the "wisest fool in Christendom" in as a strong and famous one-liner for the lead; but there's much more to that than meets the eye, too, which the careful wording and referencing of it now indicates. All the references are intended to hold the present balanced and informed interpretations in place against any future editor who arrives, armed with a "little knowledge" but without references, seeking, perhaps in all good faith, to tilt the article back into one-sided interpretations. qp10qp 22:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood, thanks all. So people don't feel we need FARC then? Marskell 08:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't look like anyone's very bothered, to be honest. A FARC might at least winkle a vote or two out, and maybe some objections, but colleague Carcharoth and I are pretty determined to meet all objections and prevent this beast from losing its FA status, so there's only ever going to be one result. qp10qp 16:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My feeling is that the article is now fully cited, there are no image problems, and the new sub-articles have improved the focus and flow of the article. Prose looks great to me, but it is not my forte. I don't think we really need an FARC this time. Jay32183 18:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, my initial concerns, stated at the start of this Featured Article review process, have been more than adequately addressed. I agree that nothing further is needed here. Carcharoth 23:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My feeling is that the article is now fully cited, there are no image problems, and the new sub-articles have improved the focus and flow of the article. Prose looks great to me, but it is not my forte. I don't think we really need an FARC this time. Jay32183 18:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't look like anyone's very bothered, to be honest. A FARC might at least winkle a vote or two out, and maybe some objections, but colleague Carcharoth and I are pretty determined to meet all objections and prevent this beast from losing its FA status, so there's only ever going to be one result. qp10qp 16:16, 27 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.
- 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 22:08, 25 April 2007.
A featured article should be written in a way comprehensible to laymen - Evolution was recently demoted because of this. However, DNA regularly uses unexplained terms, even in the lead, expecting the reader to read dozens of other articles in order to understand this one. While the depth of coverage is good, the explanation of the subject to laymen is very poor. Vanished user talk 12:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. The article links all of the scientific terms it uses. The Evolution article was de-listed for reasons other than it's lack of appeal to the laymen. Wikipedia should not dumb itself down or try to appeal to a laymen when it could simply link to the terms it uses so that the reader can go to that article and learn it. All wikipedia articles work this way. This is why we have the links to begin with. Just about every featured article works this way. Will you nominate every featured article for de-listment on that basis?Wikidudeman (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Specific guidelines this violates are WP:MOSDEF and Wikipedia:Technical terms and definitions. Vanished user talk 14:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read what you just linked. It says "Be sure to make use of the Wiki format and link the term if there is a relevant article." This article does that.Wikidudeman (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. But it doesn't say that's a substitute for explaining it. Indeed, there are several guidelines to the contrary:
- Specific guidelines this violates are WP:MOSDEF and Wikipedia:Technical terms and definitions. Vanished user talk 14:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible
- Every reasonable attempt should be made to ensure that material is presented in the most widely accessible manner possible. If an article is written in a highly technical manner, but the material permits a more accessible explanation, then editors are strongly encouraged to rewrite it.
- Some technical subjects are important to public policy questions (like genetic engineering) or a common subject of curiosity (like quantum mechanics). A special effort should be made to explain these topics. For other highly technical topics, it should be clearly established what field of study the concept belongs to, and if it has any practical applications.
- Use jargon and acronyms judiciously. In addition to explaining jargon and expanding acronyms at first use, you might consider using them sparingly thereafter, or not at all. Especially if there are many new terms being introduced all at once, substituting a more familiar English word might help reduce confusion (as long as accuracy is not sacrificed).
- WP:LEAD
- [The lead] should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article.
- WP:MOSDEF
- Explain jargon when you use it (see jargon). Remember that the person reading your article might not be someone educated or versed in your field, and so might not understand the subject-specific terms from that field. Terms which may go without a definition in an academic paper or a textbook may require one in Wikipedia.
- The first time an article uses a term that may not be clearly understood by a reader not familiar with the subject area, such as the terminology of a science, art, philosophy, etc. or the jargon of a particular trade or profession, introduce it with a short, clear explanation that is accessible to the normal English reader or based on terms previously defined in the article. Beware inaccuracies accompanying short explanations of technical terms with precise meanings.
- Wikipedia:Technical terms and definitions
- When writing technical articles, it is usually the case that a number of technical terms or jargon specific to the subject matter will be presented. These should be defined or at least alternative language provided, so that a non-technical reader can both learn the terms and understand how they are used by scientists.
- Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible
Vanished user talk 15:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Adam, I've made some changes in the lead to make it clearer and more accessible. Is this now at the level you think is appropriate for the rest of the article? The rule of thumb I am trying to follow is to define processes, but not all the nouns, as defining all the nouns in an article of this size would be prohibitively cumbersome. TimVickers 15:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that'd probably be at an appropriate level for most of the rest of the article, however, it still seems a bit too difficult for the lead. I'll have a go. Vanished user talk 17:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've made some improvements, but I'm not sure if the distribution of information between paragraph 2 and 3 is really the best way to do it. Vanished user talk 18:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that'd probably be at an appropriate level for most of the rest of the article, however, it still seems a bit too difficult for the lead. I'll have a go. Vanished user talk 17:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe it's difficult if not impossible to simplify all of these words into laymen terms. Various disciplines of science have their own jargon for this purpose. It's very difficult to put "non-hypogonadal" for instance into a term that means the same thing but takes up just as much space. Sure I could put "Men who have normal levels of testosterone" but if I exchanged every technical word in an article for a full sentence, it would bloat it up to a size beyond comprehension. I think simplifying when is possible is ok, However I believe that wikilinking is adequate in most cases. The DNA seems just fine to me.Wikidudeman (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd define "non-hypogonadal" in the lead if it were a central part of the article. I agree with Adam that the lead especially should be comprehensible for non-specialists. For particularly difficult areas, such as Enzyme kinetics an alternative approach is to introduce in non-technical language in the lead and have an additional "basic overview" section at the start to supply a bit more detail. Of course, I'm very open to additional suggestions on how to improve this article - these things are never finished! TimVickers 17:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a good general rule is "define any term that might not be known by someone who was still able to find the article" in other words, there's no need to define terms that someone looking up "DNA" can almost certainly be expected to know: protein, cell, gene, etc, but anything more obscure than DNA probably needs defined. Vanished user talk 18:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've rearranged the lead to give function first, then chemical structure and then transcription and translation and finally, the cell biology of DNA. Specific comments on other parts of the text that appear needlessly opaque would be welcome. TimVickers 19:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the lead looks pretty good now (certainly getting towards the point of diminishing returns) but perhaps the orginisation of the rest of the article could be improved. What if we moved the discussion of its biological function to the top, then the more difficult (insofar as in the end it gets more difficult) chemistry discussion? Vanished user talk 20:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you perceive the chemistry to be less accessible than the function? I would suggest not doing this move since much of the chemistry is fundamental to understanding the function. As an aside, what are the goals for this article? If it is to be an introduction for the layman, where does the meat of the article go? Surely a better solution would be to write new more concise article for the layman similar to the Introduction to evolution article? David D. (Talk) 20:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the lead looks pretty good now (certainly getting towards the point of diminishing returns) but perhaps the orginisation of the rest of the article could be improved. What if we moved the discussion of its biological function to the top, then the more difficult (insofar as in the end it gets more difficult) chemistry discussion? Vanished user talk 20:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've rearranged the lead to give function first, then chemical structure and then transcription and translation and finally, the cell biology of DNA. Specific comments on other parts of the text that appear needlessly opaque would be welcome. TimVickers 19:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) The chemistry section seems to go in "deeper" than the biological section, as well as opening with a sentence near-identical to one in the lead. Obviously, some of the chemistry is indeed simpler than the biology, but it does seem that the "Chemical modifications" heading requires an understanding of function anyway, and, arguably, 1.3 (Supercoiling) 1.4 (Alternative double-helical structures) and 1.5 (Quadruplex structures) could be delayed as well. You're right, but there are parts of the Chemistry section that go in pretty deep, and refer to biological processes that haven't yet been covered. An interleaved version might work better. Vanished user talk 21:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
What about (using the current numberings, and X. for new headers.)[reply]
- 1 Physical and chemical properties
- 1.1 Base pairing
- 1.2 Sense and antisense
- First Paragraph of 4. Genes and Genomes, 3 Overview of biological functions
- 3.1 Transcription and translation + Paragraph 2 of 4. Genes and Genomes
- 3.2 Replication
- X. New section briefly describing mitosis and meiosis, though not in much detail. (Knowledge of this is presumed in section 6) Just a paragraph saying what they are, no real detail.
- 6. Genetic recombination.
- X. [New header to collect some moved subsections] Structure (with, somewhere in this section or its subsections, Paragraph 3 of 4. Genes and Genomes.)
- 1.3 Supercoiling
- 1.4 Alternative double-helical structures
- 1.5 Quadruplex structures
- 2. Chemical Modifications
- 2.1 Regulatory base modifications
- 2.2 DNA damage
- 5 Interactions with proteins
- 5.1 DNA-binding proteins
- 5.2 DNA-modifying enzymes
- 5.2.1 Nucleases and ligases
- 5.2.2 Topoisomerases and helicases
- 5.2.3 Polymerases
- 7 Evolution of DNA-based metabolism
- 9 History
- 8 Uses in technology
- 8.1 Forensics
- 8.2 Bioinformatics
- 8.3 DNA and computation
- 8.4 History and anthropology
What do you think? Vanished user talk 20:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree very strongly, you can't discuss biological functions without first describing the structure of DNA. The structure of this molecule is absolutely central to its functions. This is also the most logical direction to discuss the topics, moving from the basics of what this molecule is, onto the more complex areas of its interactions with other molecules. This proposed change also runs the risk of converting the DNA article back to an over-broad discussion of the processes DNA is involved in, rather than concentrating on the subject of the article itself, the DNA molecule. TimVickers 20:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, perhaps that's not the best title for the new section, but Supercoiling, A B and Z DNA, and Quadruplex structures aren't, as far as I can see, mentioned in the Overview of biological functions anyway, so it made sense to me to delay them to after the biological introduction. Would it help if I made up the new arrangement on a temporary page? Vanished user talk 21:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, it'd probably help if I actually crossed out text I changed my mind about. Have another look at what I actually proposed for the new layout, instead of what I stupidly said about it. Vanished user talk 21:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, perhaps that's not the best title for the new section, but Supercoiling, A B and Z DNA, and Quadruplex structures aren't, as far as I can see, mentioned in the Overview of biological functions anyway, so it made sense to me to delay them to after the biological introduction. Would it help if I made up the new arrangement on a temporary page? Vanished user talk 21:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You could try that and see what it looked like but I still feel it is deeply unwise. Including mitosis and meiosis also seems a random inclusion to me, this is moving very far away from DNA. I think it would be best to only include the processes where DNA plays an active role. Throughout the article I've tried to focus on the DNA molecule, its structure and interactions - with DNA structure, DNA-protein interactions and DNA-DNA interactions forming the heart of the article. We have articles on the processes that DNA controls, so this article shouldn't repeat their content but should take an almost myopic "DNA eye's view" of the cell. TimVickers 21:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moving back to what this review is about, suggestions of alternative ways to organise the article seems to be wandering away from assessing if this article meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. I thought your initial concern was the prose, have we now dealt with this point? TimVickers 21:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed most of this should be on the DNA article talk page. Personally, I have not seen any convincing reason to demote this article. David D. (Talk) 21:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, the prose is pretty much fixed. Let's make the jump. I'll copy some text over. Vanished user talk 21:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So should we close the FAR? I'm confused. Help! TimVickers 21:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will close this now (or in the morning) if there's no pressing issues. It's barely past the three month window and I'm not entirely sure I agree with the proposed criteria concern. Marskell 21:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's close it. Whatever's left is fairly minor and isolated. Vanished user talk 21:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, kept. As you're now all discussing, remaining issues can be taken up on the article talk. Marskell 22:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's close it. Whatever's left is fairly minor and isolated. Vanished user talk 21:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will close this now (or in the morning) if there's no pressing issues. It's barely past the three month window and I'm not entirely sure I agree with the proposed criteria concern. Marskell 21:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
www.kiddywikipedia.org is the answer. I agree that the words of the development need to be in the article. If people have a hard time understanding DNA the external links is the place to go and find DNA for dummies. I am tied also of Deleters who take out pages by nomination them for delete and it is not done by the peers who understand the subject. DNA getting in here is another sign of beurocrates getting to much control of a good thing. Wikipedia should have three layers, Kiddy, layman and expert. Deletes should not be aloud in expert and laymen except by the person posting it. That way we will see a lot more development in wikipedia. DNA getting demoted Ha Ha Ha. is the april fools day for this suggestion to be made or have the deleters been let out of the asilum.Sic Sic Sic. RoddyYoung 12:48, 26 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.
- 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 10:25, 25 April 2007.
- Message left at WikiProject Cetaceans cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 12:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some issues that need to be fixed: 1a/2a) The lead is not brilliant, and the excess of numbers and parentheses makes the section hard to read. 1c) The article is severely short of references; there are only two inline citations. 2b) The sections are a bit out of order, in my opinion. For example, the "Threats Beyond Hunting" section could follow "Whaling" in order to establish a smoother flow. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do see some issues here, lack of comprehensiveness first and foremost. Information about the species itself (reproduction, taxonomy...) is underweighted compared to its interactions with humans (whalewatching, whaling, trivia). MOS problems include external jumps, too many external links, unnecessary redlinks, and unitalicized species name(s). Also contains a burgeoning and useless trivia section. These can be fixed easily, but comprehensiveness is a biggie. –Outriggr § 06:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The good thing is that Blue Whale, Sei Whale and Fin Whale are all featured and provide a good model to re-format the Humpback Whale page. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 11:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK - the article needs a description of the animal as a priority. Pretty basic really. The other 3 articles have a taxonomy section too. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 11:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Problems with WP:LEAD, WP:MSH, and external links (WP:EL, WP:NOT, pruning needed). Footnotes aren't formatted (see WP:CITE/ES). Popular culture has stubby sentences. Is this a citation, or what? The ingestion of saxitoxin, a PSP (paralytic shellfish poison) from contaminated mackerel has been implicated in humpback whale deaths.[Marine Mammal Medicine, 2001] External jumps—examples A photographic catalogue of all known whales in the North Atlantic was developed over this period and is today maintained by Wheelock College (here). and Some scientists (see Mercado). Lots to be done here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I got the LEAD into two paras now and it sorta summarises the article, though it desperately needs a description subsection...cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 00:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see a problem with the very small number of sources. Most of the material is unsourced--Sefringle 20:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I as the author of the originally FAed article can vouch that it was all sourced from sources given. Any newer material... well I didn't write it so it is not for me to say. Pcb21 Pete 22:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Interestingly somehow a major chunk of description got deleted some time after FA-hood. There is now some activity on the saving front. Makes me wonder about some form of semi-protection for FAs as a first step to article stability.....cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 01:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unreal. Good job, whoever restored it. It amuses me that there is now a poll unprecedented in size about the semantics of attribution policy, yet no one in a leadership role offers any indication that they care about protecting (that's the "meatspace" version of the word "protect") what we're hypothetically here to do: build comprehensive articles. (So if I ever get Auguste Rodin to FA, it's still only as good as my watchlist. Enticing prospect. One really needs to be a Buddhist here.) –Outriggr § 02:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I realized a couple of days ago that an entire section of Blue Whale had gone missing for over seven months. Although I don't blame the poll for this particular problem. Kla'quot 16:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: Pete, can you see anything else missing? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 01:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- PPS: It was promoted to FA on June 29 2004, at which point it had 6 references. I wasn't around then but I don't think inline refs weren't a prerequisite for Featured Articles at the time. Pete, it would be great if you could inline the points which came from the refs, and consderably facilitate it passing this FAR. A great read by the way, I don't see it as too hard to streamline this one through. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 02:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes things have changed a lot since this was promoted, including my greatly reduced participation in the project. I think a full-retro fit will be a lot of work that I (to be honest) won't have time for/could be bothered with :-/. If there were one or two key things that needed a specific ref I could take a look, but if the ref requirements have got still more onerous, maybe we should look at de-FAing it. P.s. thank you for the great work on improving the article that you've done recently. Pcb21 Pete 07:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, if anything sticks out as simple and easy to fix, I for one would appreciate it. I think this is readily saveable, especially with the other whales as templates and the work done already.cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 08:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are there plans to finish up the work soon, or should it move to FARC for additional time? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, we're getting there. I've been doing quite a bit of sprucing it up and alerted Yomangani who did great stuff reviving Platypus so we too are it I think. If you compare current with the date of starting, I'd guess we're about 2/3rds the way there. Realisticially I think we can get it up to scratch in another 7 days. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 20:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: [[9]] the difference if you an decipher it. Someone had also deleted the description somewhere along the way a few months ago....
- I'm on it too. The article has improved tremendously, however I have to agree comprehensiveness is still lacking, particularly w.r.t. conservation. Is there a deadline? Kla'quot 05:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The conservation section has been expanded. I see no major deficiencies in terms of comprehensiveness. We're getting crazily differing estimates from the sources on the current Humpback population; the numbers are a mess. It might take a few days to get that sorted out. However I'm sure the vast bulk of the rework has been done. The article was really horrible when it arrived here. Kla'quot 05:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No-one came back to me with any particular items they wanted sourced (see above) and re-reading the article I don't think there's anything that stands out as dodgy. In fact the article better is now than when originally featured. Of course standards for qualification have risen a lot, but still it probably deserves to stay. Thanks very much to all those who worked on it. Pcb21 Pete 09:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pete the biggest hole I can see is the issue of migration and disparity between quoted values. A recent reference I got into the text has a migration range a bit smaller than 25000km... Anything that could clarify or serve as a reference would be much appreciated cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That section of population and distribution might also need to be expanded a bit, but otherwise i think this article fully merits featured status. As far as the aforementioned section goes, I have already got to work on expanding it a little bit. --- ÅñôñÿMôús Dîššíd3nt 21:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Status: How do people feel about this one? Notice some work done. Marskell 14:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I think this one is over the line by now, though I have to admit I am more of a "near enough is good enough" sorta guy than a perfectionist, so I'll be more interested to see what others feel. Sandy? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 04:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: External links have been pruned, the article tells a reasonable story about population figures, and I'm in the process of expanding the lead and doing a general copyedit and fact check. Should be done by this weekend. If anyone can lend a hand, that would be great. Kla'quot 05:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think it's up to snuff now. Yomanganitalk 12:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think all problems have been addressed. The article looks solid to me. Kla'quot 17:27, 24 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.
- 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 00:27, 23 April 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Talk messages left at Emsworth and Law. LuciferMorgan 17:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Messages left at UK notice board and Politics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another Emsworth classic, which needs more inline citations, proper image tags and a fixing of the section noted for worldview problems. Judgesurreal777 19:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you specify what needs citations and why?
- Peter Isotalo 12:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there are currently whole paragraphs without citation, which could use at least one, maybe two per paragraph. They are needed because in-line citations are a current standard for Featured articles, so all articles past and present are held to present standards. :) Judgesurreal777 03:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps those "whole paragraphs without citation" don't actually need citations? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless they are self evident, like the sun is hot, then yes they do :) Judgesurreal777 18:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps those "whole paragraphs without citation" don't actually need citations? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there are currently whole paragraphs without citation, which could use at least one, maybe two per paragraph. They are needed because in-line citations are a current standard for Featured articles, so all articles past and present are held to present standards. :) Judgesurreal777 03:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FCOL - do we have to have this same argument every week? The relevant policies (whichever page they are on this week) say that there should be specific inline citations for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged - not for information that is not "self evident". Plenty of information is not "self evident" but is also not likely to be challenged on any reasonable basis, and so does not need a specific inline citation. HTH HAND :) -- ALoan (Talk) 09:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, don't argue with me, as you say people have argued this intensely, and it was decided that inline citations are needed because its current featured article status. Judgesurreal777 17:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FCOL - do we have to have this same argument every week? The relevant policies (whichever page they are on this week) say that there should be specific inline citations for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged - not for information that is not "self evident". Plenty of information is not "self evident" but is also not likely to be challenged on any reasonable basis, and so does not need a specific inline citation. HTH HAND :) -- ALoan (Talk) 09:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "don't argue with me"? It takes two to tango, you know.
- You said that this article "needs more inline citations" ... "at least one, maybe two per paragraph" ... "[u]nless they are self evident". With respect, I believe that that is incorrect as a general principle. As far as I am aware, it most certainly has not been "decided" (by whom? where? when?) "that inline citations are needed" as a general matter, save, as I say above, where there are direct quotations or facts that are likely to be challenged. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If they are required in FAC, they are required here. I gave that as general advice, since it was not one or two particular phrases that were unsourced, but many. Judgesurreal777 18:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because FAC has a fixation with dinky footnotes does not mean that we have to repeat the error. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The bulk of all footnotes at FACs are demanded by people who don't know the topic or have little or no experience with footnotes outside of Wikipedia. But most importantly, the vast majority of those footnote counter will never, ever read those references. It would be ridiculously easy to fly completely bogus facts in, intentionally or not, under the radar with all that grand dinkiness.
- Most citations in review processes tend to be "required" for completely random statements and for some inexplicable reason figures and statistics (which are actually a lot easier to verify then prose statement) are always seen as harder facts and therefore requiring more footnotes. One of the worst arguments, but still one of the most common, is simply "I've never heard of this, and I added a fact-tag, so now you have to cite it; that's policy so don't argue with me."
- Peter Isotalo 15:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If they are required in FAC, they are required here. I gave that as general advice, since it was not one or two particular phrases that were unsourced, but many. Judgesurreal777 18:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You said that this article "needs more inline citations" ... "at least one, maybe two per paragraph" ... "[u]nless they are self evident". With respect, I believe that that is incorrect as a general principle. As far as I am aware, it most certainly has not been "decided" (by whom? where? when?) "that inline citations are needed" as a general matter, save, as I say above, where there are direct quotations or facts that are likely to be challenged. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), and images (3).
Comment: Leaving aside the 1c debate, this article has serious problems in terms of TOC, stub sections, non-formatted notes etc. Marskell 11:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c and also the article concerns highlighted by Marskell. LuciferMorgan 21:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On HOLD
Removeshort stubby sections, mixed reference styles, external jump, unformatted references, blue-linked URLs in footnotes, poor prose ( ... though it was used by Swedish kings when they ruled Norway (see, for instance, under Wikipedia article "Dissolution of the union between Norway and Sweden in 1905.") ) and weasly statements like "Scholars have discussed circumstances" and "Some legal scholars have suggested ... " SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Remove largely uncited, non-formatted footnotes, stubby sections.Jay32183 20:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Comment If certain reviewers would be as excited about improving fairly minor errors in old FAs as they are about peeling the stars off of them, FAR would probably be a bit more respected. But then again, I'm sure it's far more thrilling to flaunt one's opinions about real or perceived deviations than it is to actually roll up one's sleeves and do some proper editorial work. Peter Isotalo 15:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not exactly sure who you are referring to, as most everyone on the Featured Article review, at one time or another has spearheaded the saving of a featured article, and cheers when articles are saved. Judgesurreal777 02:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The saving of a featured article? How 'bout dozens :-) In fact, the only person on this review I don't recall having ever seen "roll{ing} up sleeves" to preserve a featured articles's status would be the author of that comment. Personally, I would think it's time for an admin to do something about disruptive posts at FAR that offer no constructive help or article improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Disruptive posts", eh? You mean like this? But I guess that's okay since it'll guarantee the occasional "what they said!"-vote.
- Peter Isotalo 01:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The saving of a featured article? How 'bout dozens :-) In fact, the only person on this review I don't recall having ever seen "roll{ing} up sleeves" to preserve a featured articles's status would be the author of that comment. Personally, I would think it's time for an admin to do something about disruptive posts at FAR that offer no constructive help or article improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Have started work on this; should be finished by end of weekend, will update then. Ceoil 20:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ceoil, when you're ready, can you ping those who have already declared "Remove", so we can revisit? I'll put it on the watchlist. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove, as per above. Oh heck, we must be power-drunk. Peter Isolato, please see the "Fix 'em" discussion on the talk page. Tony 23:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove as per above. Hopefully, Ceoil's nice string of FA saves will continue with this article. — Deckiller 00:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]- On hold to be clear. All hail Ceoil. Marskell 12:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can that this this is held for a week. Have acces to sources, but am over committed. Ceoil 13:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hailing Ceoil, as commanded :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can that this this is held for a week. Have acces to sources, but am over committed. Ceoil 13:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Have cited most of Emsworth's origional article; however there is a lot of material added since on specifics of particluar commonwealth realms that are proving difficult confirm. Some of the additions are low value and are pushing a bias, and its likely I will rv much of these latter sections. Either way, I'll finish by the end of the weekend. Ceoil 21:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've finished citing where I though it was needed; though fact tags are welcome. Ceoil 19:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—there are now enough inline citations to satisfy both ends. Let's not go crazy here. — Deckiller 20:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Ceoil seems to have done excellent work. Unless some one finds additional problems, I think we can call this one saved. Jay32183 22:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Ahh, yet another FA save.... thanks Ceoil! Judgesurreal777 00:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—Ceoil, how do you do it? — Deckiller 00:25, 23 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.
- 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 07:41, 8 April 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Message left at Emsworth. LuciferMorgan 20:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Messages left at Scotland, Ireland, British Government, UK notice board, and Peerage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another Emsworth work, needs some inline citations to keep it at Featured Article status. Judgesurreal777 22:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Inline citations are not specifically required, but excellent as it is, the article lacks sources in general. I'm puzzled by the sentence "Following its disestablishment in 1871, the Church of Ireland ceased to send spiritual representatives". Ceoil 21:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just so you know, they are required, as has been discussed on this page in the past. :) All the best, Judgesurreal777 21:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not specifically required. They are de facto inevitable. Marskell 13:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just so you know, they are required, as has been discussed on this page in the past. :) All the best, Judgesurreal777 21:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the cited sources are online (except for the 1911 EB). I suspect that dinky footnotes could be added if one so wished. But what needs inline citation? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The section on Scotland has not one inline citation. That would be a good start I think. Judgesurreal777 19:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concern is insufficient citations (1c). Marskell 13:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 09:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove Judgesurreal777 19:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per above. — Deckiller 04:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]Remove per 1c. Jay32183 20:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]Removeper 1c—Pity. Tony 08:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Comment I realise this is late in the day, but can this be held for another day or two. Ceoil 14:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tell us soon. I was just about to close it, but won't. Marskell 14:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've finished citing where I though it was needed; though fact tags are welcome. Ceoil 20:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks a ton better now. Judgesurreal777 20:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've finished citing where I though it was needed; though fact tags are welcome. Ceoil 20:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tell us soon. I was just about to close it, but won't. Marskell 14:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep — modern standard has been reached. — Deckiller 23:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article is now cited. Jay32183 00:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 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.
- 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 07:55, 5 April 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Messages left at Piotrus, Trains, Rapid transit, Hong Kong and China. LuciferMorgan 03:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to see another FA on rapid transit go, but this article has some serious problems. It has a huge "Miscellaneous" section, which violates WP:TRIVIA, the TOC is crowded, some headers don't follow WP:MSH, and the line names are colored (which is a bit odd). — Selmo (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Article does need structural work; the "Miscellaneous" section is badly named (though it doesn't violate trivia), multitude of stubby headings, one/two sentence paragraphs, image farm...overall the layout is incoherent, and needs an overhaul. I haven't read it fully yet, but first impression is that half an hour spent merging paras and sections would make it an easier read and greatly improve presentation. Ceoil 23:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like the Miscellaneous section has been taken care of[10]. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no miscellaneous section whilst the article was promoted to FA. It should not have been created, either. - Mailer Diablo 14:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like the Miscellaneous section has been taken care of[10]. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments:
- Please be selective on images that give additional encyclopaedic information. It will be difficult for readers with poor internet connection to load all of those images. By the way, there is already {{commonscat}} to point to image gallery at Commons, so need to repeat gallery here.
- I believe the prose needs to be tightened. As for a user who wants to read MTR as an encyclopaedia not as a traveller, I found it hard to grasp the essential information. The last part of the article has many brochure-like statements. For instance, the Fare & tickets section is unecessary, I think. There is no need to inform uptodate fare system, unless this is wikitravel article.
- — Indon (reply) — 17:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The number of pictures is significantly reduced. — HenryLi (Talk) 02:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if I agree that the Fare and tickets section is unnecessary. It's kind of essential information about a particular mode of public transport like this. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I did some clean-up of the intro paragraph and the "Initial proposal" paragraph. Some copy editing to make it an easier read, fixing grammar problems, getting rid of repeated wikilinks, stuff like that. More to follow when time allows. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have renamed "MTR Rolling Stock" into "Rolling Stock"; people know you're talking about MTR's rolling stock not others'. Also, I consider the section "Art promotion" irrelevant, and would wish to discuss for removal of that section (and make it as a "see also link". --Raphaelmak 16:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless the existence of that section is going to hinder this FAR, I'd suggest we put that off till later. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Inconsistent date formatting throughout the article; some use yyyy-mm-dd, other use Month day, year. All numbers and units of measurement need a non-breaking hard space between them; some have, some don't. Problems throughout with hyphens and dashes; pls review WP:DASH. Prose problems; the article will need a copyedit. "It is interesting to note" is not encyclopedic, and redundant. Footnotes need work; many are not completed (to include publisher, date and author when available, as well as last access date) in a consistent biblio format. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. I've fixed the footnote formats to make sure they're all of the same format and provided dates where available.
- 2. The only place I noticed inconsistent date formatting was in the footnotes, which I've fixed. If they appear anywhere else, please point them out.
- 3. I got rid of the "It is interesting to note" line.
- 4. I did not notice where there was not a space between numbers and units of measurements. Can you point them out?
- 5. I've fixed two places where I thought the hyphen was incorrectly used.
- Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding 2 and 4 and 5, these problems are throughout; I'm not sure how you can miss them. Early in the article, and in several places, we find the date "On 1967-09-01, the ..." while later in the article, dates are given as Month Day, Year (which is preferable in prose). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I honestly don't see the problems you mentioned with the date format. What I see is that for those dates that have all three of year, month, and day, they are wikilinked per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) such that it appears in the format dictated by a reader's personal preference. For those dates that do not have a day, but just month and year, they appear as, for example, "September 1997". I don't see where there are any dates with the "Month Day, Year" format. Can you point them out? I also don't see any other problems with the units of measure and dashes. Maybe I'm just missing them. It would help if you can point out where you see them. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The various date formats are compliant to the manual. They would be automatically translated to the date format in user's preference. I have changed to the units in preferred format. — HenryLi (Talk) 08:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding 2 and 4 and 5, these problems are throughout; I'm not sure how you can miss them. Early in the article, and in several places, we find the date "On 1967-09-01, the ..." while later in the article, dates are given as Month Day, Year (which is preferable in prose). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example of the work needed on separating numbers and units of measurment with a non-breaking hard space. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok I fixed a few more.[11]. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Date consistency fixed. - Mailer Diablo 13:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sandy. I'm afriad you made a mistake here.
- In the manual, "Put a space between the value and the unit symbol, for example "25 kg" not "25kg". Preferably, use
for the space (25 kg
) so that it does not break lines." - It is the unit symbol, not the unit itself. "25 kilograms" without "
" is perfectly acceptable. — HenryLi (Talk) 15:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not understand why the sections of the article and its headers has been shifted around and modified significantly; this should not be the case and needs to be reverted, if nessecary - It is the main cause of concern that is raised by this FAR. Lines with colours should only be in the network section. - Mailer Diablo 14:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The section restructuring seemed to have improved upon the version that was promoted to FA status 2 years ago. The smaller subsections in the "History" section were combined, and the "Privatisation" section was made a subsection of the "History" section. A new "Infrastructure" section had been created and appropriate sections were made subsections of that, including the "Network" section, the "Depots" section, and the "Station facilities, amenities and services" (which has also since been expanded upon). The "Fares and tickets" section largely remained unchanged except that a subsection for the fares for the Airport line had been combined into the "Other fares" subsection. The "Future expansion" section had been updated and small subsections were eliminated. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs)
- But I don't see where the article is using coloured lines except in the network section. Can you point out this problem? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment When is a TOC considered "crowded" and "not crowded"? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Third-level headings eliminated (Condensed to Station facilities, amenities and services). 2c should be addressed at this point. - Mailer Diablo 18:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are TOC (2c), and trivia (4). Marskell 17:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why is the last sentence of "MTR HONG KONG Race Walking" cited 5 times? That's a little excessive, though if it's for the whole paragraph then it's best to put them at the end of the sentences in question. LuciferMorgan 17:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources now reordered. - Mailer Diablo 11:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Any further or unsolved concerns? If not, keep featured as I presume the concerns have been addressed. The trivia section has disappeared since nomination of this review. - Mailer Diablo 11:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It sppears that the renaming issue has remained unresolved despite supposed "concensus", if one were to judge purely on vote counts. The current name of the article continue to circumvent our naming convention policy, and I dont think this is acceptable for an FA.--Huaiwei 12:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would consider the issue opposed, or at the very least, no consensus. WP is not a democracy, but for the second time since January, an informal poll has not achieved consensus on the move. Neither one could even achieve majority support. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Inherent problems with the skewed demographies of voters has been highlighted, irregardless of the voting results, and hence cannot be considered to be true concensus, especially when this is a question of global notability. Even at this stage, there has been no successful demonstration of such notability, despite the votes beind stacked heavily to one viewpoint. Clearly, the issue is far from being adequately addressed, and I would think this can have an impact on its FA status.--Huaiwei 16:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said there was such a thing as "true consensus" on the move. In fact, I believe I said there was no consensus to move. Plus, there is no current move request listed on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My views on the general situation need not be a reflection of your words. Perhaps you may wish to expend more effort to actually research on the case in hand, instead of nit-picking on procedures and other issues.--Huaiwei 17:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And if you wish to dwell on procedures, may I remind that a formal RM is not prerequisite for a request to check on facts or notability.--Huaiwei 17:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said there was such a thing as "true consensus" on the move. In fact, I believe I said there was no consensus to move. Plus, there is no current move request listed on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Inherent problems with the skewed demographies of voters has been highlighted, irregardless of the voting results, and hence cannot be considered to be true concensus, especially when this is a question of global notability. Even at this stage, there has been no successful demonstration of such notability, despite the votes beind stacked heavily to one viewpoint. Clearly, the issue is far from being adequately addressed, and I would think this can have an impact on its FA status.--Huaiwei 16:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would consider the issue opposed, or at the very least, no consensus. WP is not a democracy, but for the second time since January, an informal poll has not achieved consensus on the move. Neither one could even achieve majority support. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It sppears that the renaming issue has remained unresolved despite supposed "concensus", if one were to judge purely on vote counts. The current name of the article continue to circumvent our naming convention policy, and I dont think this is acceptable for an FA.--Huaiwei 12:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep — there are still some minor ToC issues; the community heading can probably be compressed into one heading of three paragraphs in lieu of two headings. The article is a little on the long side in terms of prose; this is just a minor issue, but a subarticle for the history might help reduce the ToC and the overall length. The prose could also stand for a quick copy-edit, although I don't have specific examples at this time. — Deckiller 03:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have time to re-read the article, but the structure looks sound now, and I feel confident it's good to go if Deckiller has read through it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:00, 3 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.
- 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 10:01, 3 April 2007.
- Talk messages left at Indrian, Bio, Baseball, Baseball players, and New York. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was promoted to FA on April 30, 2005; however, the current article needs to be updated to meet current featured article criteria.
Specific criteria to be addressed are:
- 1.(c) - The article has no inline citations at all.
- 2. (a) - the lead section needs to be expanded as it doesn't currently "summarizes the entire topic"
Let me take a crack at sourcing this. I own the biography listed and the other sources are online, so it's certainly doable.--Djrobgordon 02:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a little more than half of the article referenced, although an obscene amount of the citations are from the Dawidoff book. I'll have to check up on the FA rules for that kind of thing. I've already found a few sentences I've had to reword because they were eerily similar to those in the book.
Other problems I've found:
- The article doesn't really deal with the views of those who argue that Berg overstated his activities as a spy. Michael Lewis wrote a short paper about this, and Dawidoff touches on it as well. I'll add something.
- Baseball stats need to be simplified for novices. For instance, "Berg batted .186" wouldn't make a bit of sense to me if I didn't know the game.
- The prose needs some tightening up.
I'll get to it eventually, but if someone else happens on this and wants to help, all of those things could be done.--Djrobgordon 09:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Citing from a single book is usually fine, unless the info being cited is disputed / controversial. Good work with the cites thus far. LuciferMorgan 18:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With obscure subjects, a single or very few sources are often all you'll have. But even the one source will have it's bibliography, so raid it. Regarding simple things like "Berg batted .186", take care of it with bluelinks (batting average), rather than a cite. Marskell 20:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually citing the numbers, rather than the term. If the stats are considered common knowledge or the Baseball-Reference.com external links is sufficient, I can take that citation out.--Djrobgordon 21:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Never mind. I thought you were referring to something else, then I reread your comment and figured it out.--Djrobgordon 21:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With obscure subjects, a single or very few sources are often all you'll have. But even the one source will have it's bibliography, so raid it. Regarding simple things like "Berg batted .186", take care of it with bluelinks (batting average), rather than a cite. Marskell 20:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm out of town for a couple days, and my internet access isn't what I thought it'd be, but if nothing else I'll finish the cites over the weekend. I haven't abandoned the project.--Djrobgordon 20:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now fully referenced and I rewrote the lead to better conform to standards. It's not a perfect article, but I think I've addressed the concerns that were raised.--Djrobgordon 18:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as FA. Issue 1c has been addressed, and the lead looks just fine. Certainly not a perfect article, and perhaps some of the 2 sentence paragraphs could be combined or tightened up, but that's really nitpicking and to me this is an FA.--Wizardman 19:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not opposed to closing this. It may spend too much time on his baseball, which is of less interest than his spying, but I presume that's an outcome of the material available. Any other comments? Marskell 13:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments I wouldn't be able to read the entire article until the weekend, but on quick glance, I saw nothing major that was wrong. What I did see was that WP:DASH is wrong throughout (this happens often on sports articles). Hyphens are used that should be en-dashes and en-dashes are used where em-dashes are needed. Hyphens connect words; en-dashes separate dates, numbers and date ranges; and em-dashes are used for punctuation. Pls see WP:DASH; if no one fixes it sooner, I can do it over the weekend. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the dashes, but noticed a cite tag which I attempted to fix, regarding one year as the Red Sox coach. http://espn.go.com/classic/biography/s/Berg_Moe.html has conflicting info; someone who has the Dawidoff book or other sources might be able to sort this out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to post a note at the Baseball Project to see if we can get some help in removing that last cite tag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the dashes, but noticed a cite tag which I attempted to fix, regarding one year as the Red Sox coach. http://espn.go.com/classic/biography/s/Berg_Moe.html has conflicting info; someone who has the Dawidoff book or other sources might be able to sort this out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- remove There are too many primary sources for a biography.--Sefringle 20:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing: I think good work was done on this and it's within criteria. I removed the uncited sentence to talk. Marskell 10:00, 3 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.
- 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 19:31, 8 April 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Original author aware. Message left at Poland. LuciferMorgan 21:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Message left at History. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted to FA status quite a long time ago. Has 4 decent references at the bottom, but could use some in-line citations. There are some citations of online sources in a few rare places, but they are not presented in the proper <ref> format either.--Konstable 05:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On my to-update-list. Please notify WP:PWNB. We will see what can be do to bring it to modern standards.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 06:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some random concerns:
- The lead has a bunch of images that causes it to look extremely awkward on high res.
- Misplaced formality throughout, such as "in order" to, "prior to" (instead of "before"), vauge terms of size ("a number of"); very minor stuff.
- Five solid references, but only 2 footnotes.
- The article is a bit on the long side, but it's already a subarticle. Perhaps a 10-20 percent trim, if possible?
On the whole, it could use inline citations and a copy-edit by a group of editors. It's a long article, so it's going to take some time. However, it is still a very good article, so elevating it to modern standards should not be a huge challenge. — Deckiller 10:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will see what I can do about inline citations. Copyediting is not my forte (as I am not a native English speaker), and I strongly object to 'trimming' (Wikipedia is not paper). That said, splitting excessive details into subarticles is always a good idea (I just object to the suggestion that some info may be uncessary and can be deleted).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 22:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Subarticles will be a great idea; sort of like what's going on with the B-movie article. I'll work on copy-editing with the other FAR people, but it looks like this article will get a lot of modernization, which is always great! — Deckiller 22:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A hint for anybody willing to read a little: a more recent FA of mine, History of Solidarity, has a lot of great inline ctiations for much of the facts covered in part of that article (late 1970s-1990). So feel free to see which ones can be copied and added here.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 03:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. HoS being a POV-fork of this has a lot of stuff that needs to be moved where it belongs. --Irpen 04:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Shame nobody supported your POV-fork claim during HoS FAC. Why don't you try FARC for that article, as long as you are here?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 05:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Only because time constraints cannot allow me do all I want to do. --Irpen 06:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Shame nobody supported your POV-fork claim during HoS FAC. Why don't you try FARC for that article, as long as you are here?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 05:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. HoS being a POV-fork of this has a lot of stuff that needs to be moved where it belongs. --Irpen 04:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A hint for anybody willing to read a little: a more recent FA of mine, History of Solidarity, has a lot of great inline ctiations for much of the facts covered in part of that article (late 1970s-1990). So feel free to see which ones can be copied and added here.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 03:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have significantly improved inline references in the article. That said, there is still room for improvement - but I believe this FARC comments have been mostly addressed.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are citation format and sufficiency (1c) and prose (1a). Marskell 08:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove unless size is addressed; 66KB of readable prose significantly passes WP:LENGTH guidelines. Also, websources need last access date.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]- I am removing my objection based on size; the article size is now within WP:LENGTH guidelines, and the article complies with WP:MOS issues. I am not supporting as I don't know enough about some of the references used to be certain that the article is free of POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per Sandy's reasoning. LuciferMorgan 17:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove, but really only because of the massive length. The citation concerns seem like fairly minor points. Peter Isotalo 09:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I can hardly believe size is an objection: at 66kb prose (91kb total) the guideline states only that 'Probably should be divided' - hardly a reason for FA delisting. Yes, the article has grown since it became a FA (69kb in July'05), and yes, some small parts can be split off per our summary size - but by becoming longer it has only become more comprehensive and even better then when consensus was to FA it. Again, while I support trimming the article, I cannot believe that becoming 'too good' can be a reason for FARCing it...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 00:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional keep — I'm turning away from the length issue, to be honest. It looks like most of the refs have accessdates, although you might want to double check to make sure. Also, the lead is somewhat cluttered — is it possible to reorganize that? — Deckiller 00:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have trimmed the lead. Comments welcome on talk as to what and where to split to trim the article further.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 01:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was mostly talking about the amount of images in the lead. Honestly, I don't mind the length whatsoever. Perhaps you can move the Partia image down? — Deckiller 01:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Partia is actually the defining image for this article. But feel free to move the images for better layout - it looks fine on my comp, though.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 12:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. It seems the major issue left is fixing those citationneeded tags. — Deckiller 19:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Partia is actually the defining image for this article. But feel free to move the images for better layout - it looks fine on my comp, though.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 12:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was mostly talking about the amount of images in the lead. Honestly, I don't mind the length whatsoever. Perhaps you can move the Partia image down? — Deckiller 01:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have trimmed the lead. Comments welcome on talk as to what and where to split to trim the article further.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 01:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There are 3 [citation needed] that should be fixed. Note 31 has no page. To be honest, I did not read into detail the article. 66 kb of prose is a bit more than the usual. Maybe sub-articles could be created.--Yannismarou 16:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are still numerous sections which are large enough to benefit from summary style to bring the article in line with WP:LENGTH. But length isn't the only problem; the citation needs extend well beyond the cite tags added. The article is replete with hard data that is uncited, as well as political statements that need attribution. I'm still a very strong remove unless the article is cited and summarized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The last section, added after FAC, that was poorly referenced and contained all of the three citation requests, has been split to Culture in modern Poland. Thus the article is both better referenced and leaner :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I moved the section on minorities to Historical demographics of Poland (actually, it was a copy of that text anyway) and added a sentence with link to that article elsewhere in the article. Those two recent changed moved the article from 99kb to 81kb :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Piotrus has made good improvements on the article since the FAR. I am in the process of addressing the concern about too many photos. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Length (the only argument that's left) is not a reason to de-FA an article. Besides, my experience shows that FA articles divided onto several sub-articles are not the best option and most of the sub-articles are seldom (if ever) updated by the readers (check the Warsaw Uprising series to see what I mean). //Halibutt 22:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Or Polish-Soviet War - while the main article has been improving steadily, Polish-Soviet War in 1919, Polish-Soviet War in 1920 are becoming more like obsolete ghosts of the past then anything else. Seriously, I find the 'lenght objections' and splitting useful stuff into forgotten subarticles actually damaging our project, not helping it.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 22:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Something about length: personally, I don't insist so much on it. Yes, 60 + kilobytes of prose is a bit more than the usual, but it is not for me that terrible (now it is even less I think). Recently promoted FAs were more than that. Anyway ... Something I want to say is that IMO some numbers and assessements should be better cited (e.g. "While their attempts to create a bridge between Poland's history and Soviet Marxist ideology were mildly successful, especially in comparison to similar efforts in most other countries of the Eastern Bloc, they were for the most part stifled due to the regime's unwillingness to risk the wrath of the Soviet Union for going too far from the Soviet party line.", "By 1950, 5 million Poles had been settled in what the government called the Regained Territories."). The prose looks to me fine. So, for the time being, I am a weak keep, hoping for further improvements but believing that the article is back to FA status--Yannismarou 18:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)![reply]
- Remove. Article lacks in line citations (for such article scale!), especially when from 32 in line citations article mostly relies on 2 sources. A lot of article's statements are unreferenced, for this reason article looks like speculative and with original research elements. For instance "Poland's postwar recovery was much harder than it could have been" it is pure speculation without proper refs, another one "Poland was forced by the Soviet Union to give up its",and there are many more. I also suggest to remove such wordings as "an immediate rise" , "enormous losses" etc. Article also lacks information about minorities, article do not mentions Germans position at all and it looks like they did not existed in Poland. Another unacceptable development - city names spelling such as "Wilno". In short article still needs major input. M.K. 11:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The statements you mention have been removed or referenced. The article has 35 distinct refs now, and I can't help but note that the newest Lithuanian FA you recently worked on, Act of Independence of Lithuania, has only 37 refs. Minorities, including Germans, are mentioned and refer leader to more in-depth subarticle (please note several other reviewers asked for such info to be split of and summarized, we can't please everyone).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 01:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Status: Well, I guess this stays up a little longer. I know Piotrus is willing to work. Can referencing examples be provided (don't swamp the page, please). The article has moved from very, very long to merely very long, which is good. Marskell 20:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. Some paragraphs have no citations (for example, lead, 3 first paras under "The Gomułka period", quick count - 16 paras in total). And writing is aweful (cherry-picking examples): to pay the crushing rates, albeit at great risk of punishment; which was greatly diminished by widescale bribery of police, political earthquake followed, catastrophic blow, two things saved Gomułka's regime at this point, turned into huge riots, welcomed Gomułka's return to power with relief, and even euphoria, etc. Fixing just these won't help: the text needs a very thorough and extensive copy-edit and NPOVing, probably re-write would be even better. And I lack words for this piece: The reforms were greeted with relief by a significant faction of the population. Tens of thousands of Poles who had joined the Communist Party and some Social Democratic, Communist and Trade Unionist Poles, celebrated the opportunity to create what they saw as the society of the future. Renata 17:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The lead isn't supposed to have citations Renata, or at least it is not required. Search through the featured articles for examples. Quadzilla99 05:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not great prose—Probably not bad enough by itself to warrant defrocking, the prose needs TLC throughout.
- I find the opening para, which dives straight into shifting territory, inappropriate. What is required is a broad statement of the significance and location of Poland in the history of the continent.
- Remove the subtitles in "Early history". Stubby paras under the last subtitle.
- Why is title case used in the titles (against MoS)?
- "powerful hatred"—unidiomatic.
- Inconsistent use of en dashes/hyphens for ranges (should be the former). Tony 23:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update. I am continuing to add refs (all specific examples above have been cited or removed) and move unnecessary details of the article. At latest count there are 8 unreferened paragraphs, judging by lack of citation requests they don't contain anything new, but they seem like good candidates for moving to a subarticle. Feel free to tag citation requests templats anywhere. As for language, please edit anything you dislike, I am not a native English speaker and the text looks good to me (it has not been significantly changed in that regard since FAC).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 03:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It seems that a lot of references are added. This article came through some reviews unscathed. Sjones23 20:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments I'm happy with length now; 8800 words is within guidelines, albeit long. I'm working on formatting and MOS issues, and reviewing references now.
- Why is this in External links? Toons and other children's programm from 70's and 80's (Polish) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please check this reference. I wikified the date, but don't know if 02-10-04 in Polish is February 10 or October 2nd. Rzeczpospolita (February 10, 2004) Nr 232, Wielkie polowanie: Prześladowania akowców w Polsce Ludowej (Great hunt: the persecutions of AK soldiers in the People's Republic of Poland). Retrieved on June 7, 2006 (Polish) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update. Most unreferenced paras has been split, this brings the article to 75 kilobytes and maybe 1 or 2 unreferenced paras. This elink has been split. The date for that ref is 2 October.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 21:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll fix that date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update. Most unreferenced paras has been split, this brings the article to 75 kilobytes and maybe 1 or 2 unreferenced paras. This elink has been split. The date for that ref is 2 October.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 21:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very productive FAR. Quadzilla99 10:03, 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.
- 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 13:49, 4 April 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Messages left at Metal and Music genres. LuciferMorgan 17:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nominating this because;
1. The article fails criterion 1. c. LuciferMorgan 09:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've only closely read the lead, which definitely needs an expansion, and skimmed through the rest. The lead suggests that the article may need a copyedit, as it starts out with a long, winding snake, and continues with an awkward "Out of heavy metal various subgenres later evolved". The two introductory grafs of the Characteristics section need help. Gzkn 12:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — I am very familiar with this article for I have done a complete translation from English to French to use on the French Wikipedia. I have read all of it in depth and have looked through some of the book sources. I think it would be clearer if LuciferMorgan gave us greater description of how the article fails criterion 1C. Is it the verifiability, the reliable sources, or is it simply the fact that information could be considered factually inaccurate? Thanks in advance for clarifying that. Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! • O)))) 16:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's verifiability and that uncited information could be considered factually inaccurate. Also POV is prevalent - Dio being "legendary" is a debatable opinion, and fails NPOV when uncited for example. The sources used for citations in the article so far seem reliable, but there is a lot of uncited info. LuciferMorgan 17:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Okay this is definitely clearer ^^ Thanks. I'll see if I can help the article a bit by checking for uncited POV for example, it's not too hard... :) Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! • O)))) 18:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cites could benefit from using citeweb - some don't have retrieval dates. There's also some embedded links in the article - if they're reliable sources which verify a point, convert them to inline citation, though if not, rid of them. LuciferMorgan 09:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fails criteria 3 Fair use image Image:CNINJA.jpg does not contribute substantially to the text.
- Comment I've been meaning to work on this article in-depth for over a year, but I've always had other projects that I was more interested in completing. Simply put, this article is over two years out of date regarding current FA criteria and is missing vital contributions like inline citations, soundclips, and free images. An example of what needs to be done with this article is punk rock, which underwent an FAR not too long ago and came out vastly improved. I'm going to devote more of my time to this article to bring it up to code, but I'm going to need help. Lots of it. WesleyDodds 09:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We should agree on a structure in advance, and then farm out sub sections to different editors. I'll volunteer for black and doom metal; was that age the time, and have the t-shirts, vinyl and posters to prove it, though luckly not the tats. Can also look after sound files if suggestions are made on talk. Ceoil 00:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm most interested in early heavy metal (Yes, Zeppelin is metal. Of course we also have to mention revisionist tendencies to place Sabbath as the first "true" metal band) and New Wave of British Heavy Metal. I can help with the alternative/nu metal section, which is mostly in need of keeping out bias. I'm also keen on structuring the article. It's basically there, but we should probably make it more like punk rock, a rock genre similar in scope, breadth and longevity. WesleyDodds 01:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh, Zeppelin. - Otherwise agree, but structure should be laid out on talk and agreed before overhaul. You work on this, I'll work on that. Ceoil 01:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the page again we really need someone to focus on arranging and cleaning up the "Characteristics" section. Much of the expansion has occured in the last month or so, and it's become messy and unwieldy. WesleyDodds 03:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Scissors needed. Ceoil 10:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll start on ce and standardizing ref style after y'all do a couple more days work. Article filled with typos: obviously "Led Zeppelin" should be "Lead Zeppelin," "nu metal" must be "new metal" (unless when it's Yiddish metal, of course), and who ever heard of an oyster with an umlaut?! Öy, zoso much work to do on this one.—DCGeist 19:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Scissors needed. Ceoil 10:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the page again we really need someone to focus on arranging and cleaning up the "Characteristics" section. Much of the expansion has occured in the last month or so, and it's become messy and unwieldy. WesleyDodds 03:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh, Zeppelin. - Otherwise agree, but structure should be laid out on talk and agreed before overhaul. You work on this, I'll work on that. Ceoil 01:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm most interested in early heavy metal (Yes, Zeppelin is metal. Of course we also have to mention revisionist tendencies to place Sabbath as the first "true" metal band) and New Wave of British Heavy Metal. I can help with the alternative/nu metal section, which is mostly in need of keeping out bias. I'm also keen on structuring the article. It's basically there, but we should probably make it more like punk rock, a rock genre similar in scope, breadth and longevity. WesleyDodds 01:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is becoming difficult. See the talk page for more info. WesleyDodds 08:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So, without trying to sound like I'm being critical, everyone is in disagreement over various aspects of heavy metal's evolution? LuciferMorgan 17:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's more that there's some differing interpretations among various editors that we're nevertheless willing to discuss and work out, except for one editor who is forcefully pushing his POV (incidentally, he's got a temp ban right now). WesleyDodds 04:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If that editor is Deathrocker, I'd just work without him. He's had a good few bans for enforcing his opinion, and if he's messing with you and the other editors efforts to keep this article's status, then report him to ANI. Nobody needs him trying to help them with an article. LuciferMorgan 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments The first image in the Chords section is completely bombing out the article on my laptop screen, wrapping to about a screen and a half; the others are fine. Section heading "The term "heavy metal" " needs WP:MSH attention. All footnotes (particularly blue linked URLs) need to be expanded to include full biblio info; if you all get to a point where the article looks salvageable, I can help with that—lots of work needed on ref formatting. I saw problems with dashes and hyphens in Related styles section and Thrash metal section; be sure to review WP:DASH. Are songs and albums supposed to be italicized? If so, consistency is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Only albums are supposed to be italicized, eg. Ride the Lightning. Songs are supposed to be like eg; "Enter Sandman". LuciferMorgan 22:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Some definite problems here: An FA with a "disputed" tag on it, and a {{fact}} in the lead. Inadequate citations, and questionable sources like http://www.dinosaurrockguitar.com/ . I believe it's salvageable, but it's below par for an FA at the moment and needs work. --kingboyk 00:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amongst editors of the article there's been debate over having Encyclopaedia Metallum as an external link in this article. Now most editors have been urging to keep the link, but since users submit all the info to the website I think the link fails reliability, and I think it should be removed. What does everyone else think? LuciferMorgan 09:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Status. How are we doing here? Should this be moved down? Marskell 12:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concern is citations (1c).
I've been citing a lot of things. I should be done with that in about a week. Then we'll format all the references. WesleyDodds 14:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that another full week is needed, I'm moving it down to keep it on pace. Keep everybody informed. Marskell 08:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Work is ongoing and a consensus amongst editors has develpoed (with a notable exception). The majority of the required info has been added, but the article needs a thorough copyedit, and the refs need to be cleaned up. Ceoil 20:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So is the accuracy of the article still disputed or the tag unneeded? LuciferMorgan 00:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we can do without it. Deathrocker was the one who put it up anyway (I don't even think he properly explained why in the first place). WesleyDodds 04:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If consensus is it's unneeded, take it off. Deathrocker should've explained adequately his reasons for the tag in the first place. LuciferMorgan 14:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we can do without it. Deathrocker was the one who put it up anyway (I don't even think he properly explained why in the first place). WesleyDodds 04:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So is the accuracy of the article still disputed or the tag unneeded? LuciferMorgan 00:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All music files need to follow Wikipedia:Music samples. Some don't - when adding them please make sure it's allowed under the guidelines :) LuciferMorgan 16:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you let me know which ones are a problem. Ceoil 22:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I should be done with citing and working out the bare bones of the History section by tomorrow. After that I'll be moving to the Characteristics section. Advice on sound samples to use for critical commentary are appreciated, as are reliable published sources on the genre's musical traits. WesleyDodds 02:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and for those with knowledge of the genre think we're missing anything important, please mention it. I know for sure we still need to mention AC/DC and Guns 'n Roses, two very important and popular bands. WesleyDodds 02:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to be out of town and away from a computer for a few days, so things might slow down a bit. WesleyDodds 07:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Ah, now Deathrocker is claiming I'm "raping" the article because of sourced material I worked into the "Mainstream dominance" section. I do think the material I've added is superior and better referenced than what Deathrocker keeps reverting to, and since he's also being uncivil about it, I'm going to just follow LuciferMorgan's advice and ignore him. WesleyDodds 21:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think this is close to keep, openions welcome. Ceoil 00:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Status: Can people tighten up there comments here? Is this a keeper or what? Marskell 10:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The article has under gone substantial changes and over 90 inline citations provided, sections added, rewritten etc. Goodwork guys, too bad there was certain "obstacles". M3tal H3ad 13:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per M3tal H3ad. Ceoil 16:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, but I think this is doable.Is this the way the book punctuates this direct quote? "With their diseases and orgasm drugs and their sexless parasite life forms — Heavy Metal People of Uranus wrapped in cool blue mist of vaporized bank notes — And the Insect People of Minraud with metal music."
- I looked up the quote and changed to the correct dashes as presented in Burroughs' text. WesleyDodds 11:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the "And" supposed to be capped? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- -checks- Yep. WesleyDodds 21:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- -checks- Yep. WesleyDodds 21:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the "And" supposed to be capped? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked up the quote and changed to the correct dashes as presented in Burroughs' text. WesleyDodds 11:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This redirects: and Sunn 0))) to two )) parens onlyI saw some inconsistency in emdashes, changed one, pls check. Most have no spaces around them, some have spaces on both sides, some have spaces on one side.- Reliable source ?? http://www.dinosaurrockguitar.com/home.shtml It's used a lot, pls tell us why it's reliable.
- Unformatted references throughout. All websources need publisher and last access date at minimum, author and publication date where available. Blue-linked URLs need to be expanded to include complete info, and it's not at all clear how some of these sources are reliable.
- Ultimate-Guitar.com How is it reliable? http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/columns/junkyard/the_devils_horns_a_rock_and_roll_symbol.html
- Motley Crue - Zeppelin & Sabbath influences
- Ratt - Rolling Stone attributing Sabbath & Zeppelin influences
- Bobby Dall, Poison bassist citing Sabbath and Led Zeppelin
- Blackie Lawless citing original heavy metal band Cream as influence
- Mick Mars - Jeff Beck Group influenced
- Metal-Rules.com
- SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That last bit was the subject of an edit dispute. I wrote a different version using different references (shown on the talk page), but a user kept changing to the version now on the page. I left it as is for now to see what others thought, but this seems like good enough feedback to change it back to what I wrote. WesleyDodds 22:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problems with dashes and redirects have been fixed, and websource info has been completed as far as possible. Most of the questionable refs have been replaced with more reliable sources, however we probably need to find an alternative to dinosaurrockguitar.com for the "Musical language" section. Ceoil 00:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Right now all those dinosaurrockguitar.com references are in one subsection. I'm going to review the book sources later for the same information that the links provide. If we can't find anything, I'd say it would just be fine to remove the subsection. WesleyDodds 00:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are still some incomplete footnotes in the 80s; also, pending reliable sources on dinosaurrock etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the section with all the dinosaurockguitar.com references. They were largely there to support a central point that wasn't itself referenced in the first place (that certain scales are used with regularity). There's a few sources that we might be able to cite noting the use of those scale (a casual listen to the music will reveal those scales are used, but naturally we need to cite someone stating those scales are used for veracity), but I won't be able to review them anytime soon. Until we find a reliable, concrete source verifying that information, i'm fine just removing the section for now. WesleyDodds 23:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I struck my oppose; the only reason I'm not entering a Keep is I haven't had time to read the entire article, but I don't see any major problems. Nice work !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. The only thing I have concerns about are some content disputes that have come up on the talk page. I'm not sure any of them will make sense to someone not knowledgable about the subject, but those should be considered since this page can be prone to some arguments. Personally I try to rely on the primary book sources listed for the final word on certain debates whenever possible. WesleyDodds 06:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Right now this is the main concern because (as demonstrated on the talk page), a user is objecting about the material in the "Black metal" section. I tried to reference the same material with a more reliable source, but I was reverted and the user has made comments on the heavy metal talk page and my own which do not assume I am acting in good faith. I would really hate to drag this out longer, and I don't want to start a revert back-and-forth, so some third-party opinions would be welcomed. WesleyDodds 11:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. The only thing I have concerns about are some content disputes that have come up on the talk page. I'm not sure any of them will make sense to someone not knowledgable about the subject, but those should be considered since this page can be prone to some arguments. Personally I try to rely on the primary book sources listed for the final word on certain debates whenever possible. WesleyDodds 06:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I struck my oppose; the only reason I'm not entering a Keep is I haven't had time to read the entire article, but I don't see any major problems. Nice work !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the section with all the dinosaurockguitar.com references. They were largely there to support a central point that wasn't itself referenced in the first place (that certain scales are used with regularity). There's a few sources that we might be able to cite noting the use of those scale (a casual listen to the music will reveal those scales are used, but naturally we need to cite someone stating those scales are used for veracity), but I won't be able to review them anytime soon. Until we find a reliable, concrete source verifying that information, i'm fine just removing the section for now. WesleyDodds 23:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are still some incomplete footnotes in the 80s; also, pending reliable sources on dinosaurrock etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Right now all those dinosaurrockguitar.com references are in one subsection. I'm going to review the book sources later for the same information that the links provide. If we can't find anything, I'd say it would just be fine to remove the subsection. WesleyDodds 00:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problems with dashes and redirects have been fixed, and websource info has been completed as far as possible. Most of the questionable refs have been replaced with more reliable sources, however we probably need to find an alternative to dinosaurrockguitar.com for the "Musical language" section. Ceoil 00:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That last bit was the subject of an edit dispute. I wrote a different version using different references (shown on the talk page), but a user kept changing to the version now on the page. I left it as is for now to see what others thought, but this seems like good enough feedback to change it back to what I wrote. WesleyDodds 22:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Heartening to see some intellectual depth to a popular music article, complete with notational examples. I'm concerned about the number of fair-use audio examples: WP has tightened its policy beyond what the common law insists on; this is because WP articles should be freely copiable throughout the world, which partially militates against fair use. Are all of the many audio exceprts absolutely irreplaceable? Has someone checked with the fair-use people? Specifically, WP:FU says: "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible." There are nine excerpts. "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text)"—The musical/lyrical features of the excerpts I quickly looked at are not referred to specifically in the surrounding text. This would be safer. Tony 22:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll take care of some of that. WesleyDodds 23:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good work boys, especially Wesley - have to say I'm glad I nominated it given the improvement. LuciferMorgan 16:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was always planning to fix this one up, it's just I always had more pressing interests. I'll be glad once we're done here and I can focus on articles about bands that look like characters from Tim Burton films. WesleyDodds 21:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good work boys, especially Wesley - have to say I'm glad I nominated it given the improvement. LuciferMorgan 16:53, 3 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.