Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/December 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 kept 21:56, 19 December 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Football, User:Pal, User:Mark272 and User:Oldelpaso.
This article has a few problems:
- The lead section says "The FA Women's Premier League, more specifically the National Division, is the Premiership's female counterpart, as most of its clubs are affiliated with Premiership and Football League sides; however, the league is semi-professional and has a much lower profile than the men's game." and "The 2007–08 Season sees the Premier League introduce a new theme song, logo, typeface for player names and numbers, and patches.", but the rest of the article does not say anything about it.
- Many sections have no references. For example, "Origins", "Competition", "Transfer records" and "Former Premier League members".
- There are some English mistakes in the article. For example: "the top 22 teams broke off the First Division and formed a new league: The FA Premier League", "In 2007, the premier league negotiated" and "emailed a warning to 101greatgoals.blogspot.com, an independent website that links to youtube videos, that forced its temporary closure"
- The "Premier League problems" section is POV and unneccesary.
- Some references, for example 2, 17 and 45 (and the one after "which has an average per-team annual revenue of over US$190 million") have formatting problems.
--Kaypoh 04:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please follow the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to notify relevant WikiProjects and involved editors, including the original nominator. You can review other FARs on this page for samples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Did I do it correctly? --Kaypoh 15:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Thanks. DrKiernan 15:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Eventually! Whilst I would say that most of the problems come under the bracket WP:SOFIXIT, I will do all that I can to keep it featured. I do think it would have been courteous to let the projects know a bit quicker. The two week gap is unacceptable. Woodym555 15:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We can always extend the review period. DrKiernan 15:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok we will see how it goes. The problems don't seem to be major. Nothing a quick copyedit and a reference check won't solve. Woodym555 15:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We can always extend the review period. DrKiernan 15:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Did I do it correctly? --Kaypoh 15:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As this is an article which attracts a lot of drive-by edits, a spring-clean would be beneficial. I'll take a look over the weekend and see what I can do. Oldelpaso 18:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like some vandalism slipped through and decimated the history section at some point. I've restored some material from the promoted version. -- Oldelpaso (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are lead (2a), citations (1c), and POV (1d). Marskell (talk) 08:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove The article is better now and can pass GA,
but many paragraphs still have no references and some references have formatting problems. References must always go after a comma or full stop. I think the "Managers" section should not be there or should be in the "Players" section."History" section only talks about how the Premier League was formed and needs more info about what happened in the 15 seasons. "Women's Premier League" section should be expanded. I am not sure if the POV problems with the Criticism section are all fixed. Finally, the article needs a copy-edit, especially the new paragraphs/sections. --Kaypoh (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC) (amended —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaypoh (talk • contribs) 13:27, 9 December 2007)[reply]
- Are there any specific paragraphs for which referencing is a concern i.e. containing material likely to be challenged? Footnote counting for its own sake is not particularly useful, and I wouldn't regard the current level of referencing as skimpy.
- There really isn't that much more to put in a summary style section about the Women's Premier League; it is a part-time league which receives very little media attention. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I also don't think that this should turn into a summary of all the Premier League seasons. I think the current content is adequate and well balanced. We have Template:Premier League seasons for that. The current history section sums up the creation of the League and the processes leading to its creation and that is what this article should be about, (in my opinion of course). Woody (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't need to give a summary of every season. For that, a table that shows which team won each season is enough. But you need to mention major changes in the Premier League rules and the way it is run. For example, it mentions that the number of clubs was changed from 22 to 20 and the name was changed this year. Anything else? There must be info about major events in the clubs. For example, Man U did not win a title for 26 years until the first season of the EPL, during the 1995-96 season Newcastle were ahead of Man U by 12 points but Man U end up winning the title, when Arsene Wenger joined Arsenal in 1996-97 they became a club that challenged for the title, from being a top-four club Leeds went bankrupt and were relegated and in 2003-4 Roman Abramovich bought Chelsea and they won two titles for the first time in 50 years. You have 4 paragraphs about 1-2 years and 1 paragraph about 15 years. That is not balanced. --Kaypoh (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost all that you have mentioned is trivia about the clubs. It belongs in their club pages and not an article about the League. It is not an article about the clubs in the league, it is an article about the League itself. A key part of that League is its formation from the old League system, therefore it receives a lot of "article space". It is not undue weight. Woody (talk) 09:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Let the FA director (or the person who closes FARs) decide what is actionable and what is not. The first paragraph of "United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland" section is unreferenced and so it is also POV. The last paragraph of "Worldwide" section is only one sentence, not well written and unreferenced. Two paragraphs in "Top scorers" have statistics but are unreferenced. I don't think the information is trivia about the clubs because it is about how well they did in the Premier League. If one club win the Premier League for 5 seasons then another club win the Premier League for the next 3 seasons then you want to report the change in the "best teams". If a club changed manager, that info is trivia, unless the new manager made the club win the league. --Kaypoh (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have addressed all your referencing concerns. Thanks for pointing them out. There are three people who could close this, Marskell, Joel, and Raul.
- In terms of your content qualms, frankly I disagree with them. Managers don't win Leagues, and this is not a season summary for the Premier League. It lists all the neccessary statistics to have a good understanding of the league. It is now complete, factually accurate, referenced, and meets all the FA criteria. Woody (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Let the FA director (or the person who closes FARs) decide what is actionable and what is not. The first paragraph of "United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland" section is unreferenced and so it is also POV. The last paragraph of "Worldwide" section is only one sentence, not well written and unreferenced. Two paragraphs in "Top scorers" have statistics but are unreferenced. I don't think the information is trivia about the clubs because it is about how well they did in the Premier League. If one club win the Premier League for 5 seasons then another club win the Premier League for the next 3 seasons then you want to report the change in the "best teams". If a club changed manager, that info is trivia, unless the new manager made the club win the league. --Kaypoh (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost all that you have mentioned is trivia about the clubs. It belongs in their club pages and not an article about the League. It is not an article about the clubs in the league, it is an article about the League itself. A key part of that League is its formation from the old League system, therefore it receives a lot of "article space". It is not undue weight. Woody (talk) 09:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't need to give a summary of every season. For that, a table that shows which team won each season is enough. But you need to mention major changes in the Premier League rules and the way it is run. For example, it mentions that the number of clubs was changed from 22 to 20 and the name was changed this year. Anything else? There must be info about major events in the clubs. For example, Man U did not win a title for 26 years until the first season of the EPL, during the 1995-96 season Newcastle were ahead of Man U by 12 points but Man U end up winning the title, when Arsene Wenger joined Arsenal in 1996-97 they became a club that challenged for the title, from being a top-four club Leeds went bankrupt and were relegated and in 2003-4 Roman Abramovich bought Chelsea and they won two titles for the first time in 50 years. You have 4 paragraphs about 1-2 years and 1 paragraph about 15 years. That is not balanced. --Kaypoh (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I also don't think that this should turn into a summary of all the Premier League seasons. I think the current content is adequate and well balanced. We have Template:Premier League seasons for that. The current history section sums up the creation of the League and the processes leading to its creation and that is what this article should be about, (in my opinion of course). Woody (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could the review period be extended? As I was not informed of this FAR until last week I am only partway through addressing the concerns. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also ask for an extension, the status of the notifications means that some more work needs to be done. Thanks. Woodym555 (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kaypoh (talk · contribs) hasn't edited since Nov. 26. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kaypoh (talk · contribs) hasn't edited since Nov. 26. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also ask for an extension, the status of the notifications means that some more work needs to be done. Thanks. Woodym555 (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note As long as you are commited to addressing the concerns provided above this FARC will not be closed. The FARC, however, will be closed if no progress is made and no status is provided. Joelito (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, thanks. I am planning on rather large scale revisions tommorrow. Woodym555 (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead and first half of the article should be better now. Tackling what used to be the "Premier League problems" section is in progress. More to follow. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- UPDATE, I think the whole article has now been reviewed, copyedited, and referenced where appropriate (I think). All initial problems have been fixed. Any further issues would be helpful. Thanks. Woodym555 22:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you all put the External links last per WP:GTL? Also, wondering if some of the Seealso is already in or can be incorporated into the article; ideally, See also should be minimized (see WP:GTL). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- External links moved and see also section nuked. Woody (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are still incorrectly formatted citations (they all need publishers, author and publication date when available, see WP:CITE/ES), I found quite a few minor MOS glitches when running through, but more importantly, there is still a lot of uncited hard data. I did some of them, but there are still many endash fixes needed on date ranges. Nice progress, but keep going. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like you picked an unfortunate time, the hyphens and a few paragraphs of uncited material were added shortly before you looked. I've removed some parts of it outright, and am considering the best way forward with the other bits. I'll look into the citation formatting now. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dead links need to be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I have also done a WP:DASH sweep and fixed up the references where I can. Woody (talk) 10:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is looking like a keep. I would suggest one change if you think it helpful: I would change the footnotes ^ a b c d e f g Played in every Premier League season and ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Founding member of Premier League. They aren't references/sources per se, but by using the ref tags, they end up in the References list. You might consider changing them to superscripted notes a and b, and putting them into a line at the bottom of the actual table rather than in the sources. There's a sample at Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome#Multiple sets of diagnostic criteria. Nice work ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Implemented that. I agree with the reasoning. It was annoying me when I did the ref sweep, but couldn't see a way around it. Thanks for the suggestion! Woody (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is looking like a keep. I would suggest one change if you think it helpful: I would change the footnotes ^ a b c d e f g Played in every Premier League season and ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Founding member of Premier League. They aren't references/sources per se, but by using the ref tags, they end up in the References list. You might consider changing them to superscripted notes a and b, and putting them into a line at the bottom of the actual table rather than in the sources. There's a sample at Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome#Multiple sets of diagnostic criteria. Nice work ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good; unless anyone knowledgeable on the topic has content issues, I'm a keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Read my "Remove" comment above. There are still content issues. --Kaypoh (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I have also done a WP:DASH sweep and fixed up the references where I can. Woody (talk) 10:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"...with member club revenues totalling in excess of £1.4 billion." The source doesn't actually give this figure. It's repeated again in the body and should also be sourced there. (I presume it's cumulative member club revenues.)
I'm going to go over the prose myself. Lots of duplicate blue links off the top and some wordiness. Otherwise, it's keepable. The Women's League does not need greater description, as it has its own article. "...more info about what happened in the 15 seasons." Possibly, but it's not sufficient to remove status. I'd suggest coming up with a couple of sentences on article talk. Marskell (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've taken care of my first point. Marskell (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've found the £1.4bn ref and put it in. I suspect that the number was updated when the latest figures were released but the ref was not. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the work you have put in Marskell, I saw it through my watchlist. I have attempted to trim down the links, some clubs had been linked on every instance. I tried to be reasonable, ie, if linked within the last three main headings (==XYZ==), then I would delink them. I also removed a sentence of speculation which I caught on my run through. Thanks. Woody (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is almost FA now, but I think everyone needs to agree whether it needs more info about what happened during the 15 seasons. I think it also needs a copy-edit (because the new paragraphs must be well written) and POV check (I pointed out a POV paragraph about the TV rights, and the Criticism section, maybe there are more problems). After all of this, I will vote Keep. --Kaypoh (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As Marskell says, suggest a couple of sentences on the talk yourself. I don't see the need, for me, the wikilinks cover it all as does the prose on this page. Also, it wasn't POV, it was uncited, there is a difference. It can still be POV even if it is cited, it is just a particular stance. You pointed out problems very early on, they were fixed. Since it has had a rewrite, have you seen any problems with it? I accept that it is/was wordy in places, but Marskell has seen to a lot of that. (Thanks again). Woody (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is almost FA now, but I think everyone needs to agree whether it needs more info about what happened during the 15 seasons. I think it also needs a copy-edit (because the new paragraphs must be well written) and POV check (I pointed out a POV paragraph about the TV rights, and the Criticism section, maybe there are more problems). After all of this, I will vote Keep. --Kaypoh (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the work you have put in Marskell, I saw it through my watchlist. I have attempted to trim down the links, some clubs had been linked on every instance. I tried to be reasonable, ie, if linked within the last three main headings (==XYZ==), then I would delink them. I also removed a sentence of speculation which I caught on my run through. Thanks. Woody (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've found the £1.4bn ref and put it in. I suspect that the number was updated when the latest figures were released but the ref was not. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:06, 18 December 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 12:22, 15 December 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Notified WT:IND
Fails 1c (ie., not enough refs from reliable sources, major part of the article is unsourced). Another concern is comprehensiveness - not enough detail about the Northeastern states, for example. Issues related to integration of some of the northeastern states still linger and are at the heart of some of its problems and need to be treated in more detail. Sarvagnya 08:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sarvagnya, please follow the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to notify involved editors and relevant WikiProjects, and follow the samples on other FARs to post the notifications here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The involved editor has left and locked his page. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and that's a big problem here. Because he had this book from which most citations of the article are given, and the rest of the article is based on that book(s). I don't know if there is anybody else involved in wikiproject India in possession of the book. The book was used as a reference all through-out the article. --Dwaipayan (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can see, this is precisely the problem with the article. It relies entirely too much on that one book, and as a result has a number of gaps and inaccuracies. For example, the Standstill Agreements were critical documents in the accession process, but the article makes no mention of them whatsoever, save in reference to Kashmir. The Covenants of Merger used to create big states from small princely statelets should also be at least be mentioned. All this is probably because the principal source used focused on Patel's role, and therefore did not dwell on the elements of the accession process where he did not participate. V.P. Menon's book, which is a far more relevant source, is only used in passing in one reference.
- More fundamentally, the article thoroughly ignores the fact that the integration process did not begin upon independence, but well before that, during British rule itself. Integration was always a big Congress project, and the British Government toyed with it on and off, coming up with the Federal Scheme of 1930, for example, which would have integrated all of India - including British India and the princely states - under one government (it was only the outbreak of the second world war that caused this to be abandoned). Ian Copland's work discusses these project, and their position within the overall process of integration of India, in great detail. Again, because this article relies entirely too much on a description of Patel's role, it misses this altogether.
- Finally, the end peters out altogether. It seems to me that the article isn't quite sure what it's trying to do here. Is the article principally about the integration of princely states into India, or is it about the broader process of forging a national identity? The references to the reorganisation of states and seccessionist movements are really only relevant if it is the latter, but at present the focus of the article seems to be on the former, with these just being tacked on as a footnote, which doesn't really work. If we're going to look at the latter, we'll need to focus on the extent to which regional identities both presented problems to be overcome in acheiving political integration, and tools that were used to further political integration, and focus a little more on regions such as the North-East. We'll also need to broaden the article's treatment of seccessionism - much of the Government's policy on this point, including the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, was shaped by the Tamil secessionist movement led by the DMK, which doesn't even merit a mention at the moment.
- Notwithstanding this list, I think the article's problems can be fixed with relatively little effort and the article kept as an FA. But it will require looking at a whole lot of other sources, and not just the source that was originally used to write the article, and it will need some level of consensus on what exactly the "integration" the article's title focuses on is supposed to be - the one-off integration of princely states, or the wider ongoing project of what we often call "national integration". -- Arvind 11:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Arvind, what do you exactly mean by the ongoing process of national integration? This article focuses on the political integration that took place around the independence of India. If you mean by "ongoing project" the process of controlling several dis-integrative movements (Khalistan etc), I don't think that comes under the purview of this article. Yes, it does need sources. Are you in possession of the sources you talked about/or any other sources. Those will be extremely helpful to save the FA status of this article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This article focuses on the political integration that took place around the independence of India.: No, it doesn't. Read the last three sections of the article. The article covers the reorganisation of states, the Punjab problem, Sikkim, seccessionism in the North-East, the creation of new states in 2000, the Telengana movement - all of which have nothing to do with the political integration that took place around the independence of India. They deal with what you say is "beyond the purview of this article". So, either we decide that the article should focus only on integrating the princely states into India - in which case we take all this out - or we decide that it should have a broader focus, in which case we talk about how successive governments dealt with the problem of creating a national identity and controlling secessionist movements.
- I have access to Ian Copland's work, and I think I have a copy of VP Menon's book lying around somewhere. It is my intention to work on adding info from them, and from other sources, over the coming week. -- Arvind 13:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Arvind, what do you exactly mean by the ongoing process of national integration? This article focuses on the political integration that took place around the independence of India. If you mean by "ongoing project" the process of controlling several dis-integrative movements (Khalistan etc), I don't think that comes under the purview of this article. Yes, it does need sources. Are you in possession of the sources you talked about/or any other sources. Those will be extremely helpful to save the FA status of this article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and that's a big problem here. Because he had this book from which most citations of the article are given, and the rest of the article is based on that book(s). I don't know if there is anybody else involved in wikiproject India in possession of the book. The book was used as a reference all through-out the article. --Dwaipayan (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The involved editor has left and locked his page. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I was wrong. The article has broader focus. Can you please go ahead, adding references and trying to save the article?--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) I'm working on it - the past week's been a bit busy at work. I'm about half-way through reworking the bit of the article dealing with the integration of the princely states. But I really have no idea what to do with the rest of the article, though. Should the article deal with Goa, Pondicherry, Sikkim, secessionism, regionalism, etc., or should it stick to dealing with the princely states? The status quo - where the article deals haphazardly with a few random aspects of these issues - isn't really something we can stick with, but which way should the article go? -- Arvind (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- imo, the article should deal primarily and largely with the events leading upto the consolidation of princely states into India and then the subsequent reorganization of the states based on linguistic demographics. A section should also deal with the slo-mo restructuring that keeps happening every now and then with states being split to form new states (chattisgarh etc etc..), creation of new UTs etc.,. A section should also be dedicated to discuss the political, sociological and other(if any) impact that the integration (ie., consolidation of princely states under one political entity + reorg of states) had in the decades that followed. Here, the various khalistan, northeast, dmk secessionism etc., issues can be dealt in as WP:SS way as possible. Sarvagnya 23:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just an update, so people don't think this has gone dead - I'm very much working on the article, and I hope to post a revised version which addresses most of these concerns by the end of this week. -- Arvind (talk) 12:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b) and referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've now made several rather substantial changes to the article. The article now deals only with the process of integration and the issues that arose therefrom - so it deals with the seccessionist movements in Kashmir, Tripura and Manipur, but not Punjab or Tamil Nadu, because the latter had nothing to do with the integration of the princely states or colonial enclaves into India. I've significantly expanded on the article's description of the integration process, because it was brief to the point of being misleading (for example, the privy purses had nothing to do with the initial instrument of accession as the article used to claim - they were provided as compensation for merger and the loss of princely prerogative). This's increased the size considerably, but I think this is necessary to address the issue of comprehensiveness, and at approximately 8500 words, it's still within the guidelines of WP:SS. I've also added a section on modern critical perspectives, which strikes me as being essential for encyclopaedic coverage. I believe this should address all issues raised thus far and should ensure that the article is kept, but I'd like to hear other views. Also, assistance with proofreading and polishing up the language would be welcome. -- Arvind (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my changes have been reverted without any explanation by User:Bharatveer, right back to the version that started this process. I've asked him to explain, but I'm not interested in getting into a revert war so I have not reinstated my changes. The version I'd worked on is here. -- Arvind (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixes needed.
Almost every section heading starts with "The"; see WP:MSH. Why does Fast-track integration: Merger Agreements have a capital A? Can the section headings be shortened?Y I've removed most "the"s (the three that remain are justified, I think) and shortened the headings. -- Arvind (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyedit needs, sample sentence:
- The termination of paramountcy would have in principle have meant that all rights that flowed from the states' relationship with the British crown would return to them, leaving them free to negotiate relationships with the new states of Indian and Pakistan "on a basis of complete freedom."
- Hm. I suspect I am constitutionally incapable of writing short sentences. I would be quite grateful for help from other editors on copyediting. -- Arvind (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It not only needs to be shorter, it has a grammatical error; can you get someone to run through the text? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for your help with the overlinking. The copyeditor's league seems to be backlogged, but I'll ask on the India Wikiproject. Sundar has already copyedited two sections. -- Arvind (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It not only needs to be shorter, it has a grammatical error; can you get someone to run through the text? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm. I suspect I am constitutionally incapable of writing short sentences. I would be quite grateful for help from other editors on copyediting. -- Arvind (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The termination of paramountcy would have in principle have meant that all rights that flowed from the states' relationship with the British crown would return to them, leaving them free to negotiate relationships with the new states of Indian and Pakistan "on a basis of complete freedom."
Lots of WP:OVERLINKing, see WP:MOSLINK and also lots ofWP:MOSDATE linking issues, full dates should be linked,sample edit:[1]- I've fixed the date issues, but I'd like it if someone else could take a look at the overlinking. -- Arvind (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can anyone find a way to work the bolded title into the first line, per WP:LEAD?
- I will ask Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to fix the endashes on the page ranges in refs.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please consider the use of named refs (see WP:FN) to reduce the lengthy citation list and combine like refs into one line.Sample:[2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Y I've combined all the duplicates I could find. -- Arvind (talk) 10:37, 12 December 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 19:01, 11 December 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Manitoba, WP:BIO, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada, Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, Wikipedia:WikiProject Saskatchewan
This article seem to be totally without any sort of referencing - 1(c) Xdamrtalk 22:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, the article pretty much lacks inline cites, and some images lack detailed source information and have depreciated tags. As well, what is a list of "Graphic Novel Biographies" doing there? I say take this to FARC. Green451 00:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Began inline citations and referencing, and miscellaneous peer review checks. Will revise section listing of reference books - re-named Further reading. SriMesh | talk 23:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed depreciated tags which were in use on the images. SriMesh | talk 00:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Started to add inline citations and references - as of this date and time about half way through article. Also contacted major contributors who originally brought article to feature article status. SriMesh | talk 02:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed depreciated tags which were in use on the images. SriMesh | talk 00:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Began inline citations and referencing, and miscellaneous peer review checks. Will revise section listing of reference books - re-named Further reading. SriMesh | talk 23:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So far the edits mentioned are very easy to do - have been started already. The biography is of someone very notable in Canada's history and of the west in particular. SriMesh | talk 03:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Added quite a few inline citations throughout article - should there be more? SriMesh | talk 02:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Note that I was one of the editors to help get it to FA status the first time. I believe that the major concerns have been addressed. The tags on the pictures and the "Graphic Novel Biographies" has been addressed by SriMesh. She has also added a number of inline citations. The lack of inline citations was actually discussed in the original FAC discussion. The rationale was given that the bulk of the biography aligns with the consensus in all of the major biographies written about Riel. As such, verification of the vast majority of the facts contained in the article is then quite easy. Given this and the fact that SriMesh has added a fair amount of citations already, I believe all the concerns have been addressed. If there are additional concerns, I'll help address them within a week of being raised. -- JamesTeterenko 18:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional Keep. Very impressive work in such a short amount of time! There are still a few things that I can see that I would like addressed. Notably, citations are supposed to come after punctuation (including commas), the image of Riel on trial lacks source info, and the "Montana and family life" and "Riel remembered" sections need more references. After these are addressed, I'll be happy to change my vote to keep. Green451 19:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I found another copy of that photo that is slightly better quality, so I have uploaded it (with source information) and replaced the existing picture. That should knock off that concern. -- JamesTeterenko 04:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional Keep Impressive work, getting all that referencing done so quickly. That is certainly my major concern dealt with. I'll take another look at the article as a whole and see if anything else strikes me, but once Green451's concerns are dealt with I see no reason why this should not remain a FA.
- Please read the instructions at WP:FAR; Keep or Remove are not declared during the review phase, which is for discussing deficiencies or improvements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pah, bureaucracy - WP:IAR :) --Xdamrtalk 23:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I started, but too much to do. WP:MSH issues, massive redlinks in dates in refs need to be fixed, inline URLs on refs need to be fixed, WP:DASH problems in refs, mixed citation and cite templates give inconsistent results, WP:MOS#Captions punctuation attention needed, and I stopped there. Unlinked dates everywhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I started on the refs, but there's a smorgasborg of MOS fixes needed; maybe someone else has more time to continue. The cite templates and the old (yuk) citation template handle dates differently, which invalidates global replace. Also see MOS:CAPS#All caps, WP:MOS#Images (size). I haven't looked at the prose or citation level yet because I got stuck in basic cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good: Sandy is dealing with these minor matters herself, rather than insisting that others do so; this is the right collegial spirit, which not all reviewers have. Please do look at the prose and references first, however; if they need to be rewritten, Sandy's cleanup will be wasted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I started on the refs, but there's a smorgasborg of MOS fixes needed; maybe someone else has more time to continue. The cite templates and the old (yuk) citation template handle dates differently, which invalidates global replace. Also see MOS:CAPS#All caps, WP:MOS#Images (size). I haven't looked at the prose or citation level yet because I got stuck in basic cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Second look; still a smorgasborg. I got through about half of the article, but there are still MOS issues, problems in the citations, missing publishers, and I found multiple instances of non-reliable sources or info not verified by sources.[3] Sustained work still needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are references and their formatting (1c, 2c) and MoS issues (2). Marskell 19:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Stalled? No progress since earlier comments.[4] Uncited sections, for example, Riel reconsidered is uncited, and Arts, literature and popular culture and Commemoration are two sections covering the same territory that could be merged with trivia reduced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- MOS breach: logical punctuation required: "Father of Manitoba." (done punctuation moved outside of parenthesis)
- Hard to believe he's only 14 yo in the pic.
- "Red River Rebellion"—Why the last upper-case R? (done is the title of an event)
- "Fifty", yet "48"—which is it to be, words or numerals? (done words)
- What kind of $? Specify on first occurrence. (done Canadian Currency)
- Do we really need to link "United States"? And "whisky"? Sift through and weed out all trivial links. Tony (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Retain if these are the worst that can be said against it.
- Red River Rebellion is a proper name, like, say, "War of 1812"; both should so capped.
- The rest of this MOScruft should be ignored, like the page itself. I regret that Tony feels the need to ride his hobbyhorses here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I regret the same of you. Marskell 12:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced and / or added citations for tags covering unverifiable citations, and tags for facts needing citations. SriMesh | talk 04:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Citations are required in several places:
- "credited with ending the monopoly," Credited by whom?
- p.13
- "Riel was therefore well known in the Red River."
- pp. 13,16, 17
- "The Riels were noted for their devout Catholicism and strong family ties." Noted by whom?
- pp. 19-20
- "Descriptions of him at this time" Described by whom?
- p.26-8. His contemporaries, but the source does not say which. Stanley has several pages on Riel at Montreal college, and cites descriptions by different classmates, but the moodiness is mentioned without a name.
- "but his fiancée’s family opposed her involvement with a Métis,"
- p.33
- "Compounding this disappointment, Riel found legal work unpleasant,"
- p.33
- "He is believed to have worked odd jobs in Chicago, Illinois" Believed by whom?
- The account of his fellow-student Louis Schmidt, and some other sources which Stanley does not name. p.34
This is just in the first section. The remainder of the article similarly needs extra citations. DrKiernan 11:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for finally raising substantive issues; it's a pity it's so late in the process. Most of these appear to be the consensus story of Riel's early life; they are largely supported by Dict. of Canadian Biography, the first external link, the devoutness of his parents is also mentioned here, under the second. As a curious reader, I would consider the life by George Stanley (which is mentioned as the principal source) to be the obvious place to check; I have not yet done so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that the Teller matter is resolved, I will see if I can lay hands on a copy of Stanley. This reads like it was written out of one principal source, presumably that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was. I have rephrased slightly, and noted the page numbers from Stanley above. Since I was doing so, I added a collective note to the end of the section; but I'm not sure this aids the reader more than the general note in the bibliography. We can add additional such notes to the end of each section, I suppose, but why?
- Now that the Teller matter is resolved, I will see if I can lay hands on a copy of Stanley. This reads like it was written out of one principal source, presumably that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A reader with Stanley's book should be able to find any such reference in less than 5 minutes, note or no note; one without it will not actually be helped by any footnote. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I have struck my objection but need to look over the rest of the article before switching to keep. DrKiernan (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The "Riel reconsidered" and "Commemmoration" sections could do with a copy-edit and some of the websites used as footnotes don't qualify, in my opinion, as reliable sources (they're self-published). However, the information in the article seems to correlate well with the one reliable biography that I have looked at. DrKiernan (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I have struck my objection but need to look over the rest of the article before switching to keep. DrKiernan (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Will someone please deal with the WP:OVERLINKing? Samples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I will be giving this article extra time because I feel that the concerns raised are minor and can be addressed in a short amount of time. Joelito (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove—Awkward prose, such as these, from just one small section:
- "The majority population"
- "a scholar of science"?
- "progressed to the point of Riel having signed a contract of marriage"—ouch.
- Unencyclopedic vagueness (also a MOS no-no): "He remained in Montreal for a period". Insults our readers. Same for "and perhaps as early as 1866 he had resolved to leave Quebec"—Perhaps? Where's the reference, or is it the whim of a WPian editor?
- Stanley, again, p. 33. The "period" could be refined, to "for somewhat over a year", but the vaguemess reflects the vagueness of the source, which itself is plainly dealing with inadequate evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS Sandy, like you, is under no obligation to perform any work at all on nominations, PMA. Tony (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ??? I praised her for acting to improve the encyclopedia. I stand by that praise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove; although Joelito allowed extra time,these are the only changes since my last comment several weeks ago, before Tony's comments. There are still prose issues, large amounts of uncited text, and MOS breaches as mentioned (for example, WP:MOSDATE links needed, and WP:OVERLINKing not addressed). Nothing happening here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Always ignore MOScruft. This case is aggravated by the irrelevance of the complaints here made to the quality of the article; also by the lack of actually relevant examples. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This can still be saved. I've added three refs (two per above) and also three fact requests. The over-linking is quite bad and I've trimmed some. If there specific prose examples, I'll edit myself. Marskell (talk) 10:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ah, ha, in addition to your work, the good Doc Kiernan has also been in there,[5] so I can now strike my Oppose. Nice work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing: I'm going to go ahead and keep this; I know Joel was leaning that way. Stray sentences can still be found but this is within criteria in general, especially after the work today. The one thing that stands out is the first paragraph of "Reconsidered". It does, in-phrase, cite historians, and the content isn't particularly drastic or challengeable (to a Canadian). So good. Marskell (talk) 19:00, 11 December 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 16:25, 10 December 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Notified Wikiprojects Anglicanism, Biography, British Royalty, England, and User:ALoan
An Emsworth classic, seems to have had a small effort at updating its references, but I notice one reference is not there, and it looks like more in-line citations and some copyediting are in order. Judgesurreal777 21:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Bummer it already appeared on the main page - I was going to suggest going full-tilt at buffing it up and getting it on the main page while the movie is on. Not in too bad shape but yes on the copyediting and inline reffing. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has the full support of WikiProject Anglicanism and we will do what ever is suggested to maintain this articles status. -- SECisek 06:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Primarily, it needs inline citations throughout, and secondarily, it needs some copyediting as it is now a very old Featured article. Judgesurreal777 22:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We will get on it. -- SECisek 20:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Copy of the following to article talk:
- The article has become enormous (85 kb). I've moved all the lists of films, fiction, video games etc. to a new article Cultural depictions of Elizabeth I of England (crossed fingers it doesn't get deleted). I intend instead to add some good material about Elizabeth and depictions of her during her reign, using Strong, etc.
- I've cut the section "Patrilineal descent". This is a recent and superfluous (in my opinion) addition, since we already have a family tree. You don't even get lists like that in the history books. We shouldn't be influenced into keeping it by the fact that these lists have appeared all over British monarchy articles. The "styles" section is another one you don't see in history books: those too are dumped everywhere, presumably by the one-man royalty project. qp10qp (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've trimmed the bibliography down to a few good books. As I edit the article, the list will grow longer again, but with the addition of different books—the ones used to reference the text. In case anyone thinks this is a little drastic in the short term, I've listed the removed books on the article talk page where anyone can read it and check it against what I am doing. If you wish to add anything back, please be selective, because there are some dreadful books there (I suspect someone just pasted a list from a website). I am also going to change the format to author-first, and add more details about the books still listed. In the short term, one or two footnotes (not many, because most of these books do not seem to have been used to source the text) may be slightly stranded, but I will sort this out when referencing the information. qp10qp (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've removed the list of historical fiction books and added it to Cultural depictions of Elizabeth I of England. qp10qp (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- (By the way, if anyone wonders what I am up to instead of getting on with the good old business of citations, well, I can only say that before you can paper the living room, you have to move the furniture out of the way. This is always a good opportunity for a bonfire.) qp10qp (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the section called "References". I looked the links and sources up and found them all to be not worth using (see article Talk page, whereto I have moved them). I have made a "Notes and references section", and the cites will refer to books listed alphabetically in the bibliography.
- I've removed the section called "Style and arms". It is obscure, in my view, and you don't find this sort of section in history books or other encyclopedias. No doubt the royalty project will try to dump it back in the article; but if any of this material deserves a mention, it can go in the main text, in my opinion (having this random section after the "Legacy" section, seems to me anticlimactic and straggly). If you click on the "more" link above the infobox portrait, you'll find another horrid infodump by the royalty project; since it doesn't interfere with the surface of the article too much, I suppose I'll leave it (though it creates design ugliness in the infobox heading); these "more" links were added to all the monarchs a while ago and sit there like carbuncles. At least they help with the case for dropping the styles section, since they make the latter even more redundant.
- By all means disagree with me; I've posted the section on the article talk page for scrutiny and discussion. qp10qp (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sheesh! Some more styles cruft removed, a stylebox template thingy in the middle of the article. I've posted this thing on the article talk page.qp10qp (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and focus (4). Marskell (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope people won't vote yet. I've been working on the article for a week and will need at least two more before it is in shape (could do it more quickly if I didn't have a job and other distractions!). I will say here when I feel the article is possibly up to present FA standard. qp10qp (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Progress report: I've been working on referencing for the last few days; I'm also rewriting, rephrasing, and shortening as I go and have got as far as the marriage section so far. I intend to re-cover my tracks a couple of times, to add density and variety to the refs. I'm leaving purely prose issues until last, and the refinement of the lead to the very last. qp10qp (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Most of "Foreign Policy" done now; will do the "France" section tonight. Should be all done by this time next week, other things being equal. qp10qp 16:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks qp, as ever. Marskell 18:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I suppose it can be voted on now. I still have some ordering to do on "Legacy", need to rework the lead, sort the external links, and will then give the article a couple of prose brush-ups. But I feel I have addressed the original issues of citations and copyediting, so the relevant work is done, I hope. qp10qp (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep DrKiernan (talk) 09:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Doesn't even look like the same article now, its beautiful! Somebody give this man a barnstar for over 150 references added and tons of copyediting!! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:03, 10 December 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 11:26, 8 December 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Notified WP:Biography, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Germany, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Netherlands, Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history
I believe this article needs to be seriously reviewed if it's to remain a featured article. The reason I believe it no longer meets this criteria (and in fact, never met the current criteria) is because of the lack of inline citations. I believe the article is adequately sourced, but not referenced from a fact to fact basis, rather the article as a whole, but that's not fitting with being completely referenced. This reason alone brings the validity of the article into question, as I (nor almost any other reader) would read every resource available to confirm the validity of the article's claims. --lincalinca 03:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I originally nominated this article, but I have to agree with you on this. Is there a way to refer back to the version of the article when it was promoted? (rather than wade back through 2+ years of edits). Do we keep a link to the version as promoted? I can't remember exactly, but I feel that there were more inline cites at one point - probably not enough but still better than now. The entire references section has been greatly changed since I nominated this - the "further reading" etc section was added later, and in the process (I think) a lot of the original referencing/citing was lost. I'm disappointed - I put a huge amount of time into this article back then, but I don't have the time to invest now. I agree with you though. Rossrs 07:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would the nominator please notify relevant Wikiprojects and editors as per the FAR instructions? You may find recent editors who will help to bring the article up to standard. Please announce the notifications just below the subsection title. Thanks. --RelHistBuff 13:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Judging from article history (see the talk page header) the promoted article looked like this—this older version is not passable now, however. It's not just article deterioration but rising standards that bring things to FAR. Marskell 15:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If somebody is willing to drop this into my sandbox with all the cite needed tags for what they feel is needed, I will gladly spend an hour or so a day working on it. This article is too important to lose its Featured status. By the way, the reference formatting needs a lot of work, too. Jeffpw 18:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history of this as it is obviously in their purview as well. Tvoz |talk 16:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If somebody is willing to drop this into my sandbox with all the cite needed tags for what they feel is needed, I will gladly spend an hour or so a day working on it. This article is too important to lose its Featured status. By the way, the reference formatting needs a lot of work, too. Jeffpw 18:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are references (1c) and their formatting (2c). Marskell (talk) 13:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I agree - I have started to search out better references (I have already found several) and include them in "cite" format - also started converting good refs into cite format. For example - I'm working on replacing this weak source with original citations - I already have converted two out of the three refs to this web page. Tvoz |talk 20:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That weak tertiary source now is gone, and replaced with the original citations. If there are other specific concerns about sourcing, please post them so that they can be addressed. I hate to see this article lose its FA status. Tvoz |talk 20:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do hope this can be saved. Tony (talk) 05:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That weak tertiary source now is gone, and replaced with the original citations. If there are other specific concerns about sourcing, please post them so that they can be addressed. I hate to see this article lose its FA status. Tvoz |talk 20:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur that the article could be saved, but there's work involved in promoting it to become a Featured article according to the current criteria. My greatest gripe about it as it stands, in the citations of references overall. There are no citations used in the Lead, in the Early life section, the infobox uses only one, which is - rightly - in defence of the statement that she is dutch (as this is a point of some contention). There're no supporting citations of the "before going into hiding" section (which also needs a thorough copyedit, re-write of much of its prose, and probably retitling to an encyclopedic title like "prior to isolation" or something to that effect). The "Life in the Achterhuis" section only contains one citation in its entirety. "Arrest and concentration camps" contains three, but two fo these support one fact. There is a rather bold statement that "After the war, it was estimated that of the 110,000 Jews deported from the Netherlands during the Nazi occupation, only 5,000 survived." which I don't believe (a) that many were deported to the Netherlands or (b) that few survived, and to add to the possibility of inaccuracy here, it's been fact tagged since April this year, so after 7 months, it's not been either removed or confirmed. These sorts of issuescontinue through to the end of the article. I'm certain that with the resources used at the end of the article, many of the facts can be confirmed. I'm certain some are either incorrect or need clarification or improvement. One other thing is that statements like "See People associated with Anne Frank for the fates of the other occupants of the Achterhuis, their helpers, and other people connected to Anne Frank." should not be used, as we shouldn't be using "see this" in prose. This statement could be mentioned within a sentence such as "Other people associated with Anne Frank had varied futures, as some were killed prior to Frank, some later and some lived into old age" or something to that effect. That sentence is way too ambiguous and certainly not encyclopedic enough. --lincalinca 10:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, except "prior to isolation" is not an improvement on "before going into hiding" - they were in hiding, they were not isolated, they were not completely "cut off" from the world or from people - but I'll see if I can think of something. I don't see anything substantially wrong with the way the section is worded, so in terms of copyediting - could you be more specific? and I will make whatever additions I can to the citations of references. One point though - the lead and infobox should each be a summary of points covered within the article. Per Wikipedia:Lead section, I would hope that redundancy of citations could be avoided - ie if it's eventually cited within the article, is it necessary to repeat the citation in the lead or infobox? If there are specific points you feel must be cited in either of those sections, even if they are cited within the article, could you please indicate them. thanks. Also, have cited the Dutch death figures. The Netherlands suffered a huge percentage loss of their Jewish population, but it was unacceptable to be stating figures without citing them. Rossrs (talk) 11:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I agree - I have started to search out better references (I have already found several) and include them in "cite" format - also started converting good refs into cite format. For example - I'm working on replacing this weak source with original citations - I already have converted two out of the three refs to this web page. Tvoz |talk 20:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: If Wikipedia should not be used as a link farm, should it also not be used as a catalogue for every work written on a subject? In point: "Further reading" - is this extensive (exhaustive?) list needed? Would anyone object if only works directly referenced were listed? Rossrs (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as the reference list was starting to get messy, I've reworked it in line with Johannes Kepler as suggested at Wikipedia:Footnotes#Style recommendations. Rossrs (talk) 07:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer: Wikipedia should not be a link farm, however the main issue with this article is that it provides plenty of references, but not enough citations to them. The further reading items should be assessed for unique pieces of information and those selected should be converted into footnote citations only and not be listed in the way they are now. --lincalinca 10:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, and that's being addressed, so once it's fully cited (which can and should be done without having to refer to Amazon's complete Anne Frank catalogue) the list can go. Good. Rossrs (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this on track? Are people still working on it? I had the impression it was being worked on, but I just took a look, and was surprised. It seems that many different editors are adding citations maybe (?) and there is no consistent biblio style, with many formatting problems. Named refs aren't being used properly, dates aren't formatted, there's no consistent style, dashes are all over the place. There are other MOS issues throughout. I started cleanup, but there is more than I can do on my own, and I'm wondering what the status is. If the plan is to save this, some sustained work is going to be needed still. I also did a bit of reduction of WP:OVERLINKing, but there's more. I see there was discussion of removing the biblio farm; is that going to be done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the additions since this was nominated for review, until your recent edits, have been done by myself and User:Tvoz. I don't really understand formatting for cites etc, despite reading the relevant pages, and have done my best. Now that I see how you've fixed some of them, that gives me a guide on what to do. A lot of them are old cites that have been in their current state since they were first added. It would be great if other editors could also look at the article and make some edits, especially since there have been some who have made suggestions here, or have offered to help, but have not made edits to the article. As for the biblio farm, if there is no objection to removing it, could we just do it now? (Actually, I'll be bold. There has been no objection and it can easily be restored if necessary). None of the titles in the list have been used to extract information as far as I can see, and although there is still a lot of citing to be done, it can be done from elsewhere, I'm sure. Rossrs 01:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you all are still working on it, I will try to pitch in on the citation formatting, but you've got to pick one system and use it consistently. Do you all prefer to use cite templates or to do them manually? Yes, good time to lose the biblio farm; it's probably grown over time as book advertising. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cite templates have grown on me - I find they make it easier to have a consistent look to the refs, and once you're used to them easier to remember to include the necessary fields. So if it were up to me I'd use them. Tvoz |talk 07:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is where my ignorance comes into play, so let me apologise in advance ;-) If we use cite templates, does that mean that for each reference to a particular book, we would need to have an individual complete citation to show the page number? Example : Bette Davis. If so, this is what I would like to use, and if all the many references that I've recently added need to be changed, that's fine. I'll be happy to change them. In the meantime, I'll keep adding sources because I guess finding the source is the primary aim, and when this is clarified for me, I'll start to go back and fix. And now for my next question - have I just agreed with Tvoz or disagreed? Rossrs 10:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pros and cons :-) Cite templates chunk up the size, and it's fine to use them for websources while using a shortened notation for book page numbers. Bette Davis is *awful*; that is exactly what I wouldn't do. The method currently in use at Anne Frank is preferable. Except for the first couple of refs at the top, it's fine. I was referring to problems in the citations templates, which I've now corrected. Please don't do Bette Davis :-) List the book sources in the ref section, and add just the page notation in the footnotes section, as is now done for most of the citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL. Noted. Rossrs 08:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Formatting looks good so far (thankfully, since Gettysburg Address will make me tear my hair out). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL. Noted. Rossrs 08:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pros and cons :-) Cite templates chunk up the size, and it's fine to use them for websources while using a shortened notation for book page numbers. Bette Davis is *awful*; that is exactly what I wouldn't do. The method currently in use at Anne Frank is preferable. Except for the first couple of refs at the top, it's fine. I was referring to problems in the citations templates, which I've now corrected. Please don't do Bette Davis :-) List the book sources in the ref section, and add just the page notation in the footnotes section, as is now done for most of the citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you all are still working on it, I will try to pitch in on the citation formatting, but you've got to pick one system and use it consistently. Do you all prefer to use cite templates or to do them manually? Yes, good time to lose the biblio farm; it's probably grown over time as book advertising. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the additions since this was nominated for review, until your recent edits, have been done by myself and User:Tvoz. I don't really understand formatting for cites etc, despite reading the relevant pages, and have done my best. Now that I see how you've fixed some of them, that gives me a guide on what to do. A lot of them are old cites that have been in their current state since they were first added. It would be great if other editors could also look at the article and make some edits, especially since there have been some who have made suggestions here, or have offered to help, but have not made edits to the article. As for the biblio farm, if there is no objection to removing it, could we just do it now? (Actually, I'll be bold. There has been no objection and it can easily be restored if necessary). None of the titles in the list have been used to extract information as far as I can see, and although there is still a lot of citing to be done, it can be done from elsewhere, I'm sure. Rossrs 01:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's mostly looking good, but you still need to reference lots of things throughout the lead, particularly. I can see that the article's citations are tremendously improving, so good work there, but the lead needs to have citations too. Much of its information is going to be easy to cite, so I'll leave it to those who have the books/hard references. --lincalinca 07:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree there is still a lot needing to be referenced throughout the article, but not the lead. Can you please clarify what you think needs to be cited in the lead? You're making the same point I've already specifically asked you to clarify. So again, as I mentioned above, Wikipedia:Lead section#Citations in the lead section discourages redundant cites. ie the lead is a summary of the article. Nothing should be in the lead that is not in the article (and I've removed points that existed only in the lead), and the article should be fully cited (working on it). Therefore anything cited in the lead comes under the heading of "redundant" in my opinion because it potentially duplicates cites that should exist in the body of the article. What are the "lots of things" that need to be cited in the lead? If you can give examples, then I may understand what you are looking for, but I don't see anything that is controversial or open to question that can't be sourced in the article itself. Thanks Rossrs 09:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, there was one phrase that looked a bit too much like an uncited quote or opinion, so I've removed it. Rossrs 12:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree there is still a lot needing to be referenced throughout the article, but not the lead. Can you please clarify what you think needs to be cited in the lead? You're making the same point I've already specifically asked you to clarify. So again, as I mentioned above, Wikipedia:Lead section#Citations in the lead section discourages redundant cites. ie the lead is a summary of the article. Nothing should be in the lead that is not in the article (and I've removed points that existed only in the lead), and the article should be fully cited (working on it). Therefore anything cited in the lead comes under the heading of "redundant" in my opinion because it potentially duplicates cites that should exist in the body of the article. What are the "lots of things" that need to be cited in the lead? If you can give examples, then I may understand what you are looking for, but I don't see anything that is controversial or open to question that can't be sourced in the article itself. Thanks Rossrs 09:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do remember on citation templates: what matters is what the reader sees, which should include the standard punctuation, italicization, and so on. Some editors find this easier to do by hand, and this does leave more flexibility in dealing with unusual sources; some prefer templates; but as long as the article displays right, don't sweat it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seems well-written and to satisfy the other criteria. Tony (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - as I was one of the original nominators/editors getting this to FA status and as I've done a lot of the recent referencing etc, I'm obviously biased, but I sincerely feel it should be kept. I didn't feel this way when it was first nominated for review and I could see the article's deficiencies as well as anyone, but I think it's been improved to the current FA standard. Rossrs (talk) 10:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's keepable now. Good work all. Marskell (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are still some very minor glitches to be worked out; can we keep it open until they're fixed, only so the oldid listed in the articlehistory will be to a shiny clean version? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can someone please fix all of the footnotes such as
- Frank, Anne, p. 242
- There are *two* Frank, Anne's listed in the sources, so we don't know to which book these page numbers are attached. You can solve this by adding the year in parens after the author, so we know which source applies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I also see Frank, Anne and Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation, p. 102, so I assume the others are to Frank and Massotty, if that's correct, would be better to clarify. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can someone please fix all of the footnotes such as
- There are still some very minor glitches to be worked out; can we keep it open until they're fixed, only so the oldid listed in the articlehistory will be to a shiny clean version? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, minor tweaks, missing publishers, footnote placement per WP:FN, good to go now,[6] but please clarify the double Anne Frank biblio entries mentioned so the archived oldid will be squeaky clean. Nice work !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Really wasn't sure how to cite the "Critical Edition" of the diary because the section cited was not Anne Frank's writing but was commentary by the Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation, but yes, your assumption was correct. Have changed the others to "Frank and Massotty". Thank you for your input during this review. It was a major learning experience for me, and without all of your comments and edits, along with nice explicit summaries, I would never have known what to do. Rossrs (talk) 16:11, 8 December 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 07:35, 8 December 2007.
The article doesn't live up to the criteria as per statements of user:panda at Talk:Swedish language and user talk:panda#Fact tagging. It's full of original research, speculation and bogus claims about grammatical genders and verb endings that don't exist (as proven by panda). Please denominate it as soon as possible.
Peter Isotalo 02:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Many exaggerations by Peter, once again. The article needs references for verifiability and for disputed claims brought up in the talk page. It also contains incomplete references. –panda 03:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Recommend speedy close as bad-faith nomination disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. It is clear from the talk pages linked to above that Peter Isotalo considers the article to still be of FA quality. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 19:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I recommend we hold it in review; it won't hurt for other knowledgeable editors to review the citation issues raised, considering the article is an older promotion and citation standards have changed. It is easy to spot statements that look like opinion and would benefit from attribution, examples:
- In mass media it is no longer uncommon for journalists to speak with a distinct regional accent, but the most common pronunciation and the one perceived as the most formal is still Central Standard Swedish.
- This type of classification, however, is based on a somewhat romanticized nationalist view of ethnicity and language. The idea that only rural variants of Swedish should be considered "genuine" is not generally accepted by modern scholars.
- Also, the text is replete with external jumps that need to be removed, and it's not hard to spot MOS breaches, example: From 1918-1930, when Estonia ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please follow the nomination instructions at the top of FAR and notify involved editors and relevant WikiProjects with {{subst:FARMessage|Swedish language}}, and post a note back to here confirming notifications. Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following have been notified:
- Wikiprojects:
- Primary editors:
- Peter Isotalo (aka Karmosin) - primary editor and the original FAC nominator
- Fred J (aka User:Fred chessplayer)
- Alarm
- Steverapaport
- Bishonen
- The next three editors with the most edit counts (Wiglaf, Ruhrjung, and Johan Magnus) were not notified since they have either left Wikipedia or have not edited since 2005/2006.
- Other:
- –panda (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close: See the talk page. The nomination illustrated bad faith. We are looking at one editor vs. about five. The one editor is extremely upset, has been unable to gain consensus at the talk page, and has made this movement. FAR will not benefit from grafting the anger and frustration of that talk page into its space. The same fights in multiple places does no one any good, and, if you look at the claims made in the nomination, they are strictly content arguments. Unless there are Swedish language speakers and scholars who have not weighed in there, there is no ability to gather more of them to weigh in here. This is an argument that is internal to the article and has nothing to do with FA standards. Essentially, panda says that the article is wrong, not that it fails FA. Geogre (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say the article was "wrong", I questioned the FA status of the article due to its limited references.[7] That User:Peter Isotalo then nominated it as a bad faith nomination doesn't change that the article needs more references and, as it now stands, could benefit from an FA review. –panda (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are you acting surprised, panda? You recommended this course of action twice at talk:Swedish language due to your disagreements with me over the article contents and its references. Peter Isotalo 15:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm ... I'm wondering why Peter thinks I'm acting surprised. Please stop being disruptive and help work on the article's FA status instead of being angry at me. As stated previously, that you made the original nomination because you were angry doesn't change that it could benefit from an FA review. –panda (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- panda, considering the amount of horse carcass beating that you've engaged in over the past week or so, could you at least consider toning down your accusatory tone? Peter Isotalo 15:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've already written many times to you, consider taking your comments and applying them to yourself. –panda (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- panda, considering the amount of horse carcass beating that you've engaged in over the past week or so, could you at least consider toning down your accusatory tone? Peter Isotalo 15:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm ... I'm wondering why Peter thinks I'm acting surprised. Please stop being disruptive and help work on the article's FA status instead of being angry at me. As stated previously, that you made the original nomination because you were angry doesn't change that it could benefit from an FA review. –panda (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are you acting surprised, panda? You recommended this course of action twice at talk:Swedish language due to your disagreements with me over the article contents and its references. Peter Isotalo 15:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say the article was "wrong", I questioned the FA status of the article due to its limited references.[7] That User:Peter Isotalo then nominated it as a bad faith nomination doesn't change that the article needs more references and, as it now stands, could benefit from an FA review. –panda (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This nomination was largely done out of frustration with panda's behavior and belligerent approach to article improvement. While there are occasional hints of reason in some of the pointers, it is very difficult to sort out these nuggets of valid criticism out from the overwhelming amount of pure argumentativeness and bluster about breeching policy the moment it's cited. Peter Isotalo 12:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: External jumps. Peter has now reverted the removal of external jumps and questions why external jumps should be removed. –panda (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close This is completely pointless since we're already at a "no, you're a towel"-level of argument as soon as any disagreement between myself and panda arises. This has to be worked out elsewhere before a FAR will be beneficial. Peter Isotalo 16:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FAR is not dispute resolution. Closing. Marskell (talk) 07:34, 8 December 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 11:42, 6 December 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]NB:No Wikiprojects appear to have been informed of this nomination.- Notifications left at WP Chicago, WP Physics, WP Eastern Europe and WP BIO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notifications left at Fastfission SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found this article to lack sources on big pieces of text. Since this person is a controversial figure, I consider sources in this article paramount. Daimanta 18:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Example:
From: "He spent two years at the University of Göttingen[...]" to "[...]valuable to scientists who were studying missile re-entry."
18 lines of text and no source. I consider this unacceptable. Daimanta 18:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That covers Teller's CV; (aside from the assertion that the Jahn-Teller effect was his most significant research, which would need to be toned down even if there were a note - as I have done) please specify what assertions in the section are challenged or likely to be challenged.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, something controversial:
"During the Manhattan Project, Teller also advocated the development of a bomb using uranium hydride, which many of his fellow theorists said would be unlikely to work. At Livermore, Teller continued work on the hydride bomb, and the result was a dud. Ulam once wrote to a colleague about an idea he had shared with Teller: "Edward is full of enthusiasm about these possibilities; this is perhaps an indication they will not work." Fermi once said that Teller was the only monomaniac he knew who had several manias." (No sources)
The part about the working on the hydride is not the most important but the mania part can be damaging to the persona of Mr. Teller. I consider that part very controversial without the proper sources. Regards, Daimanta 20:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Both quotes, I find, are from Herken; Fermi on p. 25, Ulam on 137. In fact, this entire article is probably largely drawn from Herken, the only biography in the sources; there's a searchable copy on Google Books. Enjoy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another pita I have with this article is the diversity of the citation forms. Sometimes there are mixed with the text, sometimes they point to a footnote. This article looks chaotic in that aspect. Regards, Daimanta 23:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then do amend and improve the article; it's not mine, I just found a couple of easy sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should I fix something that is not mine and broken? It pains me that good articles get rejected for FA-status because of small imperfections, while this article is pretty much given an easy treatment. If WP wants to keep the standards high, it should keep it high. This policy is simply unfair and confusing for people who want to know what a proper article is. Regards, Daimanta 00:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it's a service to the encyclopedia. At least put {{cn}} tags. Campaigning to deprive an article of its little gold star, when no one is defending it, is a waste of typing.
- The other problem with FA is that it accepts many articles worse than this one; so far, even with flaws, this is better than many we now promote. Certainly, the FA list is not, and is never likely to be, the model of a perfect article.
- I agree that FA is a broken and irresponsible system; its standards vary randomly, and it is failing. What article was wrongly rejected? Perhaps I can help. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should I fix something that is not mine and broken? It pains me that good articles get rejected for FA-status because of small imperfections, while this article is pretty much given an easy treatment. If WP wants to keep the standards high, it should keep it high. This policy is simply unfair and confusing for people who want to know what a proper article is. Regards, Daimanta 00:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Daimanta, will you please follow the instructions at the top of WP:FAR and notify involved editors and relevant WikiProjects? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I notified the people in the Talk Page of the article. I don't think it's possible to notify the people in the relevant wikiprojects. Regards, Daimanta 14:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics is quite active, and has a talk page; I suspect Eastern Europe is in the same condition. (WP Chicago places its tag by bot, and may have limited real interest in this article.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, it's done. I didn't quite know where to put the notification of the FAR. Regards, Daimanta 20:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I re-did them using the correct message per the instructions, and notified the main editor. You can click on the links above to see. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, it's done. I didn't quite know where to put the notification of the FAR. Regards, Daimanta 20:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics is quite active, and has a talk page; I suspect Eastern Europe is in the same condition. (WP Chicago places its tag by bot, and may have limited real interest in this article.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What does the phrase In 1946, Teller left Los Alamos to return to the University of Chicago. mean since Chicago and the University of Chicago had not been previously mentioned in the article?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Bad faith nomination. The nominator has explicitly said that they only picked this article out of spite because of another article not getting FA. Articles need to be judged on their own terms, not whether or not you think they are better or worse than a different article. In any case, if there is anything that needs being cited in here, let me know and I'll add citations. Everything that looked reasonably contentious was cited when it was originally written. Much of the citations do come from Herken though there are other books as well (Teller's Memoirs, Goodchild's The Real Dr. Strangelove, etc.). Everything in here is pretty uncontroversial if you have read those biographies and the article as a whole is, in my of course biased opinion, very well balanced in comparison to the way Teller is usually portrayed in popular media. --Fastfission 15:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true, I stumbled on this article and I simply could not believe that this was FA-class. This is not maliciously nominated, I simply though that this article should have never become FA in the first place and seeing that the article has not been improved to FA-status after the nomination, I though that the only logical course of action was to do a peer-review. If you measure up the current FA criteria to the standards in this article, it's simply not worthy. I am not here to waste my time on some sort of quest(namely proving a point about FA articles or something), I am simply trying to improve Wikipedia to the best of my knowledge. Regards, Daimanta 16:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article as nominated would fail at WP:GAR, IMO. Please WP:AGF.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly my point, this article is maybe not even GA worthy and that's pretty sad. Regards, Daimanta 22:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not actionable. Examples, please. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly my point, this article is maybe not even GA worthy and that's pretty sad. Regards, Daimanta 22:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article as nominated would fail at WP:GAR, IMO. Please WP:AGF.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true, I stumbled on this article and I simply could not believe that this was FA-class. This is not maliciously nominated, I simply though that this article should have never become FA in the first place and seeing that the article has not been improved to FA-status after the nomination, I though that the only logical course of action was to do a peer-review. If you measure up the current FA criteria to the standards in this article, it's simply not worthy. I am not here to waste my time on some sort of quest(namely proving a point about FA articles or something), I am simply trying to improve Wikipedia to the best of my knowledge. Regards, Daimanta 16:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Edward_Teller_Washington_Post_Ad.jpg has no fair use rationale. This is a serious offence considering that the article has FA-status. Regards, Daimanta 22:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done (by FastFission). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, what are you talking about, a "serious offence"? It has had a paragraph rationale about its copyright status as the description since it was uploaded over two years ago. Are you reading things or just looking for template icons? If you've got a problem with the rationale as given, feel free to challenge it, but I wouldn't be surprised if I knew more about U.S. fair use law than you do. A newspaper ad of that sort, being used in an article about the subject of the ad and in reference to the publication of the ad, is a pretty solid fair use claim. --16:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
As a general and actionable guideline, (which is pretty much a standard at WP:FAC), I would like to see at least one citation per paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Paragraphs which have matter which is challenged or likely to be challenged should have references. Paragraphs which do not, need not; and paragraphs which are trivially verifiable in Herken should be cut some slack. (After all, it is, by hypothesis, as easy to verify them as with a page number in Herken.)
- Footnote counters should be ignored, like other efforts to substitute an easy and irrelevant standard for the hard work of actually reviewing an article, which Diamanta has begun, and no-one else has attempted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless someone has anything specific wrong with this, can we close this down already? Either take the time to come up with legitimate gripes, or don't piss on other people's work. The only things which are not cited are purely CV or otherwise things that nobody is going to challenge who knows a thing about the subject matter. Simply saying "this would not pass X or Y" is not an argument, is not in the spirit of these things, and is not respectful at all of the time that other people have put into an article like this. It passed FA once, it should have some benefit of the doubt unless you have a real, actionable problem with it. Mere citation counting is ridiculous and a parody of academic standards. Legitimate issues and questions I can deal with just fine, but this kind of petty nonsense is just devalues everyone's time and is corroding to the entire Wiki system of production (people's time, people's emotions). --Fastfission 16:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, lots of cleanup needed here. In addition to concerns already expressed, please correct the WP:MOS breaches. Overlinking of solo years (see WP:MOSDATE), WP:OVERLINKing in general of common terms known to English speakers, see WP:MOS#Captions regarding punctuation of sentence fragments, see WP:MSH regarding section headings, correct mixed reference style per WP:WIAFA consistent citation style (some are cite.php some are Harvard type), inconsistent use of WP:DASHes (some are spaced, some not), incorrect use of WP:MOSBOLD in citations, incorrect use of WP:ITALICs (newspaper, not the article), and incorrectly formatted citations including bluelinked URLs (please see WP:CITE/ES). Also, stubby, one-sentence paragraph: "In 1946, Teller left Los Alamos to go to the University of Chicago." I haven't checked in detail yet, but I suspect there may be definitions and technical terms that are underlinked; this should be checked once everything else is complete. Also, please review the external links to make sure that all comply with WP:EL, WP:RS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Gawd, so the biggest problems now are minor MOS ones (dates, dashes, linking), in an article where much of the editing was done before the MOS had become a rigid system of laws? Fine—I'll convert the dashes! But this is ridiculous, insulting, irritating. Why even bother WRITING a featured article if someday people are going to complain that the dashes are inconsistent! --Fastfission 05:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), and MoS issues (2). Marskell 07:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Retain. Meets the criteria to me. In the future, please try to retain the good faith of the original FA contributors by avoiding commentary like "not worthy" and "simply could not believe that this was FA-class". This should be go without saying in the FAR process. –Outriggr § 01:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep featured: without knowing much about the subject other than having read Richard Rhodes, all the questionable claims seem to be cited satisfactorily. I didn't see any formatting issues that materially affected the quality of the piece. My only qualm was that the sections about Operation Plowshare, 3MI, and SDI are a surprisingly heavy focus of the article. Not having read a biography of Teller it's difficult to know how his life is usually addressed but my sense was that most of what he is really known for occurred before 1955. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutralweak delist: I still think each paragraph should have at least one citation. It is not because I am counting citations. It is also not because I think there are significant questionable claims lacking citations. I just feel that by definition, WP is a tertiary resource, meaning everything we include is something said by a reliable secondary source. It almost impossible for an article to have a feel that everything it claims has been said by a reliable secondary source if at least one citation does not appear in each paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 23:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]- In brief, our actual citation policies don't matter; neither do the actual standards of FA; it doesn't have the right feel, according to a standard a hanfful of Wikipedians have made up and none of our readers know about. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you want to push, I could cite WP:ATT, WP:V and WP:RS, but I think the article is pretty good. I would just like to see a few more citations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 21:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Let me just state that I have tremendous respect for the caliber of the research and its level of detail as well as for the general organization and content of the article. I also respect your zeal and concern for the status of the article. However, in cases where I do not believe that every notable fact is cited, I generally draw the line for sufficiency at whether every paragraph has at least one citations. Special consideration may be given for an article that has one or two uncited paragraphs. However, a general pattern of paragraphs will consistently draw a negative review at WP:FAR and WP:GAR. I personally, feel this article should be delisted, but its overall quality makes me hesitate to give stronger opposition.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 13:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Citations for what in particular? There may well be some point that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and is neither cited nor obvious. If so, it would be a service to point it out. But footnotes are not a matter where ladling more in at random serves any purpose. (Actually, it serves one: many of our worst articles have the most footnotes, because some editor has collected quotations out of context which appear to support his POV. We just delisted one of those.) I could, probably justifiably, add in Herken passim at the end of every paragraph, but why? (This would indeed be sufficient information for a competent reader to find the reference; Herken has a voluminous index. Since the index is online, I could even crib the numbers; but again, would this be a contribution to Wikipedia?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My zeal and concern is for FA itself; I didn't write this article. It could be a meaningful evaluation; passing through FAC and FAR could be genuine chances to improve the articles that suffer them. But reviews which do not actually involve reading and understanding the article are disruptive to both purposes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again I just have to express my opinion that if an article has 4 consecutive paragraphs without a citation the article has a problem. Either it is poorly organized with several choppy paragraphs that should be merged, or it has paragraphs with independent ideas that should express important claims or ideas. On principle without reviewing the consecutive uncited sections again, I will just affirm a weak delist. This is nothing against the article which I have contributed cited claims to. I like the article a lot. It probably the first WP:CHICAGO WP:FAR article that I have gone through the effort to add cited claims to. However, I still think it is below par for FA. That is my opinion. It is a great article, but not WP's best.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 22:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In brief, our actual citation policies don't matter; neither do the actual standards of FA; it doesn't have the right feel, according to a standard a hanfful of Wikipedians have made up and none of our readers know about. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong retain. If Sandy wants to add and remove periods in the captions, she should do so; but none of that jargon makes a difference between this article and the current standard of promotion (which should be the test here); it has even less to do with "our best work". (Most of it is not even actionable, with no examples given.) If anything can be found which needs citation, that would be actionable; but numbers of footnotes are not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong remove. Pity—I'd like to see this survive, but there are MOS breaches aplenty, poor writing style, and unencyclopedic tone in places. Here are just a few examples:
- "Avid advocate" our readers will trip over (Fowler called this type of thing a jingle.)
- "Perhaps", in the lead, too, is attitudinal and doesn't belong in an objective article.
- "Theoretical Physics division at the then-secret Los Alamos laboratory"—Capitalisation?
- "Apparently, Teller also managed to irk his neighbors by playing the piano late in the night. However, Teller also made some valuable contributions to bomb research, especially in the elucidation of the implosion mechanism." Both "alsos" and "some" are redundant. "Apparently" makes it a target for a reference citation. "Bomb research" could be improved.
Is anyone working on it? Tony (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's see.
- "Avid advocate" may be too clever for its own good; but it doesn't trip all readers (I hadn't noticed it). It can certainly be replaced, but since both words are right separately, I don't see how to at the moment.
Done Replaced with "vigorous advocate", which is at least no worse; this still fails to impress me as a sample of bad writing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Perhaps" in leads is the sign of ä noteworthy, but disputed, assertion, which this is. This is a summary of a sourced, and accurate, paragraph below.
- "division" and "laboratory" are probably right; they're descriptions, not names. Had these organizations been named in 1943? It would have been a security breach.
- The second also is indeed redundant; there may be a case that the first is misplaced, but Teller managed to irk his neighbors also... is not much of an improvement.
- I suppose splitting the infinitive (managed to also irk) is best here; but really this is not a difference worth demoting either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One half out of four. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Avid advocate" may be too clever for its own good; but it doesn't trip all readers (I hadn't noticed it). It can certainly be replaced, but since both words are right separately, I don't see how to at the moment.
- Let's see.
- What's a pity is that none of those things constitute a "strong remove". The edit history, incidentally, is what shows if someone is working on an article. I had been rather noncommittally combining refs, trying to add a few inline citations, changing some style items, and attempting to offset the unfortunate tone of this nom with a few comments addressed toward the main contributor, whatever that was worth. Some rhetoric, sure, but scarcely so in comparison to the accepted Statler & Waldorfian FAR style. ¶ What I can tell you is that I certainly wouldn't continue now. Did you mean to be a de-motivator? It's very easy to read you that way. The difficulty here is the vanishingly small number of editors who are willing to put a significant effort into referencing, copyediting, or in any way improving a FAR nomination just so that maybe "the work" is sufficient to get the self-selecting balcony to change their "strong remove"s—especially when "the work" often has little to do with the article qua article. ¶ It's time to un-watchlist this page, as it is usually a downer. Let's pick one example: Anne Frank has 18 inline citations. That's "not enough", and in FAR-speak, this translates to "not referenced from a fact to fact basis" (whatever that means) and "This reason alone brings the validity of the article into question"—wow! Legitimate arguments or not, it doesn't matter—the train has now left the station: each reviewer who looks for the one thing they don't like will find it, and say "remove". So, relatively accomplished, encyclopedic FAs must perform arbitrary labors determined by a group even thinner in numbers than in FAC review, or have their merit badge removed—with the largely unrecognized consequence that "our best work" continues to skew toward the margin. Agitated but in earnest, –Outriggr § 23:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First, this doesn't seem to me to be either a strong retain or a strong remove at the moment. A citation should cover everything behind it until the previous citation. Two citations might be a sentence apart or two paragraphs apart. (Certainly any solely numeric rule, such as "one per paragraph," doesn't make sense.) If Outriggr or others can confidently say that's the case here, it's in keep territory.
- The "unfortunate tone" is being repeated across multiple reviews because (at least from where I'm sitting) PMA's desire to put Tony through the Wikipedia equivalent of water torture has become pathological. Apparently, everything that comes to FAC these days is terrible but everthing that comes to FAR should be retained even where the original nominator is gone and even where there isn't a single inline citation. Whatever.
- Outrigger, don't be glum. You're among the best we have and any further work on this one will not be wasted. I don't think Tony meant to offend. Marskell (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Marskell, hello. Thanks for the note: I will leave a brief reply here as I know we are getting into talk-page stuff, yet I don't want to restart the debates. Two points I want to make in follow-up: a) When it comes to envisioning "wikipedia's best work", philosophies can differ drastically. Editors who don't share the dominant approach to FAR have shown up periodically, make perfectly valid points, but don't stick around. I can't pretend I really understand or like the dominant approach to FA reviews, and if this lumps me in with grumps, trolls, or people who want exceptions made, well, that's beyond my control. The skew here, as I see it, is to pick old articles (and "pick" is really a key word here, I think) based on formalisms, when a close review of more "current" articles might show them lacking as much or more in the same, or other, areas; it might show them lacking in ways that aren't amenable to one-sentence drive-by nominations that are made, I'm not sure why, by users who don't really understand the inherently uncomfortable process they're putting in motion, with sometimes real effects on editors, just because they don't see inline citations. b) Hopefully I don't need to add that I'm not equating any one editor, most especially you, with "what I don't like about FAR". c) Since there is a wiki tendency to imagine off-wiki communications that sway editor groups and such, I should add that I have never shared a word off-wiki (or on-wiki, in most cases) with the writer of the article under review, PMA, or others whose opinions I may appear to be sharing. –Outriggr § 05:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Belated followup. Reviewing this FAR for the first time in several weeks, perhaps the tone got off to a bad start when the nomination was called a "bad faith nomination". WP:AGF and all that. Whether a "bad" or good faith nomination, the point of a featured article review is to review and restore status, not to "punish" or demote articles. To that aim, it is unfortunate that PMA continues to mislead nominators about the process, the criteria, and the goals. WP:WIAFA includes item 2, compliance with the manual of style, no matter how much PMA objects and disrupts. The only question is will others do this work, or will some of the FAR regulars (like Outriggr) have to do it so that the FAR can close, if all else is attended to. FastFission, regarding your comment, "Gawd, so the biggest problems now are minor MOS ones ...", no, I didn't say that. I listed the MOS issues that needed to be attended to during the review "in addition to the other concerns" already expressed. I list them early on, hoping they may get tended to, because if they don't, I'll end up having to do it myself if the article progresses during FAR to the point of being close to saving. Unfortunately, PMA's hobby horse against WP:WIAFA 1c and 2 is now affecting FARs as well as apparently wearing down Tony1, and it really needs to stop. PMA, if you disagree with WP:WIAFA, you should take it up there. Raul has said several times that anything that can be fixed should be fixed, and MOS fixes are easy albeit time-consuming, and worth doing if the prose and citations concerns have progressed enough that the article is worth saving. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If Sandy believes that the purpose of the process is to fix articles, she should at least list such flaws so they can be fixed. (It would be less total work for everybody if she would simply fix them; but that is not required.) Vague references to whole pages of the MOS are useful only for the glorious purpose of taking the little gold star away. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Belated followup. Reviewing this FAR for the first time in several weeks, perhaps the tone got off to a bad start when the nomination was called a "bad faith nomination". WP:AGF and all that. Whether a "bad" or good faith nomination, the point of a featured article review is to review and restore status, not to "punish" or demote articles. To that aim, it is unfortunate that PMA continues to mislead nominators about the process, the criteria, and the goals. WP:WIAFA includes item 2, compliance with the manual of style, no matter how much PMA objects and disrupts. The only question is will others do this work, or will some of the FAR regulars (like Outriggr) have to do it so that the FAR can close, if all else is attended to. FastFission, regarding your comment, "Gawd, so the biggest problems now are minor MOS ones ...", no, I didn't say that. I listed the MOS issues that needed to be attended to during the review "in addition to the other concerns" already expressed. I list them early on, hoping they may get tended to, because if they don't, I'll end up having to do it myself if the article progresses during FAR to the point of being close to saving. Unfortunately, PMA's hobby horse against WP:WIAFA 1c and 2 is now affecting FARs as well as apparently wearing down Tony1, and it really needs to stop. PMA, if you disagree with WP:WIAFA, you should take it up there. Raul has said several times that anything that can be fixed should be fixed, and MOS fixes are easy albeit time-consuming, and worth doing if the prose and citations concerns have progressed enough that the article is worth saving. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can the article consistently use either hydrogen bomb or H-bomb, or stick with H-bomb after defining and linking the acronym on the first occurrence? It uses them interchangeably, and later introduces Teller-Ulam design. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a lot of statements similar to:
After the Oppenheimer controversy, Teller became ostracized by much of the scientific community, but for obvious reasons was still quite welcome in the government and military science circles.
- which should be cited. The article frequently discusses issues among the various scientists, and we need to know who is saying what about whom; attribution is needed. Also:
The political climate and revolutions in Hungary during his youth instilled a deep hatred for both Communism and Fascism in Teller.
- Further citation needs (samples only):
- Strategic Defense Initiative section is undercited and underattributed
- Example: Many scientists opposed strategic defense on moral or political rather than purely technical grounds.
He was also rumored to be the inspiration for the character of Dr. Strangelove in Stanley Kubrick's 1964 satirical film of the same name (other inspirations have been speculated to be RAND theorist Herman Kahn, rocket scientist Wernher von Braun, and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara).The piano playing in the night statement also stands out as strangely unattributed.
Teller died in Stanford; considering his work was associated with Berkeley/Livermore, we are given no idea why he was at Stanford. Did he happen to be hospitalized at Stanford University Hospital, was he living in Palo Alto or Menlo Park, or was he faculty? A jump from the UC system to Stanford stands out and needs explanation.Found, cited[8], resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- After minor cleanup, I think the article would benefit from stronger citation (it's not that hard to cite things like Time magazine People of the Year, is it?), but it's not worth shouting over. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you add some {{cn}}s? Those would be actionable, and can be either cited or discussed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Outriggr, I gave examples, not a full review. They alone probably don't constitute a case for removal, but what they represent throughout the text does. Tony (talk) 04:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, when I nominated this article for a FAR I had some strong objections against the lack of citations and mixture of ways of signing this article. Since I nominated this article it has improved and I am no longer opposed to it remaining FA. However, Tony1 has pointed out some gaps in the article and untill they are resolved I will remain neutral on the assessment of this article. Regards, Daimanta (talk) 11:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional retain. I'm a card-carrying member of the pro-inline cites club. But I have to say... the general trend toward bitterness and animosity on this subject is an outlook which I no longer share and instead actively fear. I'm weary of the factions that spring up over issues such as these. I'm soapboxing because I think that FA-related forums are the backbone of Wikipedia, and should be the place where an attempt is made to set a tone of congenial disagreement... having said all that... Wikipedia is not an expert; it's a tertiary source. It is not qualified to look into the hearts and minds of people and explain the contents therein. I put a few {{cn}} tags in spots that seemed to be examples of mind-reading, or where words were being put in peoples' mouths, or where imputations/accusations were being made. I put the tags there...not because I'm a tag-zealot, but because Wikipedia accidentally misrepresents itself as something other than a tertiary source when such statements remain uncited... I didn't see the poor writing that Tony saw, but he is far better at that than I am (or perhaps the text has been improved). I'm reasonably well-educated and an avid reader, and only the one-sentence paragraph ("In 1946, Teller left Los Alamos to go to the University of Chicago") threw me for a loop. So I'd like to humbly ask that the dedicated edtors of this article address the {{cn}} tags, and aside from that, I see no reason not to Retain. Ling.Nut (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weary is the word. The persistent attack on and disruption of FAR, and questioning of good faith motives here, needs to be addressed. After I left a list of citation needs and issues I'd like to see addressed (above) and after I went in and did the MOS cleanup, PMA left these remarks to me,[9] and this sarcastic remark to Tony.[10] I chuckle at being continually told by PMA to fix things myself at FAR, when I've deen doing just that for well over a year. But the sarcasm is wearing thin and affecting FAR overall. This article is just about over the hump, but we can get there faster without the sarcasm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sandy, disagreement isn't sarcasm. Some of Tony's alleged flaws aren't actually flawed; one is venial; the rest are trivial.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, I was able to cite part of the list of accolades and awards to the Stanford obit, but not all. I'll work on it later unless someone else gets to it first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck a few more above, tagged a couple of things that need clarification because the Stanford news obit slightly disagrees, will try to do more later unless someone else gets to them first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Ling.Nut.; these {{cn}}s are reasonable, actionable, and constructive. I will consult Herken tomorrow. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weary is the word. The persistent attack on and disruption of FAR, and questioning of good faith motives here, needs to be addressed. After I left a list of citation needs and issues I'd like to see addressed (above) and after I went in and did the MOS cleanup, PMA left these remarks to me,[9] and this sarcastic remark to Tony.[10] I chuckle at being continually told by PMA to fix things myself at FAR, when I've deen doing just that for well over a year. But the sarcasm is wearing thin and affecting FAR overall. This article is just about over the hump, but we can get there faster without the sarcasm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Two steps forward, one backward. Citations are being added, but they are to book sources without page numbers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sandy appears to be astray in Time. There were book references without page numbers before this article was nominated for review; I believe all the recent notes have included page numbers.
- More importantly, this is a venial matter; like most of this review, it's about appearance, rather than any real question of verifiability, or of reader service. Any reader who finds a footnote saying "Herken 2002", for example, must find a copy and check the index. Of these two, finding the copy is the hard part; Herken has a voluminous index. Citing a page will not help if he has a different edition; and I believe Herken is out in paperback.
- Perhaps we can, and should, resolve this, by renaming this entire process WP:Decorative articles or WP:Pretty articles, and dropping the pretense that it has more than a tangential relation with article quality. I will agree that footnotes to every paragraph, even those dealing with Teller's CV before 1941 (on which all sources agree) would be prettier. They are no service to the encyclopedia, but editors need hobbies, and this is no worse than Esperanza. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG DELIST It seems you enjoy arguing by convenience. this is inappropriate. I found interesting points in the article that I would like to see sourced in a way that makes them attributable to a reliable source as opposed to a matter of opinion of the author. You can keep propounding your new word of the day as if it makes the interesting point any more verifyable without the citation. There are two or three other points I would like to see sourced. It is not an attempt to make the article pretty. These are interesting facts (I presume) that I would like to learn more about. A well written article would tell me where I can do this with a proper inline cite. From the sounds of things you are espousing support for general references for such claims. On WP I have had to track down facts for several articles. Haystacks (Monet) took four turns at WP:GAC before getting promoted for this very reason. It is no longer proper on WP just to name some books and say "Go FISH". All the requested citations were actionable. Since you removed the three I requested in good faith I am going to request them again and may look more closely and at least one more.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, TonyTheTiger, try not to take out your frustrations with PMA on the article, particularly when others may be willing to work on the sourcing. I've been able to verify a good deal of the text by reading online sources; you might be able to add some yourself. It's a shame if someone has the book in front of them and is in a position to add a correct citation but doesn't just add the page number while it can be done to save other editors from having to look it up, but I don't see the logic in reacting to PMA's editing by voting against the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in mind my frustration is not with him as an individual or in any way related to other dealings with him on WP. My frustration is with the idiocy of believing the proper way to clean up {{fact}} tags on WP is to remove them. I have since the beginning said I am in favor of the article for its quality and encyclopedic value, but have problems with its verifyability. I then said I could overlook an occaisional uncited paragraph, but that long sequences of consecutive uncited paragraphs that present distinct facts is objectionable. Then, I mentioned more specifically that four in a row was objectionable. In general, I would say consecutive paragraphs with distinct facts that need to be attributed so that they do not constitute apparent WP:OR is objectionable. Like I said before, I have had to fold up the tent on GACs in the past because I just had books for people to fish in for refs. We don't want fishing book refs at the end of the article and that is why I now object. I had hoped for a good faith effort to eliminate sequences of unsourced paragraphs. Now, I am dealing with flaunting of the fact that there is not going to be removal of such citations. I am not requesting that PMA add them, but that anyone who is willing add them. If you are that is fine. I continue to object to an article with sequences of unsourced paragraphs being described as among WPs best as we enter 2008. I will go back to weak delist with one or two more of the consecutive paragraphs being cited properly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't care whether this edit is in good faith; I do care that it disrupts Wikipedia by demanding pointless citations for matters which can be found in any of the works cited, which are in full consensus on Teller's career before 1941; I'm looking through them all to answer Lingnut's much better founded requests. (Most of them can be found in Teller's Britannica entry, for Heaven's sake.) For more information on the subject, Tony need only read any one of them; it is evident he has not bothered to look at them. (Goodchild attempts to explain the actual physics Teller was doing, but all of them mention Gamow, for example.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done Added two books (of opposite tendency) which have the same account of Teller between 1926 and 1941, an on-line source, and the relevant section of Teller's memoirs. At this point, it comes down to Fastfission's question: does FA have anything to do with the article as article? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, it makes little sense to say I know where the citations can be found so I will remove the {{fact}} tags and assume the reader does too. If the reader knew he could find everything he wanted elsewhere he would not be reading WP. I am not registered a Britannica and should not have to be to understand the claims are not WP:OR. Wouldn't it be better for the project to properly cite the article than to for people to say it is cited as can be found in the 42nd paragraph of the FAR discussion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, TonyTheTiger, try not to take out your frustrations with PMA on the article, particularly when others may be willing to work on the sourcing. I've been able to verify a good deal of the text by reading online sources; you might be able to add some yourself. It's a shame if someone has the book in front of them and is in a position to add a correct citation but doesn't just add the page number while it can be done to save other editors from having to look it up, but I don't see the logic in reacting to PMA's editing by voting against the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG DELIST It seems you enjoy arguing by convenience. this is inappropriate. I found interesting points in the article that I would like to see sourced in a way that makes them attributable to a reliable source as opposed to a matter of opinion of the author. You can keep propounding your new word of the day as if it makes the interesting point any more verifyable without the citation. There are two or three other points I would like to see sourced. It is not an attempt to make the article pretty. These are interesting facts (I presume) that I would like to learn more about. A well written article would tell me where I can do this with a proper inline cite. From the sounds of things you are espousing support for general references for such claims. On WP I have had to track down facts for several articles. Haystacks (Monet) took four turns at WP:GAC before getting promoted for this very reason. It is no longer proper on WP just to name some books and say "Go FISH". All the requested citations were actionable. Since you removed the three I requested in good faith I am going to request them again and may look more closely and at least one more.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the reader finds anything on Wikipedia that he cannot find elsewhere, that's Original Research. If FA has nothing to do with our core policies, it should be closed down — or at best left as an irrelevant hobby to keep bad editors out of article space. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You continue to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what WP:OR is. Reread the third and especially the fourth bulletpoint at WP:OR and maybe you will understand why it is no longer appropriate to leave fishing book references.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This would be the Appeal to Irrelevant Authority. The paragraphs in question are:
- Our verifiability policy (V) demands that information and notable views presented in articles be drawn from appropriate, reliable sources.
- Compliance with our Verifiability Policy and our cite sources guideline is the best way to ensure that you do not violate our NOR policy. In short, the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article; the only way to demonstrate that you are not inserting your own POV is to represent these sources and the views they reflect accurately.
- I fully agree with these sentiments. Edward Teller, however, is drawn from reliable authorities, as listed - in fact, most, and of those the most reliable, of the books written on Teller; it does report them accurately; and they are cited. None of this supports the one-footnote-per-paragraph standard, however. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You continue to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what WP:OR is. Reread the third and especially the fourth bulletpoint at WP:OR and maybe you will understand why it is no longer appropriate to leave fishing book references.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the reader finds anything on Wikipedia that he cannot find elsewhere, that's Original Research. If FA has nothing to do with our core policies, it should be closed down — or at best left as an irrelevant hobby to keep bad editors out of article space. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps we can, and should, resolve this, by renaming this entire process WP:Decorative articles or WP:Pretty articles, and dropping the pretense that it has more than a tangential relation with article quality. I will agree that footnotes to every paragraph, even those dealing with Teller's CV before 1941 (on which all sources agree) would be prettier. They are no service to the encyclopedia, but editors need hobbies, and this is no worse than Esperanza. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:52, 3 December 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 07:54, 1 December 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- WPP:MUSIC [11] and WP:MUSICIANS [12] notified. Gimmetrow 05:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Message left at Estraordinary Machine, Journalist and Reidlos
This page is poorly written. For instance, I see grammatical errors already in the opening paragraphs. As an example, the article says in the third paragraph, "... greatest artist of all-time." The dash does not belong there. At another point it says, "best selling singer." A dash IS needed here. Come on people, this is the opening section! How in the world did an article with such bad grammar end up with FA status?
Overall, I would characterize the writing as weak. For instance, the second sentence says: "Her debut was in 1990 under the guidance of Columbia Records executive Tommy Mottola, and she became the first recording artist to have her first five singles top the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 chart." Sorry, but that sounds pretty awkward. Try this: “Under the guidance of Columbia Records executive Tommy Mottola, Carey became the first recording artist to have all five of the singles from her first album top the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 Chart in 1990.”
I am just a scientist, and not a scholar of the English language. However, if these sentences sound strange to me, they probably sound a lot worse to people who can actually write. If I can find this number of bad sentences in the lead section alone, then I cannot image the state of decay that must exist toward the end. I further find it hard to believe that this article constitutes "the best that Wikipedia has to offer."
Yet another issue involves the sloppy citation method used. In many cases, no information on the source of the article is given whatsoever. Where are the names of dates, authors, etc. for so many of the references? Because so few of the sources are available as internet links, it is further difficult to get a feel for whether the sources are being cited accurately. Citation #4 also does not link properly. I clicked on it only to find an article about Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize! The sloppy citation here is not acceptable at all for a Featured Article. What kind of message does it put out there? It is basically sending out the message that proper referencing does not matter.
Although I love Mariah Carey, this article is not written in a professional manner. In fact, the issue is so bad that I do not know how anyone is expected to take this article seriously. For instance, it is quite apparent that the page is not willing to honestly discuss any sort of criticism pertaining to the singer. Although the lead section alludes to issues that critics have had with her, the documentation is buried in a location that is nearly impossible to find in this disorganized article.
Another thing that would really benefit this article is an entire section devoted to "Criticism." In this section, people should be allowed to add negative reviews without any fear that the citations will be erased.
Here are some examples of criticism that I found right away with a quick Google:
1) Carey was voted by "The World" as the "worst singer of all time: http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/carey%20named%20worst%20singer%20of%20all%20time_1034254
2) Carey also voted as one of the worst of all time by "Q." Here is the link:http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/osbourne%20carey%20and%20dion%20named%20worst%20singers%20ever_1023934.
My point here is that there is plenty of material for an entire criticism section. Furthermore, it would make the article more believable.
By the way, there is no reason to be ashamed of bad reviews. Everyone knows that a lot of critics are jealous morons. There is also a lot of sexism inherent in rock criticism. However, when you fail to incorporate these types of things into an encyclopedia article, the effect is generally to lose any readers who do not happen to be fans. This is especially true when you go out of your way to lavishly illustrate accomplishments and awards.
By the way, another way to look at this article is to compare it with a similar one that is much better. For instance, check out the Freddie Mercury page, which is only listed as a "B" article at the moment. However, note how easy it is to read, how clearly the references are cited and how honest it is with regard to criticism. Furthermore, although the Freddie Mercury page ranks around #300 in terms of the number of edits, we have never had any problems with vandalism nor have we ever had to lock the site up. The reason for this involves the large "Criticism and Controversy" section to which everyone is allowed to freely add. At no point has any attempt been made to get rid of it or edit it. However, it is my understanding that such an open policy is not practiced on this site.
- Nominator, please follow the instructions at the top of WP:FAR and notify involved editors and relevant WikiProjects. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that it's probably unorthodox to comment on the nominator, as opposed to the article itself, but I feel that in this occasion, I must. The editor seems only to have read the introduction, and assume that the article does not fit the criteria. His criticism is saturated with vague and general comments like "the article is bad," which gives us little to go on. Much of the cited information that the nominator provides are the result of vandalism, which have been removed ("... greatest artist of all-time" does not exist in the opening paragraph, nor in the rest of the article).
- Also, there is no claim in the article that "Carey has sold more than any female artists," as the nominator states. Billboard magazine had listed her as the most successful artist of the 1990s in the U.S (which refers to her chart success), and this is documented at the end of the first paragraph of the article. The article even goes as far as to mention that Carey is the third best-selling artist in the U.S, "according to the RIAA".
- Also, the page is practically ridden with criticisms of Carey's artistry, as found in the discussion of her albums throughout the article, and in the section "Artistry." Here are a few examples:
- "...but TIME magazine lamented Carey's attempt at a mellower work: "[Music Box] seems perfunctory and almost passionless ... Carey could be a pop-soul great; instead she has once again settled for Salieri-like mediocrity."
- "Critical reception of Merry Christmas was mixed, with All Music Guide calling it an "otherwise vanilla set ... pretensions to high opera on 'O Holy Night' and a horrid danceclub [sic] take on 'Joy to the World'."
- "'After years of trading her signature flourishes for a radio-ready purr, [Carey]'s left with almost no presence at all.'"
- "'The St. Louis Post-Dispatch dismissed it as "an absolute mess that'll go down as an annoying blemish on a career that, while not always critically heralded, was at least nearly consistently successful'."
- "Film Guide called it a "vapid star vehicle for a pop singer with no visible acting ability", and The Village Voice observed: "When [Carey] tries for an emotion—any emotion—she looks as if she's lost her car keys." Glitter was a box office failure, and Carey earned a Razzie Award for her role."
- "a review in NME labeled Carey "a purveyor of saccharine bilge like 'Hero', whose message seems wholesome enough: that if you vacate your mind of all intelligent thought, flutter your eyelashes and wish hard, sweet babies and honey will follow". Also that year she appeared on the first televised VH1 Divas benefit concert program, though her alleged prima donna behavior had already led many to consider her a diva."
- Carey's voice has come under considerable scrutiny from critics who believe that she does not effectively communicate the message of her songs. Rolling Stone magazine said in 1992, "Carey has a remarkable vocal gift, but to date, unfortunately, her singing has been far more impressive than expressive ... at full speed her range is so superhuman that each excessive note erodes the believability of the lyric she is singing." The New York Daily News wrote that Carey's singing "is ultimately what does her in. For Carey, vocalizing is all about the performance, not the emotions that inspired it ... Does having a great voice automatically make you a great singer? Hardly." Some interpreted Carey's decision to utilise what she described as "breathy" vocals in some of her late 1990s and early 2000s work as a sign that her voice had begun to deteriorate, but she has maintained that it "has been here all along". An article in Vibe magazine indicated that Carey's singing style highlights weaknesses in other aspects of her music: "The impressiveness of her voice—as well as her tendency to oversing—make the blandness of her material all the more flagrant".
- There is so much more that I can lift from the article. Please read the article first, before you comment on things like these. I agree that the prose could use some copy editing, but overall, this article is well-written.
- We cannot include every criticism of Carey that one finds on the internet; the two sites that the nominator presented lists criticism that is already discussed— that Carey has more voice than soul. Orane (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To add to Orane's points, the creation of a section titled "Criticism" would seem to me to be a textbook violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article structure. Carey has been the subject of much criticism, yes, and as Orane has indicated, the article documents instances of such criticism frequently — it's more useful for the reader, I think, to have those arranged across the articles in the relevant sections (e.g. those pertaining to specific albums, periods of her career or aspects of her music) than collected into one section.
- As the most visible part of the article, the lead section will be edited more frequently than other sections, so errors (both factual and grammatical) are going to creep in sooner or later, despite the efforts of those watching the article (including myself) — and I disagree with your comment about "some obscure biography that we will never be able to get our hands on", because the information needed to find a copy of the book is there if people need it. Regarding one of your suggestions for improvements to the grammar — you proposed, "Carey became the first recording artist to have all five of her first singles top the U.S. Billbroad Hot 100 Chart." Firstly, "all five of her first" isn't needed, because "her first five" conveys the same information in fewer words (and is in the article for this reason); secondly, "chart" should remain uncapitalised because it isn't a proper noun in this instance. Extraordinary Machine 22:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note
- Full criticism was not posted: It did not contain issues with references and other issues
I was disappointed to find that the one given here was an older version that did not contain all of my points. Please read everything that i wrote, Boab 05:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I just wrote messages to two of the people above informing them that they in fact did not see all of my criticisms. What I did was to write a prelimary draft one night and then finish it up the next day. However, I was disappointed to find that someone had pasted that older version up there that was not finished. This older version did not include my issues with the sloppy citations and some other things. By the way, check out the Freddie Mercury page (which is currently a "B" at the moment) to see what proper citations should look like for a featured article. Boab 05:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Proper citations"? By whose standard? Just because you think that the citation method in "Freddy Mercury" is superior, that doesn't mean that this article should be delisted. This is mere stylistic difference.
- Also, you stated that it was awkward to write, "Her debut was in 1990 under the guidance of Columbia Records executive Tommy Mottola, and she became the first recording artist to have her first five singles top the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 chart" and suggested that we should write "Under the guidance of Columbia Records executive Tommy Mottola, Carey became the first recording artist to have all five of the singles from her first album top the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 Chart in 1990." However, your statement would convey the wrong information; Carey's first five singles went to number-one, but they were not all from her first album (i.e. four singles were from her first album, and her fifth #1 single was the first single from her second album).
- I disagree with the inclusion of a criticism section. As already stated by User:Extraordinary Machine, criticism is discussed at the appropriate section in the article pertaining to the particular period of her career. Again, it's a stylistic difference. Please see the FAC criteria. Orane (talk) 06:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A failure to include authors, dates and souruces is not simply a "stylistic difference." On the contrary, it is an example of inadequate citing. Remember that this is a Featured Article. Keep in mind how few articles attain Featured Article status and what this should imply in terms of quality. On the other hand, look at references 53-55 at the moment (October 21, 2007). Do you see what I mean here? You need to fix this up if you want to call this a Featured Article.
By the way, I am pleased to see that someone has fixed up some of the grammatical errors and the awkward sentence in the intro. Now do this for the rest of the article. (By the way, look at the October 7th version to see how it read before my criticisms above. Just continue to follow my advice here if you want a nice article. Boab 21:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Bobo, changing your own comments significantly after people have replied to them is frowned on — please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Own comments. After I modified the lead section, I copyedited the entire article — please read it, because your previous comments suggest to me that you have yet to do so closely and are assuming (somewhat incorrectly) that the problems in the lead section will be duplicated in the rest of the article. You wrote, "In many cases, no information on the source of the article is given whatsoever" — are you saying that some statements that should have inline citations are missing them? I'm not sure what you mean by this.
- I disagree with the notion that internet sources should be used instead of print sources. If you doubt the print sources are being cited accurately, the information you need to find those sources (e.g. ISBN numbers) is there for you to use, as I mentioned in my previous response. A problem with relying on online references a lot is that the pages can be taken down or the URLs are changed — as you yourself demonstrated with the New York Daily News link, which I have replaced with a working one (and the New York Daily News is also available in print). The only references that were missing information about the date, author (where applicable) etc. have been removed (along with the content they were citing).
- I don't see how the format and style of the Freddie Mercury article has any bearing on, or significant advantage over, this article. Furthermore, an article can be "honest" about criticism of the subject without having a separate "Criticism and/or controversy" section — please read the examples Orane provided above. I'm as concerned about the POV problems of a "Criticism" section in this article as I am about fans removing any content that casts Carey in a negative light (as they do often). Extraordinary Machine 22:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw what looked like an anon attempting to start a FAR, with "article" spelled "acticle" in the wikilink.[13] The talk page of the article had {{FAR}} and a long post of issues signed by the anon. Since (at that time) an anon could not create a new page, I assumed the only problem was the anon unable to start the FAR page, so I fixed the link and copied the text over from the talk page. There are a couple raw URLs in the article: those need to be fixed. It would be nice if you could nail down the year of birth with a real source. Otherwise, in my opinion, the cited criticism already in the article covers the main issue raised by the anon, and this review should be closed. Gimmetrow 05:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a) and POV (1d). Marskell 10:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep article's pov is fine, nominator completely mistook structure for lack of content. Alientraveller 19:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is quite well written, it gives context and not just sequences of events, and I don't have a problem re pov. Ceoil 23:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove.
- A few trivial things need fixing: consistent external final pronunciation for quotes; wrong use of ellipsis dots (she has ever made ... Did this live performance); glitches like "america".
- And a few non-trivial things, such as this sloppy sentence in the educational fair-use justification of "One sweet day": "... It illustrates an educational article the performer, writer and producer of this piece of music, Mariah Carey The section of music used is discussed in the article in relation to the song's R&B and MOR musical and vocal style, and as the most successful example of her several musical collaborations " And I can't see where in the main text this educational value is. Needs to be struck out unless dealt with.
- "She became a major songwriter and producer for other artists during this period"—attitudinal; needs a reference. Tony (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is FA quality. Some of the issues Tony raises above have been dealt with. Like Tony, I'm also not entirely convinced by the fair-use justification for "One Sweet Day", but it is there. Demian12358 22:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove
Until this article is cited correctly with dates and titles for all of the sources, it should not be a FA. There are also a lot of strange sentences, and it does not flow very well. These things need to be fixed up. Tkurt 03:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closing: When FAR has 38 reviews going, I need to start closing things. On balance, I think this can be kept. Generous with regards to prose, but not outrageously so. Marskell 07:50, 1 December 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 19:47, 29 December 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Notified WikiProject Business and Economics, WikiProject Miami, WikiProject Automobiles, WikiProject Biography and User:Vaoverland.
Lack of inline citations. Epbr123 (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of this article was written and it became a FA with references sources listed at end at a time before inline citations became a major WP priority. Reviewers will please note that it that the reference section has been converted to the newer format and that inline citations are underway, with portions already completed. I suggest that work continue, and any additional help would be appreciated. Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c). Joelito (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove The last edit to the article was the day before nomination. No work since. DrKiernan (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Per nom. No work done. --Peter Andersen (talk) 16:43, 28 December 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 19:43, 29 December 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Original nominator left. Messages left at WP LGBT Studies, WP Bio, WP Austria and WP Philosophy. One Night In Hackney303 16:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails 1c. Large numbers of "citation needed" tags and huge swathes of text lacking footnoes. One Night In Hackney303 16:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - article's lead is also too short for an article of this length. John Carter 16:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did some work on the article -- not sure if it's sufficient to bring it over the threshold yet. I'll probably do some more later. — xDanielx T/C 22:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c) and LEAD (2a). Marskell 07:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Significant progress has been made. If anyone still feels there is cause for removal they ought to speak up with new concerns, but as it stands I don't think there's any case to remove status. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some fixes needed. The WP:LEAD could be expanded to a compelling, stand-alone summary of the entire article. That infobox is horrid; I'm not sure that's within the control of this article, but is all that needed? The External link farm needs serious pruning, see WP:EL, WP:RS, WP:NOT. Citations need to be completed, for example, author and date (John Ezard, February 19, 2005) is missing from Philosopher's rare 'other book' goes on sale. Guardian; publishers are missing on many sources, and some sources are just blue links, sample: ^ http://fog.ccsf.cc.ca.us/~fgati/chapter17.html See WP:CITE/ES. Section heading "Works online" is actually External links, see WP:EL. Image caption, Hitler (far right) and a boy who may be Wittgenstein in a school photograph taken at the Linz Realschule in 1903, according to whom?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, please review dead links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The assertion about the school photograph is (following the link in the caption) from The Jew of Linz by Kimberley Cornish (that is to say, from the book itself, not our article). Whether this is undue weight for the claim, or an adequate source, is another question; but the sourcing is perfectly clear. A footnote would be harmless clutter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, please review dead links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- After the opening there are still insufficient references. Pity, because apart from that, it should be retained, I think. Tony (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As elsewhere, this would be actionable, and far more useful, if accompanied by a list of statements which are both likely to challenged and not trivially findable. (This appears to have, like many biographical articles, a single default source; in this case Ray Monk's biography, which I believe to be the most recent scholarly life.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is an indication work will begin, this should go. Lead is clearly inadequate, its poorly organized, the citations are spotty, and the infobox really is horrible. We can wait a couple of more days. Marskell (talk) 02:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll see what I can do. It will be difficult to keep the lead down to three paragraphs.
- All the {{cn}} tags have been dealt with, except for two on Steve Reich at the very end; it will be difficult to do anything about them until the holidays are over. As always, a list of points likely to be challenged and not trivially findable would be very useful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove Not FA material at the moment. Here is a sampling of problems:
- As stated above, lead should be expanded.
- References need proper formatting. A stand-alone URL is not enough.
- "was said to be unusually adept at whistling lengthy and detailed musical passages." "...and is said to have remarked that he approved of this instrument because it took a proper role in the orchestra." Surely we can do better than unsourced weasel sentences in an FA?
- "Whilst in Cambridge Wittgenstein often liked to go to the cinema." Unsourced, and don't see how this is particularly relevant or notable. Lots of people like going to the cinema. Did it have a profound impact on him?
- "(to the point that he became known to his fellow soldiers as "the man with the gospels")" Needs citation.
- The anecdote about the difficulties between Wittgenstein and publishers in "Developing the Tractatus" could use a citation.
- pp. 176, 203 Monk. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Anecdotes about his giving away his inheritance and his time as an elementary teacher in rural Austria ("general suspicion amongst the villagers that he was somewhat mad") need citations.
- Pp.170-1; pp193-209 Monk. (gives a different emphasis than our article, but clearly the same events. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "In one meeting Wittgenstein refused to discuss the Tractatus at all, and sat with his back to his guests while he read aloud from the poetry of Rabindranath Tagore." Citation?
- pp. 243 Monk Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "grave mistakes" If it's in quotes, it should be cited.
- "Well, God has arrived. I met him on the 5.15 train." Quotation needs citation.
- "What has become clear, at least,..." Why is it that these things have become "clear"? Especially when the sentence ends with the vague "possibly Ben Richards." Sources for these claims?
- Because correspondence has been found and published. For Skinner, pp.401-2 Monk et passim, for Richards, pp. 503-6, for Keith Kirk, p. 426. The uncertainty is in the sources; largely the question of whether the love and sensuality discussed was Platonic, for which Wittgenstein expressed a preference. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "claiming that he was the illegitimate son of an "Aryan"." Source?
- "was 1.7 tonnes of gold". Specific stats should be cited.
- "The only known fragment of music..." Paragraph seems quite out of place.
- "The work also contains several innovations in logic, including a version of the truth table." "Innovations" implies that he invented some new things; could use further explanation of what these "several" are and a citation that he was the one who invented them.
- The Philosophical Investigations section states that the work had two parts, but does not describe the two. Also, was the second part written by Wittgenstein or the editors? "Added" makes it unclear.
- When quoting from his works, citations should really be provided, especially since the originals were not written in English. Readers ought to know which translation/edition the article is using.
- Since translations of Wittgenstein's works are cited, this is scrupulousness; a competent reader will check the one in the references. In most cases, this is the standard English translation; in some cases, I believe there is only the one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I don't see the a specific edition cited in the references. All I see are Philosophical Investigations, §__. An yes, there are multiple editions of the translations. But no matter what, quotations require specific citations (which the article neglects to do in some cases ["when he writes in proposition 6.54: ‘My propositions...", "that is, philosophers must “bring words back..."]). Also, I strongly disagree that this somehow assumes that the reader is an incompetent dolt... BuddingJournalist 03:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The references say Philosophical Investigations, translated by G.E.M. Anscombe (1953); a competent reader will click on the link and see, of course, that this is the original Blackwell Press edition. If someone wants to add that, fine; books from 1953 have no ISBN.
- "Philosophical Transactions II, §64" is the the standard method of citing the work, because both more precise and more useful to the reader than a page; since the section numbers are identical in all editions, including the German originals, they do not require our readers find a specific printing to inquire further. Changing to page numbers would be unhelpful to the reader and harmful to Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Philosophical Investigations, translated by G.E.M. Anscombe (1953)"...but that's not in the references section...that's in the Important publications section. Does that mean then that whatever is given in the Important publications are the references used to create the article? Quite misleading. The section is intended to just give a list of his publications. Furthermore, I never said anything about page numbers...please don't resort to straw man arguments. I'm asking that whenever specific quotations in English are given, that they cite whichever translation is used. No need for a specific page number. BuddingJournalist 17:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I don't see the a specific edition cited in the references. All I see are Philosophical Investigations, §__. An yes, there are multiple editions of the translations. But no matter what, quotations require specific citations (which the article neglects to do in some cases ["when he writes in proposition 6.54: ‘My propositions...", "that is, philosophers must “bring words back..."]). Also, I strongly disagree that this somehow assumes that the reader is an incompetent dolt... BuddingJournalist 03:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since translations of Wittgenstein's works are cited, this is scrupulousness; a competent reader will check the one in the references. In most cases, this is the standard English translation; in some cases, I believe there is only the one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Works online is out of place, and implies that he published works online.
- Here I must disagree. BJ is reaching; the adjective asserts only that the works are now online. We are not required to cater to readers who both fail to understand a figure of speech, and do not realize that the internet did not exist in 1951. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, but I'd still suggest that this is out of place and better suited as External links. BuddingJournalist 03:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. To merge with External Links renders the article less informative, by requiring the reader to mentally sort what is now physically sorted. This is a small degradation, but why make any? Don't let our guidelines get in the way of writing the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what you mean here; I still maintain this would be better suited (and make the article more organized) to have this under an External links. I don't particularly think this puts any added burden on our readers, nor would it make the article any less informative. But this is a small quibble; if you're insistent that this is the perfect way to structure this, then I guess I can't really make you see otherwise. BuddingJournalist 17:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. To merge with External Links renders the article less informative, by requiring the reader to mentally sort what is now physically sorted. This is a small degradation, but why make any? Don't let our guidelines get in the way of writing the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, but I'd still suggest that this is out of place and better suited as External links. BuddingJournalist 03:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here I must disagree. BJ is reaching; the adjective asserts only that the works are now online. We are not required to cater to readers who both fail to understand a figure of speech, and do not realize that the internet did not exist in 1951. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Works about Wittgenstein needs formatting cleanup. BuddingJournalist 15:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- About half of these are quite well known, and are doubtless from Monk, which has a copious index. But the list is useful; I have commented on two which assume that the reader is an incompetent dolt, needing protection from his own cluelessness. The remainder should be checked. This is a vast improvement on the vague assertions made heretofore. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Both BJ's new comments here would inconvenience the reader for the sake of our internal guidelines. It is policy to do the opposite. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added pages from Monk for some things. Since those on which I was successful took me about 5 minutes each, a reference to Monk as default source is probably just as useful to the reader. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove, almost two months in, and the article still doesn't even have an adequate lead, has an external link farm, and unformatted references. Just not there, not enough happening to raise this to standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong retain. The lead does need work, and there are some incidental citation problems; but this article does not embarass me as many of the ones we now pass do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 28 December 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 02:34, 25 December 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Notifications left at WP Chemistry, Wimvandorst, Walkerma, WJBscribe, Pyschim62, Wknight94 and Grimlock. Grrahnbahr 11:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1 b) 1 c)
My opinion of this article is that it is not good enough. It got at least one wrong fact in the text, and a lot of things are missing. It looks like it is unbalanced, it tells a lot about the chemistry, and not so much about the rest. Some paragrahps is ending with a chemical formula, without being followed with explaing text. The article does not contain information about production today. It could have been better illustrated. The history part is far from good enough. Grrahnbahr 20:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Grrahnbahr, please follow the instructions at WP:FAR to notify involved editors and relevant WikiProjects with {{subst:FARMessage|Lead(II) nitrate}} and leave a summary of notifications here as in this sample. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What is this all about. A new featured article review. The page was nominated featured article on May 7 2007 and has hardly changed since then. I for one am not going to invest any time in this discussion V8rik 21:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you are wrong. As far as I can see the article was nominated November 2 2006, and accepted with 4 to 1 votes, with two of the yes-votes from significant contributors. But actually I don't see your point bringing it in here. Grrahnbahr 20:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If by wrong fact you are referring to the date of discovery, I've fixed that. This is a chemical, what's wrong with focusing on the chemistry? The (quite recent) consensus at FAC was to promote despite lack of production data, if that's what you mean by things missing. As discussed there, people made an effort to find the information and couldn't. Same about the history. You can't blame them for not adding information that possibly is not even published! Finally, I see no problem with the chemical formulas. They all correspond to the process discussed in the preceding paragraph. If that is not obvious, it can be fixed trivially by adding a sentence such as "This process is represented by the following equation" at the end of the paragraph, before the equation. --Itub 11:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The molar mass is wrong too, but it looks like it can't be fixed. A lot of articles won't reach up to FA because it haven't been produced reliable sources for information. I am not blaming anyone, it is actually a good article, and I do agree the amount of information have to be concidered when reviewing an article (demand less for Lead(II) nitrate than NaCl). But it is still not a complete enough article. And some of my claims is still not answered. It does not tell much about production today. Grrahnbahr 15:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean regarding the molar mass. First, how is it wrong? Second, why can't it be fixed?--Itub 15:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]If you meant that the number of significant figures was wrong, fine. I've updated the article accordingly.--Itub 15:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]- The problem was that there was a template that computed the molar mass automatically, but it had one of the atomic masses wrong. I've fixed that. In any case, the error was literally insignificant, as it was smaller than the uncertainty in the atomic weight of lead. --Itub 19:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepComment: this article is really FA quality. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I vote against.Comment Lead nitrate is of minor commercial signficance, and it would be difficult to identify a less topical reagent. The article consists, IMHO, of a boring, olf-fashioned chemical story that virtually could have been written in 1950's. I would hope that in the materials, catalysis, or chemical biology themes we could devise a more exciting and at least contemporary topic.--Smokefoot 16:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: FAR is not a vote. The review portion of FAR is a discussion on whether certain criteria are met or not and how to address any problems/concerns about the article. Joelito (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the explanation, but if this "discussion" is devoted to criteria of problems etc, I suggest that the analysis focus our attention on articles of more contemporary or topical nature. Again, for what its worth, one could select, almost at random, any article in WE-Chem and come up with a more compelling topic than this one. IMHO.--Smokefoot 19:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a "discussion". This is a discussion. The purpose is to determine whether FA criteria are met. Compellingness (I think this is a word I just made up) or non-boringness (also made up) is not one of the criteria. Joelito (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-boringness is one of the criteria, 1a says the article have to be engaging. It wasn't one of the criterias listed in this FAR, but it could be worth thinking of anyway. I think its very difficult to get this article more engaging, but Smokefoot have some good points there anyway. Grrahnbahr (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a "discussion". This is a discussion. The purpose is to determine whether FA criteria are met. Compellingness (I think this is a word I just made up) or non-boringness (also made up) is not one of the criteria. Joelito (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a topic is compelling or not does not determine the quality of the article. Technical issues whether correct quality English is used, and all details of the subject are well covered do, and similar. The point of this discussion here is that someone pointed out that in his opinion this Lead(II) nitrate article does not comply with the required quality for the FA designation. I think it does. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- That's right, it's my opinion. I brought it here to hear other persons opinions. Smokefoot's last comment is describing for what I ment to say. I was starting to translate from this article, but stoped the work because of obvious wrong facts in the article. Those are corrected, but its still sparse on some topics, like history and production. One of the producers is selling lead nitrate in 1000 kg bags, is it made like this in laberatories? Even though it isn't more published sources, I think the article is to short when it comes to important topics, and lacks information we could expect in a FA about a chemical compound. Not all subject that excist, are potential FA-subjects, because its subjects we don't know to much about. Grrahnbahr 20:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b) and referencing (1c). Marskell 13:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Even if the worst wrong facts is corrected (1c), it doesn't include many details about major topics like history and production. Grrahnbahr 16:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is as comprehensive as possible for the topic. If anyone can prove that more comprehensive information about the history and production actually exists, then we can worry about adding it to the article or de-featuring it. --Itub (talk) 09:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove unless spruced up. I hope it survives, but it's looking wobbly. For example: "Lead(II) nitrate is toxic and probably carcinogenic to humans. Therefore, it is to be handled and stored with the appropriate safety precautions." No reference; "it should be handled". It keeps referring to 19th-century Europe: but when exactly? Surely someone knows whether it was 1801 or 1899? Makes a big difference. Tony (talk) 10:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closing: No work on-going and significant issues remain: comprehensiveness concerns, one sentence paragraphs, formulae dropped at the end of sections without contextualization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marskell (talk • contribs) 02:32, 25 December 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 17:12, 18 December 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Notifications left at WP Connecticut and WP Schools. Loopla 06:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notifications left at Staxringold and Harro5. Loopla 06:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article was promoted in March 2006 and I just don't think it can still be classified as a Featured Article. Main issue seems to be citations (1(c) 'Factually accurate') There are sections with no references at all, and in total there are only 15 sources, many of which are the schools' website. Whilst what is there is quite well written, I think it could also still be expanded. I have seen GA school articles that I think are better than this one (therefore it is not one of the best articles on wikipedia). Loopla 07:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Loopla, please follow the instructions at WP:FAR to notify involved editors and relevant WikiProjects with {{subst:FARMessage|Hopkins School}} and leave a summary of notifications here as in this sample. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks for pointing that out SandyGeorgia. Loopla 06:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Twenty Years
Here are my thoughts:
- There needs to be a ref for the claim in the lead for it being the fifth oldest school in USA, and the north america stuff. It may be in the article, but this is pretty controversials, it needs to be referenced in the lead.
- Missing colour boxes in the infobox.
- Is there a reference for the faculty and student numbers? or even to state when the information was current.
- In the facilities section: The Walter Camp Athletic Center is named after alumnus Walter Camp, who is credited with inventing American football and later was Yale's football coach. needs some sort of reference.
- This bit in Facilities: The Athletic Center has two floors of gyms, a pool, a trainer, and coaches office. The first floor is comprised largely of three standard-sized basketball courts. Dividers between these courts are removed and the united room is used for all-school assemblies. The second floor includes smaller weight rooms and training areas including the wrestling room. The Old Gym is a large one-room gym with a high roof. Before the Camp Athletic Center, this was the main athletic facility at Hopkins and is now used mostly for fencing team practices, an indoor ropes course, and storage. Currently, it is the temporary shelter for the library while the renovations are taking place. is terrible. This article is meant to be readable, this information is no different to any other darn school, and the last line about it being used as a temporary shelter is un-encyclopedic.
- The paragraph in Academics: In terms of scheduling, school ends every Wednesday at 1:30 p.m. as opposed to the usual 3:30 p.m. This extra time is generally used to schedule away sports meets, to allow for travel time. Hopkins adopted a modified block scheduling system in 2005, giving each class fifty-five minutes rather than forty minutes. Each student has two weekly class schedules ("maroon week" and "grey week", named for the school's colors) which alternate throughout the school year. is terrible. We dont care what time school finishes, this is an encyclopedia. Just delete it all. Ill avoid that the section goes through every department individually.
- Graduation requirements has no references
- Student privileges section is simply unencyclopedic. This is simply cruft, some of it should be merged into academics (the student course options).
- Second para in Extracurricular needs references.
- The Notable People section with just the link is criminal. Needs to include prose, mentioning the diversity of students and teachers who went there, eg: good people and bad people. No mention of the alumni association.
- 7 of the 15 references, are from the hopkins website. The book that is cited needs to have page numbers.
All in all: References are the major issue> This article needs alot of work to remain at FA status. I must admit, if i was assessing this article, it would fail GA. Twenty Years 15:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is work to be done here, but the section "Student privileges" is tagged as unreferenced, and I can't find a single controversial fact there that warrants referencing. Can someone toss me a clue? What is an exmaple of something that should be cited in that section? It's a straightforward description of any normal functioning private school. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The stuff on the senior project needs a reference and the second para (how its like govt etc) of student council are two that stick out. Twenty Years 14:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a sidenote - the image of the "Hilltopper" is simply out of place, and it needs to be removed. Twenty Years 14:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is my understanding that almost everything in a wikipedia article should be referenced if it is to be a Featured Article, otherwise it is original research (I might be wrong..it wouldn't be the first time)..without any sort of reference, "Student privileges" could have been made up and we wouldn't know any better. So for example there should be references for the fact that in the "2006–07 school year, that project is building houses for Habitat for Humanity" and "Each class functions like a state with a legislature of advisor group representatives with the class president as a Governor". Just my thoughts. Loopla (talk) 04:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My understanding is that it needs to be referenced if it is controversial or likely to be challenged, and i am challenging certain sections, which shows that it needs a reference of some description. Twenty Years 06:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FA Criteria concers
- Fails 1a - prose is not engaging and is not professional (in some sections)
- Fails 1c - There are unsourced claims, which are detailed above. Twenty Years 07:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and prose (1a). Marskell 14:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove This article is simply sub-standard. The referencing is in a shocking state. Per 1c and 1a. Twenty Years 16:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove Article is clearly not at Featured Article standard. Needs work to satisfy 1a and 1c. Loopla (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:09, 16 December 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 17:12, 18 December 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- User:Jao, User:Rmhermen, User:HansHermans, Wikipedia:WikiProject Denmark, Wikipedia:WikiProject Greenland, Wikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and culture notified
This article badly fails criterion 1b, it is not comprehensive at all. It is, in fact, so woefully deficient in what should be its central focus that it could be said to fail 1d as well by not being neutral.
Greenland is an actual country inhabited by an actual nation, an Inuit one. This article should be largely devoted to telling the story of that nation. It almost completely fails to do so - instead putting all its emphasis on European-descended people. What historical figures does the article mention? That would be Gunnbjörn Ulfsson, Erik the Red, Leif Ericson, Hans Egede, William Scoresby, Knud Rasmussen and Robert Peary. Not one of those people was an Inuit. Not one of them was born in Greenland. Think about that for a second - this featured article about the history of Greenland doesn't see fit to mention a single person born in Greenland.
Skipping the lede, the article starts with a short section on prehistory entitled "Early Palaeo-Eskimo cultures". This is okay, as far as it goes. Then there's a substantial section titled "Norse settlement". Then there's a huge section titled "The demise of the Greenland Norse settlements". Then there's a section titled "Late Dorset and Thule cultures" - you might think that one actually deals with Inuits but there is still a heavy focus on the Norse. Then we get a "Colonization and exploration" section, still dealing a bit with the Norse but finally giving some of the information which I would expect to the mainstay of the article - the history of the nation currently living in Greenland. Next we get a section on the "Strategic importance" of Greenland, very much from the point of view of non-Greenlanders. The last section, "Home rule", at long last is reasonably on topic. It is, however, woefully short.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have information on the Norse settlement of Greenland or that we shouldn't have information on the strategic importance of Greenland etc. but the balance in the current article is completely out of whack.
It's almost an afterthought but I should mention that the article is poorly sourced (and none of the books given as references deals with the modern history of Greenland - it's all Norse or prehistoric stuff). It's not exactly well written either, the bloated "The demise of the Greenland Norse settlements" section is especially bad and seems to have degenerated into some sort of back-and-forth debate. Haukur 23:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Haukurth, please follow the instructions at WP:FAR to notify involved editors and relevant WikiProjects with {{subst:FARMessage|History of Greenland}} and leave a summary of notifications here as in this sample. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked who the top contributors were and notified them. Feel free to post more notifications. Haukur 07:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness and focus (1b and 4), and referencing (1c). Marskell 07:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Practically nothing[14] has happened since I brought the article here so I'm afraid I'm going to have to recommend removal of FA status. Haukur 22:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove; the nominator cited 1b (comprehensive) and 1d (neutral), but the article also fails 1c (almost completely uncited). No progress during FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove- per Sandy. --Peter Andersen (talk) 10:29, 18 December 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 17:43, 12 December 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]This article, as it stands, does not satisfy 1c, as there are very few references in this article, and that some of its references are broken or outdated. There was a previous FAR back in March when it was still on the Main Page. O2 (息 • 吹) 01:45, 02 November 2007 (GMT)
- I realize this page neds some work and it was brought to my attention the other day when the "Covers" section was erased due to lack of refs. Stan weller 03:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c). Marskell (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it could meet GA status, but it falls short of the FA criteria at the moment. 11 citations. I would remove this FA at the moment, but with a bit of work it could reach GA again.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- GA, same here. Marlith T/C 05:32, 10 December 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 16:25, 10 December 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Notified User:Mkpumphrey, User:Grandia01, User:Neutrality, User:Molobo and relevant Wikiprojects.--Peter Andersen 22:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has several clean up templates and numerous templates asking for citation. IMO it fails at least 1a and 1c and possibly also 1b, since it is not very long for such an important character. --Peter Andersen 22:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- thank you for your notification of this discussionPeter Andersen.i really like this article and in my opinion karl donitz is not a war criminal,i personally admire him actually;i've done so much to find appropriate photos for it(scan of his book,nuremberg trials etc)but with all due respect-and in all fairness-how the heck would the admin's on wikipedia nominate a "citation-less" article to be a featured one??in my opinion if the citations aren't there then the only choice we have is to remove its featured status.sorry,but we're talking about the basics of literature and journalism here.hope it improves some time later thoughGrandia01 06:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid this article just isn't up to snuff. The serious lack of citations is more than reason enough to demote it. Hopefully it can be improved and brought up to FA standards in the future.Cromdog 02:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has serious problems that will take some time to fix. The lack of citations is only the tip of the iceberg in regards to verifiability concerns that arise because of the lack of citations. Also, as noted above, the prose itself could use improvement up to the professional level expected of a Featured Article today. If this article was taken to A-class review at WP:MILHIST today, I do not see any circumstances where it would pass, let alone a Featured Article Candidacy. On top of that, the article also fails the B-class criteria in the MILHIST tag for articles that are Stub, Start, and B-class. If I were to assess this article today, I would assess it as a Start-class article for MILHIST. -MBK004 (talk) 05:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are general cleanup (2), referencing (1c), prose (1a), and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per criteria 1a, 1b, 1c. and my comments above in the FAR. -MBK004 16:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per nom. --Peter Andersen 15:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove Comments made by all the editors above need addressing. DrKiernan (talk) 09:11, 10 December 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 09:38, 7 December 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Notified User:Infrogmation,
I am new to this process, but this is one of the weaker FA I've seen. There are almost no inline citations and the images, while old still may not be out of copyright. It may have been great at an earlier time, but it needs review of it's status.--Reflex Reaction (talk)• 15:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: For now I'll only comment on the images. All but one of the images in the article were scanned from original pre-1923 US published material in my own collection, certainly legitimately PD-US. (The remaining image is a GFDL licenced photo uploaded by another user.) -- Infrogmation 15:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c) and images (3). Marskell (talk) 13:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove—Fascinating topic, good images, but very ordinary writing. Swallow this one: "The phonograph was conceived by Thomas Edison on 18 July 1877 for recording telephone messages, his first test using waxed paper." Then: recordings were "done". Comma fairy needed urgently. References (Oh my lord)? Choppy. Tony (talk) 05:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per nom. --Peter Andersen 20:47, 2 December 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 14:29, 4 December 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]This is an old one, made featured on 4 August 2004. It has no inline citations, and its only reference is the subject's documentation. There are other problems, such as section headers ("What PaX offers"), but I'm most concerned about the lack of secondary sources. Pagrashtak 19:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Too many tiny sections and short (one/two sentence) paragraphs; way way way too few citations, and they should be in a proper reference section with a consistent style rather than direct web links; too many red links; some weasel words/OR ("can be categorized"; "Some Linux distributions ..."; "A DoS attack ... is generally an annoyance" - who says?) and spotty grammar; some lack of clarity in places particularly viz what Linux itself does vs what the PaX extensions do; some of the headings are fairly unenlightening ("Significance"? "What PaX offers"?); too much unexplained jargon and tech speak, even for a technical article; the history section needs to be extended and made prose; some comparison of PaX to other offerings would be nice. If that isn't clear enough, this is no longer anywhere near FA state IMO. NicM 11:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c) and MoS issues (2). Marskell (talk) 13:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1(c). This article has no inline citations, and its sole reference is the PaX documentation. This article needs secondary sources to be featured quality. Pagrashtak 14:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove—Could be good, but too much of it could be just slanted opinion. Who can tell in the absence of references? Tony (talk) 05:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 00:36, 2 December 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 14:29, 4 December 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Notified WT:CRIC, WP:AWNB, Sam Vimes (talk · contribs), Moondyne (talk · contribs), Jguk (talk · contribs), Jhall1 (talk · contribs)
An FA about the cricket sereis between Australia and England. Promoted in 2005. There are many problems
- 1a) Prose is not adequate. There is a lot of hyperbole and sports-news type writing. A lot of peacock statements and weasel words.
- 1b) Not comprehensive. Some decades only have one sentence for four or five consecutive series. There is not enough general stuff outside of the formative history and the cricket. eg, cricket tourism and commerce and so forth.
- 1c) Some inaccurate and dubious claims. eg Benaud is mentioned as Australia's main bowler of his era. However Davidson took many more wickets at lower cost and is not mentioned. Mentioning Langer and Martyn as "greats" of the 1990s and omitting Slater who made many centuries against England. Many of the comments about key players, key moments seem to be a bit arbitrary and not reflecting the general pundit consensus.
- 1d) Undue weight. Some decades only have one sentence, some in some cases, one series has a whole paragraph. The most notable series, Bodyline and the Invincibles are not discussed particularly thoroughly in relation to the less notable things.
- 2c)Not sourced sufficiently. Many non black-white assertions about key players, subjective stuff are not referenced
In general the article needs a lot of work, not just in cleanup, but it needs a lot of detailed research since it seems to miss out on some key points and overstate some that are not so important. A lot of research needs to be done to work out which parts of the history is missing and which is unimportnant. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is only one thing wrong with the article but it is a very substantial one thing. The match series section should be completely removed apart from statements linking to the appropriate Test series articles and/or categories. By trying to summarise all the series, you are duplicating information that is appropriately held in other parts of WP:CRIC. This article is supposed to be about the Ashes as a legend and as a trophy, though clearly it needs some coverage of the 1882 series and the Ivo Bligh series that followed it; I would also refer to the revival of the legend in the Warner tour of 1903-04. But trying to include information about individual series is a recipe for disaster because the article will never be finished. Essentially this is all about scope. A clear statement of scope needs to be made at the top of the article. --BlackJack | talk page 16:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent suggestion, BlackJack. Appropriate linking to daughter articles would work nicely, perhaps with a list/summary. --Dweller 22:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Does anyone know if references like "Harte, pp.251 256" are supposed to be "Harte, pp.251–256" and not the two separate pages? Pagrashtak 16:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yes, it's supposed to be a dash. I put them in and used teh wrong code with a space. At the time I was using a really old computer which displayed tings funny so I thought it was the machine. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent suggestion, BlackJack. Appropriate linking to daughter articles would work nicely, perhaps with a list/summary. --Dweller 22:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b), citations (1c), undue wieght (1d). Marskell 13:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove—This is all that has been done since nomination. Woefully under-referenced and there are serious problems in the prose. Tony (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove, unless someone plans to do a lot of work soon. There are mixed reference styles, copyedit needs, and MOS issues (WP:MSH, WP:MOSDATE, WP:DASH, WP:Images#Captions, WP:ITALICS, MOS:CAPS#All caps, WP:GTL at least, more than I can undertake to fix on my own, especially considering the citation issues). There are several expansion requests and citation tags. Look at the Table of Contents relative to WP:MOSDATE:
- 3.9 1932/33 Series
- 3.17 2006–07 series SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 00:39, 2 December 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 14:29, 4 December 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Notifications left at WP Time, WP Christianity and WP Years. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nominating this article for a featured article review because:
- It has an unacceptable number of one paragraph sections
- It has only 13 inline citations, which for an article of its size, is unacceptable
To me it just generally seems very sloppy for a featured article --Hadseys 18:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this is one of the old Refreshing of Brilliant Prose articles. It now has 10 citations after combining, and they come almost all from one source. Do we need the "Numbering of years" section? It's more about year zero than the subject of this article. Pagrashtak 20:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i question the 525 AD origin. Jesus was calculated by 19x 28 years = 28x 19 years which is 532 years from birth to 532 AD. Birth would now be called 1 BC since 1 AD must be one year for 532 AD to be 532 years. I wonder if the source for 525 AD might be someone pushing a 7 BC birth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.196.43 (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a confusion between the periodicity of the calendar and when it began to be used. But the statement needs to be rephrased anyway. Dionysius Exiguus invented dating from the Incarnation; but the phrase Anno Domini is from Bede IIRC. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would the nominator please notify relevant Wikiprojects and editors as per the FAR instructions? Thanks. --RelHistBuff 16:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns prose structure (1a) and citations (1c). Marskell 07:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove unless PMA wishes to do a lot of work on it. 1a and 1c. Tony (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove, there is still too much unexplained to convince me the article is comprehensive, and there is a good deal of uncited text. Some examples:
- In 1422, Portugal became the last Western European country to adopt the Anno Domini system.
- History, the first two paragraphs (uncited) give a brief overview, but seem to stop short of exploring the kind of detail I'd expect in a comprehensive featured article.
- Another brief sentence which just doesn't explore or explain in depth:
- Blackburn & Holford-Strevens briefly present arguments for 2 BC, 1 BC, or AD 1 as the year Dionysius intended for the Nativity or Incarnation.
- Popularization, lots of citation needed.
- Synonyms important lack of citations.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 1 December 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 11:06, 1 December 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]A 2003 promotion, the article would need to be entirely rewritten to meet todays standard. From a poor base, it has depreciated slowly over time, through tack on edits and random mentions of non notables. Fails all criteria, in my eyes. Origional nominator has left. Ceoil 07:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are all of them (in the opinion of the venerable Ceoil). -- Marskell (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator is the one I'd hope might fix this. -- Marskell (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to say that 0 inline citations makes it a poor FA. There's certainly potential for A/Good classification, but not what I've come to expect from a featured article. -- i kan reed (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove—1a, MOS issues (Titles that start with "The", to start with), and—OMG—1c. A literary topic must be written to very high standards or it insults the subject. Tony (talk) 05:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. I've been meaning to nominate this one for some time. Haukur (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I will happily work on this article but right now an still working on rescuing George Moore, so will be unlikely to get around to helping this before the FAR closes. Do what you must—it seems like there are few Irish Wikipedians who really care about quality right now to take on the FARs of Irish article. It's a pity. ww2censor (talk) 04:38, 28 November 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 07:54, 1 December 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Wikiproject England informed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadseys (talk • contribs) 16:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've never taken much to do with FA, so this is probably all wrong, so sorry about that. But HTF did this become a FA? Although it is accurate, it has virtually no intext referencing. The prose is repetitive, clunking, full of over-detailed trivia and far too long, and that's even after I gave it a rough copy edit. It is also full of non-free images. What's more, I checked back to find out that all these problems existed at the time of its original promotion in 2006. It reads like an article designed by a camel - and yet it is almost a great article.--Docg 11:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto, it is beyond me. Though standards were lower back then. I mean it is great except for flaws such as the the lack of any inline citation! (bar one - and you can't tell me the media trivia and the 2005 election results are covered by the books at the bottom). And areas do need updating/expanding/reorganising - for example the history section is all over the place and only goes up to 1949. Unless someone gets onto these problems ASAP it should be demoted and made to go through the process again, that should bring out all the problems that have developed. - J Logan t: 13:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Doc, please follow the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to notify involved editors and relevant WikiProjects, and post a note back here of notifications (see other FARs). Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It became an FA because in 2004 (then, not 2006, was the promotion date) intext referencing was not discussed at FAC. It's what we call an "Emsworth classic". Marskell 15:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, my bad. I don't usually take to do with FAs. It was, however, on the mainpage as featured article on 25 September 2006. So it was featured with several 'non-fee' images, and defective citations. Didn't anyone check before actually 'featuring' it?--Docg 15:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Like the other articles of the much-missed editor, Emsworth, it is a summary, correct and complete as far as I can judge, of four standard sources. It is in fact one of our best articles; the standards for verifiability were designed, since Emsworth's departure, to constrain editors with less understanding, less neutrality, and fewer scruples. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The information in the article is accurate and comprehensive - if over detailed at places. However, information was repeated and the prose poor at times. I cleaned some of it - but a rewording by a better writer would be beneficial. It isn't just about referencing. There are some FA writers who have a real journalists touch with language - this article could use one of them.--Docg 16:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Like the other articles of the much-missed editor, Emsworth, it is a summary, correct and complete as far as I can judge, of four standard sources. It is in fact one of our best articles; the standards for verifiability were designed, since Emsworth's departure, to constrain editors with less understanding, less neutrality, and fewer scruples. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, my bad. I don't usually take to do with FAs. It was, however, on the mainpage as featured article on 25 September 2006. So it was featured with several 'non-fee' images, and defective citations. Didn't anyone check before actually 'featuring' it?--Docg 15:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Doc, it was actually raised to featured status in 2004.
- Main problem with the lack of citation is changes since then, they can't be attiributed to those books and Emsworth's work. Perhaps if it is reverted to its last status by him, and have the book citations tagging each paragraph. Then it could go through a copyedit and new information inserted with new citations. - J Logan t: 18:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be this diff. Aside from the claim about Parliament always being summoned by the monarch, which could probably use fudging to cover 1661, I see no major differences of substance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I intensely dislike the idea of undoing two year's work. Many of the changes since may have been improvements corrections, or updating information. To go back isn't an option. The issue isn't one user's work, but to properly reference the facts that we have, as we can. In any case, the prose style and the images were more my concern than the citations.--Docg 01:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's necessary to undo; most of those two years' work are minor changes, with (as above) one exception. Would you tag or list the prose you think needs editing? The article talk page might be a better place for a list than here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tightened the lead; but I don't see any other prose crying out for revision. Please explain. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is at least one non-free image without rationale. Pagrashtak 16:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which one? The color image at the top has a rationale and the others date from 1834 or before. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:House of Commons logo.PNG has no rationale. Pagrashtak 22:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- An interesting point: it's a heraldic badge, and is protected by the (UK) legislation on heraldry, not trademark or copyright at all. (Since it has existed since the fourteenth century, I doubt it is eligible for copyright in the first place.) Punch routinely used it to illustrate their column on the House. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this similar to a coat of arms situation, where the creator can release his interpretation under a free license then? Pagrashtak 20:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It really ought to be, they're both heraldic symbols; but I am not a lawyer. I would, however, be surprised to find it protected under US or Florida law. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a fair-use notice (with some hesitation, since I'm not the uploader); if it is ultimately unnecessary, it does no harm. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- From what you've said, isn't this image replaceable, and thus fails fair use? Pagrashtak 06:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably not: this image is already reversed-color from the website credited. If the charge can be used freely, then this qualifies, and the notice is unnecessary; if this one can't, then any replacement is under the same restrictions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- From what you've said, isn't this image replaceable, and thus fails fair use? Pagrashtak 06:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this similar to a coat of arms situation, where the creator can release his interpretation under a free license then? Pagrashtak 20:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- An interesting point: it's a heraldic badge, and is protected by the (UK) legislation on heraldry, not trademark or copyright at all. (Since it has existed since the fourteenth century, I doubt it is eligible for copyright in the first place.) Punch routinely used it to illustrate their column on the House. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:House of Commons logo.PNG has no rationale. Pagrashtak 22:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which one? The color image at the top has a rationale and the others date from 1834 or before. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria is referencing (1c). -- Marskell (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Retain. Referencing is not Doc's actual suggestion; his concern was the prose, which has improved. I stand with his summary of "accurate and comprehensive"; in addition, it is responsibly derived from clearly indicated reliable sources, including the Brittanica article scanned here. I shall write Dr Kiernan, and see if he cares to do something; but I would rather have WP represented by this article, as it stands, than by many of the current candidates, including some that will be promoted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Doc's first criteria concern was "Although it is accurate, it has virtually no intext referencing." I should have added prose and images. Clearly this is nowhere near current referencing standards and we do not have an initial author to vouch for it. Marskell (talk) 10:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Remove. Tony (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove The article is not comprehensive, for example there's no mention of the Acts of Union. I also have concerns over criteria 1a and 4, for example the article ranges from the important to the trivial in almost the same breath. I would prefer to see inline citations; it is easier to judge the reliability of statements that way and saves a lot of fact-checking when reading an article. I got rather tired with Privilege of Peerage and I'm afraid I don't have the stomach just now to tackle this article in a serious way. DrKiernan (talk) 13:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per Marskell.- J Logan t: 18:11, 29 November 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.