Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/January 2007
Remove status[edit]
Spyware[edit]
Review commentary[edit]
- Message left at Fubar Obfusco. Daniel Case 05:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Additional messages at Malware and Computing. Sandy (Talk) 21:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, after putting this here too soon after an embarassing turn on the Main Page, I followed the advice I was given and actually, I think, made some improvements to the article. I took advantage of the holiday to do a full copyedit which streamlined the prose and (at the time, at least), made the article 5K shorter. I found citations for most everything that was missing (the fact that I did this with simple Google searches makes me wonder why the original editors couldn't have tried harder). I think I cleaned up the POV issues with the Sony section.
However... there are still three things needing sourcing, and I think the article could use more illustrations. I am less sure it is no longer FA-quality now, but I'm only one pair of eyes. I think this deserves review as a matter of course. Daniel Case 16:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Some additional comments of my own. Due to its subject, the article is obviously prone to spam, which does create problems re stability. That can be contained, but just today an anon added two unsourced grafs which might be worth including. I don't have the time and I don't have the knowledge. If this is to stay featured, someone knowledgeable needs to stay on top of it.
- I added a long comment at the head of the article just as a further warning to any spammers. Daniel Case 01:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- I have also proposed that the programs mentioned in the "fake anti-spyware" programs be spun off into a separate list (with all entries citing sources) to cut the length down a bit. Daniel Case 21:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comments Mixed reference styles (please consistently use cite.php, which is the main method on the article), Section heading 4.1 Advertisements does not show in the TOC on my browser (I've encountered this issue on one article before, it was caused by some non-printable character), external jumps, potential external link farm, and lots of cite tags. Sandy (Talk) 21:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The list of notable programs needs to be prosified or removed. I suggest placing them in a history section of sorts, like "Adaware was first, then such and such followed." Lead paragraph screams for a citation. Hbdragon88 05:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Move to FARC, still has mixed reference styles, many tags, and imbedded links (external jumps). Sandy (Talk) 18:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
FARC commentary[edit]
- Suggested FA criteria concern is citations (1c). Marskell 00:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Remove. Just too many concerns still remaining. Unless someone (not me) makes this article their personal responsibility and keeps it at a reasonable level, it cannot remain a featured article. Daniel Case 04:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment—Looks good to me, so why can't one of the contributors fix the referencing? Tony 03:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Still needs more cites, so remove. LuciferMorgan 02:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Remove per Daniel. CG 21:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Eureka Stockade[edit]
Review commentary[edit]
- Left messages at Denni, Prester John, Manning Bartlett Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Additional messages at Australia and MilHist. Sandy (Talk) 21:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Neutrality disputed, carries several {{cite needed}}, and has no inline references. Also, colour of flag is different from colour of same flag here - which is correct? Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Citations needed, Wikilinking seems to need attention, References seems to contain External links and need to be written in consistent bibliographic style, short lead, NPOV tag not well explained, and image tags need attention. I converted mixed referencing styles and corrected section headings to WP:MOS. Sandy (Talk) 21:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Content is a problem in several places. For example, "The Australian colony of Victoria, a sparsely populated region of farmers and graziers, was declared separate from New South Wales on 1 July 1851. This tranquility was irrevocably disrupted that same year with the discovery of substantial gold fields all across the colony." To describe the colony of Victoria as "a sparsely populated region of farmers and graziers" is at best simplistic; how did all of those oppressed working class "criminals" from England become farmers and graziers just a decade, was it, after the abolition of transportation? Why should the readers assume that farmers and graziers and/or sparse population was tranquil? Australia didn't exist then, so let's not trot it out again—it's already in the opening sentence of the article.
- The writing is clumsy in places, for example: "and was payable whether or not any gold had actually been found."
- Seriously under-referenced.
Major rewrite needed, or it's heading for the dungeon. Tony 13:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
As I understand it, most people in Victoria in 1851 were not and had never been convicts. Most were free settlers. The first settlements in what is now Victoria seem to have been made in 1834 and 1836, but I'm not sure if there were any other people in north-eastern vic at that time. Both those settlements were on the south coast. Perhaps the article could have more about population numbers or when certain towns were established and how quickly they were growing just before and just after the gold rush started.SpookyMulder 11:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Remove until neutrality tag issue fixed and references added. Buckshot06 00:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Flag issue may have been addressed, possibly by accident: [4]. Can we somehow confirm that there is no prescribed colour for this flag, or determine that the colour used in the current image is correct? Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Move to FARC. Neutrality dispute, mostly uncited, and it doesn't appear anyone is working on Tony's concerns. Sandy (Talk) 18:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The article achieved featured status on 31 January 2006. Changes since are highlighted here - there have been 337 edits since. I note no citations seem to have been removed, there had been a references section. Has the standard changed over the year? I don't think the claim of seriously under referenced is deserved. I appreciate that not much use has been made of in-line citations, but the references at the end are quite adequate. Eureka, John Molony, ISBN 0-522-84962-8 [5] is by a noted Australian historian for example (even if doesn't yet have wikipedia article - see NLA manuscript collection info for potted biog ). The neutrality dispute has been resolved.--Golden Wattle talk 09:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
FARC commentary[edit]
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c) and neutrality (1d). Marskell 00:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Remove for my reasons above. Tony 03:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Remove per Tony. LuciferMorgan 20:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I think the article has been referenced, albeit not be in-line references, but adequately in my view otherwise and the NPOV was the view of a single anonymous editor (see rant below) and has been addressed.--Golden Wattle talk 09:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Remove Seriously undercited (and Background is not an encylopedic section heading). Sandy (Talk) 14:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Birthplace of Australian democracy[edit]
I am one of those people who subscribe to the point of view that the Eureka Stockade was not the birthplace of Australian democracy.
It makes me so angry when I hear someone say it was and all I can think about doing is hurting that person.
That's how DEEP and BITTER my opposition is!!!!!!! And yes I typed all those out one by one!
It's really disturbing to find someone filled with so much hate aint it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.150.76 (talk • contribs) \
- Concerns of above anon have been addressed with several references - see footnotes 1-4. NPOV tag has been removed, in my view not merited.--Golden Wattle talk 00:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Remove, writing is not up to FA standard in addition some sections don't fit - like Peter Lalor and the film section which increase the feelings of disorganisation; MOS issues including quotes in italics, sloppy use of bullet points, over linking of date elements and no useful wikilinks in other long blocks of text; insufficient referencing. --Peta 02:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Sydney Riot of 1879[edit]
Review commentary[edit]
Nominating due to non-conformance of criterion 1c (only four inline refs). The inclusion of the letters was an issue in the vote for FA. Although they were accepted to be included, at least the sources of the letters should be cited. --RelHistBuff 13:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm puzzled by the comment about the sources of the letters not being included as the text makes it clear that they are from April 1879 editions of the UK Daily Telegraph and the following Wisden Cricketers Almanack. Isn't the text considered "inline", or am I missing something? jguk 07:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I was going by WP:CITE under the subsection "Say where you got it". The original source is the Daily Telegraph, but I assumed that the text was really from an intermediate source (such as one of the references in the list under "References"). So to improve credibility, the reference should be cited. As it is a long quote, the quotation template could be used. The citing of intermediates sources can be applied to the footnote to the 1879 Sydney Morning Herald as well as other quotes throughout the text. --RelHistBuff 09:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- I got the text from an anthology that included extracts from different years Wisden Cricketers Almanack, including the 1880 version. As Wisden Cricketers Almanack is cited in full in the text, is still available to read, and is probably, given online resources, easier to find then the Benny Green Wisden anthology I copied it from, I think the requirement to provide the source is adequately met. jguk 09:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Our citation standards are under WP:CITE#How_to_cite_sources. FA candidates these days are being failed for not reaching these standards. Could you use one of those three styles? --RelHistBuff 09:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Either footnote (cite.php) or Harvard referencing. I assume many of the published sources are not available online so that excludes embedded HTML. This should be applied for the quotes as well other cases where cites are needed. --RelHistBuff 10:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to cite sources is rather more prescriptive about one of the three mentioned citation systems having to be used than I understand the consensus to be. As far as I am aware, there are various suggested styles for citation, but it is not a mandatory requirement to use one of them.
- In this article, there is a very full description of the source of the first extensive quotation in the text - fuller, indeed, than a footnote or Harvard would require:
- On 11 February 1879, one day after the conclusion of the match and three days after the riot, [Lord] Harris wrote a letter to one of his friends about the disturbance. It was clear that he intended that the letter would be printed in the press, and, indeed, the letter appeared in full in The Daily Telegraph, a London newspaper on 1 April, and in other London newspapers, where it caused a furore. Wisden's Cricketers Almanack considered the incident of such significance that it found space for the whole correspondence too. The letter, which gives a detailed contemporary account of what Lord Harris thought about the riot, read as follows:
- I can't see what a footnote would add to that, although it would be helpful to add the date of the original Almanack for the first (1880, presumably?) and that it is included in the Anthology.
- (insert response) Not really pushing for *extra* information, just wanted to know where the letter came from. As jguk said, he copied it from Benny Green's anthology. So it is simply a matter of putting <ref>s on Wisden Anthology - 1864-1900 with page number. The quote should state the source. --RelHistBuff 16:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- The introductions to the second and third are much shorter:
- The New South Wales Cricket Association were outraged by Lord Harris's letter and got their honorary secretary, a Mr JM Gibson, to write to the Daily Telegraph in reply:
- and
- Fred Spofforth, Australia's Demon bowler, did comment on it years later in an 1891 cricket magazine interview, but with a different slant on the cause. His view was that the English team were unfortunate victims of intercolonial rivalry:
- Perhaps it would be helpful for these to give a bit more detail (what was the date of the Telegraph in which the letter was published? which magazine was Spofforth quoted in?).
- I'm sure some other citations could be added, though. The other quotations in the rest of the text (such as the one from the Sydney Morning Herald and from Lord Harris's autobiography) ought really to have specific inline citations. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I've added some more inline citations, as indeed have others. Is the review complete now? jguk 13:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I fixed the footnotes to conform with WP:FN; there is still quite a bit of unreferenced text. Sandy (Talk) 14:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- This "unreferenced text" is largely a distillation of the various accounts that are all listed below as references, which all take slightly different perspectives. I'm not really sure how useful it would be to link in every single fact to such a wide range of references. I'd be interested in your recommendations. jguk 18:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the cites to the letters. As ALoan mentioned, the other quotes ought to have inline citations as well. I list only some of them below with the primary source as mentioned in the text. The secondary source should be cited and page numbers should be included if the secondary source is a book. The latter point has been raised as an important issue for current FACs for better verifiability.
- had written "The decision... " – issue of the Sydney Morning Herald
- his diary that "It was a most disgraceful affair…" – Vernon Royle’s diary
- The Australasian asked, "What will they say... " – issue of The Australasian
- the two men "expressed regret" – issue of the Sydney Morning Herald
- Lord Harris wrote, "They asked... " – Lord Harris’s autobiography
--RelHistBuff 11:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Status? Is work progressing? I noticed that bluelinks in notes and references need to be expanded (including last access dates), there is still unreferenced text (per RelHistBuff), and some of the TOC headings could be more compact. Sandy (Talk) 16:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, work is progressing. I dug out my copy of A History of Australian Cricket over the weekend, which is probably enough to deal with the rest.
- It would be more helpful, if you are concerned about "last access dates" that you checked the links worked and then added the day's date. Especially as I do not recognise that as a concern anyone has raised before.
- I would also note that RelHistBuff has not pointed out that there is unreferenced text. All five points are referenced - namely to the SMH, Vernon Royle's diary (for which the ISBN has been provided), The Australasian and Lord Harris's autobiography (which in a larger library, you should be able to find). I will, however, add references to pages in A History of Australian Cricket, where they refer to SMH and The Australasian extracts included, in the next week or so.
- I have no idea what you mean by "bluelinks in notes and references need to be expanded" (other than in relation to access dates) so am unable to address the point. jguk 13:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- I completed one ref as an example of the work still needed.
- Publisher, pub date, location? Wisden Anthology - 1864-1900 edited by Benny Green ISBN 0-356-10732-9
- Publisher, pub date, location? The Cricket Captains of England by Alan Gibson ISBN 1-85145-395-4
- Expand ref, as example. Cricinfo page on George Coulthard
- Expand. Australian Journal of Public Administration
- etc.
- I completed one ref as an example of the work still needed.
- Similar work is needed in footnotes:
- Publisher, date, other biblio info so reader can locate source. Also, this uses last name first, while refs don't - consistency. ^ Cashman, Richard. The "Demon" Spofforth. ISBN 0-86840-004-1.
- This isn't a reference - it's a link to the Wiki article on the Herald: The Sydney Morning Herald - 10 February 1879
- A consistent biblio style would be helpful, for example, last name, first name ... page number last, etcetera. p35 Lord Harris's Team in Australia 1878-79, The Diary of Vernon Royle by Vernon Royle, edited by JW McKenzie ISBN 0-947821-10-4
- etc. Sandy (Talk) 17:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Similar work is needed in footnotes:
I'm sorry. I still don't follow.
The example reference you changed [6] was to change the accurate heading "Cricinfo tour index" to "England in Australia : Jan 1879 (1 TEST).] ind.cricinfo.com Accessed 7 December 2006".
However, that's less accurate. First "Cricinfo England 1878-79 tour index" would be much more accurate than the confusing "England in Australia : Jan 1879 (1 TEST)". As you can see, the tour index contains scorecards of five different matches played between January and March 1879, including the game in question here, not just one Test . Second "ind.cricinfo.com" is just an Indian server of cricinfo.com. The "ind" bit can readily be replaced with "aus" or "usa" or anywhere else where they have a server. So it's not useful.
- That's the website given, and when you access that webpage, that's the page title. The idea is to make it easy for future readers to find the page if the links go dead. I'll try to tackle some of these this weekend, and see if there are stable versions in the Internet archive. Sandy (Talk) 19:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
In terms of a standard way of presenting book references, all books, except the Cashman book on Spofforth are cited as Title, Author, ISBN. That really should be sufficient for anyone who wants to locate the book to find it. Is it just a case of tweaking the Cashman reference, or more?
- Publisher and pub date are needed. If you have the books, you can provide them - otherwise, someone else has to go digging around (maybe in amazon or B&N) for that info. Sandy (Talk) 19:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I can follow the "Accessed 7 December 2006" bit.
With respect to the reference to the Sydney Morning Herald of 10 February 1879, is it just a case of removing the bluelinks? Or are you looking for something else. jguk 18:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- We need a ref to the actual article - info like title, date, author, etc. I'll try to look at these in more detail this weekend, but my time is tight, so anything you all can do will help. Sandy (Talk) 19:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to try to work on this today: does anyone have publisher and publication date on the books? I can't find them. Sandy (Talk) 15:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think I know where the Australasian quote came from but will need 24 hours to get the details. Bear with me. —Moondyne 16:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks - I think this article is close, and we should avoid FARC. Additional questions:
- Can anyone fill out the missing info on the Sydney Morning Herald article?
- Can anyone give us page numbers on the two Green, Benny letter references, and the Cashman ref?
- Can anyone straighten out Jguk's concern (above) about the reference,
- England in Australia : Jan 1879 (1 TEST). cricinfo.com Retrieved 7 December 2006.
- I just listed what was given, so I'm not sure how he wants that changed.
- I'll go through next and see if any more cites are needed. Sandy (Talk) 16:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks - I think this article is close, and we should avoid FARC. Additional questions:
My bit:
- Added a page# for the Cashman quote
- Removed the Australasian quote as I cannot 100% confirm the source or give details. I'm almost certain that it came from another Cashman book: "Violence in Sports" but cannot get my hands on it. The article can live without it.
I can't find any more. —Moondyne 06:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- The references to newspaper articles, other than the Australasian come from A History of Australian Cricket. jguk 12:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
FARC commentary[edit]
- Suggested FA criteria concern is citations (1c). Marskell 18:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't understand this. (1c) says that FAs must be:
"Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations (see verifiability and reliable sources); this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations. See citing sources for information on when and how extensively references are provided and for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.
The article cites all its sources, and cites them in a way that allows anyone wishing to check what is said in the article to find them. I know SandyGeorgia wishes to present some of the citations in a slightly different way, and that is happening - indeed, much of that is already happening. But that's a far cry from saying that 1c is not met.
Marskell has neither commented on the talk page, edited the article, nor commented above on the discussion on references. I'm not even convinced he has even read the article.
I remain very disappointed that minor, technical issues that could (and in my view should) have been addressed on the talk page, instead appear to lead to the automatic defeaturing of an excellent article. jguk 12:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- There is no move towards automatic defeaturing: Joel was allowing extra time in FAR, Marskell allows extra time in FARC, both work towards the same goal - saving articles when work is progressing. It would be unusual for anyone to vote to Remove the article while work is progressing. (In the Bodyline case, there was no response for several weeks from editors working on the article.) Sandy (Talk) 18:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- There are still quotes that require citations. I still have no idea what is the secondary source where the quote from Lord Harris's autobiography came from. Also, as Sandy mentioned, there are still the missing secondary source citations for the Sydney Herald quotes. Finally, there is the need for the page numbers for the
Royle,Green, and Cashmancites. If these are addressed, then I would vote Keep. --RelHistBuff 12:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've now just added the Sydney Morning Herald citation detail. —Moondyne 13:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- RelHistBuff, there is no need to give a secondary source for everything. I believe you are misunderstanding the requirements there. Anyone who has the Green book would be able to find the right passage within 30 seconds, so there is already sufficient information there to meet the requirements. I will, however, add in the page references anon. jguk 13:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I've added details of Lord Harris's autobiography, A Few Short Runs. jguk 17:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
If someone will please just tell us the source of the Herald article, I think we'll be just about there:
- ^ Author name ???. Article title ???. The Sydney Morning Herald, 10 February 1879.
Sandy (Talk) 18:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Remove- lengthy primary source quotations are indicative of a lot of the problems of this article which are detailed in the above. savidan(talk) (e@) 09:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Why is there no explanatory text for what this process is and when it will end? --Dweller 10:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- The instructions are at the top of the main page here, WP:FAR. Sandy (Talk) 11:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- They should be here too. And there's no date there for this particular process. --Dweller 12:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - quoting the letters was discussed in FAC, and it was passed anyway. There are now enough referneces and inline citations for me. Adding more will be fine too, of course. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - this type of "cutting off the nose to spite the face" nitpickery is damaging to WP. I'm all for improving the article through the FAR, a highly positive process, but this FARC is unnecessary. --Dweller 12:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - but I'm none the wiser how this process actually works. —Moondyne 13:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment The FA standards are very high now. One can see this by scanning through current FACs. I have personally seen one FAC that had over 50 inline citations, but it almost did not make FA simply because page numbers were not provided in the citations. The argument made for this requirement was the verifiability policy. I, myself, would not have been so picky and I do not "count" citations, but I do point out where they may be needed. A quote such as the one below would need a cite (the ref is only an example).
- In his autobiography Lord Harris wrote, "They ...".<ref>Lord Harris (1921). A Few Short Runs as quoted in Green, Benny (1992) pp. 1-2</ref> This plus the Sydney Morning Herald cite would be enough for me to vote keep. --RelHistBuff 15:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Remove Needs more cites - there's a lot of info that could be speculation in the article. LuciferMorgan 05:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, I disagree with the above assertion, given the highly unique nature of this article. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 11:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I think I can't go better than neutral on this one as the full inclusion of the letters totally throws off proportion. I won't go remove, however, if a few more cites are provided.
- All direct quotes.
- "That Coulthard was a Victorian no doubt added to the emotions, and there were unfounded rumours that Coulthard had placed a large bet on an English victory." The first clause strikes me as a POV aside and should probably be dropped. The second is especially problematic without a cite: not only does it repeat the rumours, it declares them unfounded. According to whom?
- "Independent witnesses said Coulthard's decision was close but fair." This absolutely requires a cite, as I think should be obvious.
- Earlier jguk noted "I'm not even convinced he has even read the article" re my moving it to FARC. Nope, I hadn't. I moved it down just like everything else on FAR that doesn't have a definite consensus after the first period. But there's no "automatic defeaturing" here; just the opposite. Marskell 17:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Remove but conditionally: I am voting now only because I have been told if one does not clearly make a statement, then my comments would be construed tacitly as being neutral. If my citation requests as well as Marskell's concerns above are addressed, then I will change my vote. --RelHistBuff 12:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Remove have tried in vain to get sources for letters, upon which text relies heavily, as well as direct quotes. Reluctantly must vote to remove, as source for important parts of article aren't given. Sandy (Talk) 01:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per ALoan. The referencing of the article is satisfactory to demonstrate factual accuracy. A handful of fact tags were added in the past couple weeks and it would perhaps be worthwhile to provide specific sources for them. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Remove unless serious citations are addressed; the requests have been up for ten days. Jguk does not appear to be editing—hopefully that's just a holiday thing and he can get back to it. I must say I'm absolutely astonished people find the referencing satisfactory here. Marskell 19:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Among other things, 10 days is nowhere near the usual amount of time given for citation tags on uncontroversial information to be filled in. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Citations were requested over a month ago - that was the reason for the FAR - *tags* were up for ten days (according to Marskell). We try not to tag articles. Sandy (Talk) 14:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, the main sources that were requested in the original FAR have been provided. The only remaining place where a citation clearly would be helpful is a specific issue date for the quotes from the Sydney Morning Herald. However, this is not a sufficiently urgent issue to warrant removing featured status. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- "Independent witnesses said Coulthard's decision was close but fair" is not "uncontroversial"—it's a critical piece of info on which the whole story turns.
- I'm not suggesting closing this incidentally; at the very least we should wait for further comment from jguk. Marskell 22:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, the main sources that were requested in the original FAR have been provided. The only remaining place where a citation clearly would be helpful is a specific issue date for the quotes from the Sydney Morning Herald. However, this is not a sufficiently urgent issue to warrant removing featured status. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Citations were requested over a month ago - that was the reason for the FAR - *tags* were up for ten days (according to Marskell). We try not to tag articles. Sandy (Talk) 14:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Among other things, 10 days is nowhere near the usual amount of time given for citation tags on uncontroversial information to be filled in. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Remove, until [citation needed]s are fixed and the article gets properly cited. Comment: Are these looong letters necessary?--Yannismarou 19:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
London Underground[edit]
Review commentary[edit]
- Messages left at Stewartadcock, UK notice board, London, Trains, Rapid transit, and Underground. Sandy (Talk) 02:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
This article has several major problems. There are many stubby subsections, the "History" section has no text in the main section, the citation style is inconstant, the books cited aren't using footnotes, and there's a {{fact}} after one of the statements. -- Selmo (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comments. Numerous short, stubby sections and one or two-sentence paragraphs, See also need attention (some could be linked in to article), undercited and References are blue links that need to be converted to a bibliographic style, external jumps, possible External link farm, and several different means of referring to See also/Further within text that should use templates. The article appears to have grown piecemeal, without organization; rewrite needed. Sandy (Talk) 02:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Looking more closely at it, sections such as "Terrorism" are far from comprehensive. It doesn't mention 7/7, or other specific attacks that have occored on the system. I would love to fix it myself, but my LUL knowledge is quite weak. -- Selmo (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Prose is faulty throughout. Here are random examples.
- "an all electric railway system that covers much of the conurbation of Greater London and some neighbouring areas." "All eclectric" must be hyphenated. Remove "the conurbation of". Instead of "some", can it be more explicit?
- "The Underground currently serves 274 stations and runs over 408 km (253 miles) of lines.[1] There are also a number of former stations and tunnels that are now closed." I think the second sentence is clumsy. Can it be reduced and merged with the first?
- "In 2004–2005, total passenger journeys reached a record level of 976 million, an average of 2.67 million per day." Why not remove the redundant wording and simplify? "In 2004–05, passenger journeys reached a record of 976 million, an average of 2.67 million a day."
- "... by 1880 the expanded 'Met' was carrying 40 million passengers a year. Other lines swiftly followed,..." Trains are swift, but the construction of railway lines is less appropriate for that epithet.
- The title "Into the 20th century" doesn't go well before "The 1930s and 40s".
I haven't read the rest, but can tell that this needs an overhaul, like a train engine. Would be great to keep as a FA.
Tony 13:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I have issues with the references section. They should all be converted to something other than a bunch of hyperlinks - author name, title of the page, etc. Hbdragon88 05:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Move to FARC, very little progress on numerous issues raised. Sandy (Talk) 18:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
FARC commentary[edit]
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are stub sections (2a), consistency of citations (1c). Marskell 15:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Remove The article is still a mess. -- Selmo (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Remove, unfortunately. Citation problems and stubby areas here and there. Terence Ong 08:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Remove, stubby sections, undercited, cite tags, External link farm, and footnotes/references not done correctly (blue link URLs). Sandy (Talk) 00:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Remove per Sandy. LuciferMorgan 02:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Kept status[edit]
Dalek[edit]
Review commentary[edit]
- Messages left at Joewithajay and Doctor Who. Sandy (Talk) 15:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm nominating this article for FAR as it fails criterion 1. c. Lacks sufficient cites. LuciferMorgan 00:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Could you give a few examples of uncited statements that you think are problematic? Dalek#References gives many sources, and I believe that all of the references to specific Doctor Who stories are cited parenthetically in-line. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Some of the footnotes are not formatted properly, consider using {{cite web}}. Jay32183 00:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Done.
Although one of them is not displaying properly; I've asked for assistance at Template talk:Cite web.Fixed. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Done.
- Lots of External jumps that need to be addressed. Sandy (Talk) 02:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Not sure I understand you here. What are external jumps? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Look (for example) in the Computer games section at the end: there are external jumps to off-Wiki websites. The content should be wikified, or the external jumps should be converted to references, or the links should be included in External links. The main Wiki article should be Wiki content, with external content given in References or External links. A lot of it may also be commercial or spam or advertisement. Sandy (Talk) 16:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've fixed these, but having looked at the games I share Sandy's concern about whether they really merit mention in the article. We can talk that out on the article's talk page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Look (for example) in the Computer games section at the end: there are external jumps to off-Wiki websites. The content should be wikified, or the external jumps should be converted to references, or the links should be included in External links. The main Wiki article should be Wiki content, with external content given in References or External links. A lot of it may also be commercial or spam or advertisement. Sandy (Talk) 16:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Not sure I understand you here. What are external jumps? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The article has a mere 7 cites so I shouldn't need to give examples, but I will if necessary. Be warned though, I'm quite vigilant lol. LuciferMorgan 17:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The book sources need to be checked and cleaned up, as the article is marked as having invalid ISBNs. -Fsotrain09 18:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Fixed. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment As far as I can see, it passes that criterion quite nicely. Yes, there are 7 cites in nots, but then you have to consider the more generalised references in the following section. Plus a good read of the Doctor Who Wikiproject might shed some more light on the subject at hand. --JB Adder | Talk 13:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment No FAC would achieve the star with 7 cites, and this article is no different. It doesn't meet criterion 1. c. at all. LuciferMorgan 23:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- This is inaccurate. The article has much more than 7 cites, all taken from direct on-screen information and all cited parenthetically instead of by footnotes. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- This is wholly accurate - it has 7 inline cites. Inline citations are needed, and this "parenthetically" business is pure nonsense in the vein of the Operation Downfall FAR. I would suggest converting them to inline cites. LuciferMorgan 00:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Prehaps the {{cite episode}} template can help. Jay32183 00:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- This is wholly accurate - it has 7 inline cites. Inline citations are needed, and this "parenthetically" business is pure nonsense in the vein of the Operation Downfall FAR. I would suggest converting them to inline cites. LuciferMorgan 00:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, Lucifer didn't say there are only 7 inline cites; he said 7 cites, which is definitely not true. Cites are still cites - it would be more accurate to say that the cites are not in a proper format. To say the references/cites are not there at all is completely blinkered and that is nonsensical. That being said, converting those cites to inline is a relatively inconsequential and technical exercise. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- You mentioned parenthetical inline citations in the article, but almost all of the parentheticals are just years. Only listing the year is not sufficient in terms of varifiability. Also cite.php is being used and the inline citation method needs to be consistant, especially in a Featured Article. Please understand that this is a review, you don't need to argue to keep or remove now. Some one has brought up an issue. Acknowleging that there could be an improvement but refusing to act on it because it is "inconsequential" doesn't really make sense in this case. Jay32183 03:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- The citations are to the specific stories/episodes, and the years they were broadcast. In addition, where did I refuse to act on it? I said it was a technical issue rather than a substantive one, not that I didn't want to, or wouldn't fix it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- You mentioned parenthetical inline citations in the article, but almost all of the parentheticals are just years. Only listing the year is not sufficient in terms of varifiability. Also cite.php is being used and the inline citation method needs to be consistant, especially in a Featured Article. Please understand that this is a review, you don't need to argue to keep or remove now. Some one has brought up an issue. Acknowleging that there could be an improvement but refusing to act on it because it is "inconsequential" doesn't really make sense in this case. Jay32183 03:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, Lucifer didn't say there are only 7 inline cites; he said 7 cites, which is definitely not true. Cites are still cites - it would be more accurate to say that the cites are not in a proper format. To say the references/cites are not there at all is completely blinkered and that is nonsensical. That being said, converting those cites to inline is a relatively inconsequential and technical exercise. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify: is it being said that a sentence like this:
- Once the mutant is removed, the casing itself can be entered and operated by humanoids, as seen in The Daleks, The Space Museum (1965) and Planet of the Daleks (1973).
should be changed to this:
- Once the mutant is removed, the casing itself can be entered and operated by humanoids, as seen in The Daleks[4], The Space Museum[5] and Planet of the Daleks[6].
- ==References==
- ^ Fowler, Damian. "Legendary punk club CBGB closes". BBC News, October 16, 2006. Retrieved on December 11, 2006,
- ^ Sabin, p.155
- ^ Walsh, p. 15, 24
- ^ Writer Terry Nation, Director Christopher Barry, Producer Verity Lambert (1964-01-04). "The Escape". Doctor Who. London. BBC.
{{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter|episodelink=ignored (|episode-link=suggested) (help); Unknown parameter|serieslink=ignored (|series-link=suggested) (help) - ^ Writer Glyn Jones, Director Mervyn Pinfield, Producer Verity Lambert (1965-05-01). "The Dimensions of Time". Doctor Who. London. BBC. BBC One.
{{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter|episodelink=ignored (|episode-link=suggested) (help); Unknown parameter|serieslink=ignored (|series-link=suggested) (help) - ^ Writer Terry Nation, Director David Maloney, Producer Barry Letts (1973-05-05). "Planet of the Daleks, Episode Five". Doctor Who. London. BBC. BBC One.
{{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter|episodelink=ignored (|episode-link=suggested) (help); Unknown parameter|serieslink=ignored (|series-link=suggested) (help)
Because if that's really considered a significant improvement, I can do that. (Incidentally, it will significantly increase the article's size.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- That's what I was suggesting with the cite episode template, and it should help satisfy the nominator's request for inline citations. I wouldn't worry about the article length too much. I believe the standard for featured articles is to only consider readable prose when determining the article's size. I did not mean to imply anyone here was unwilling to work, I was just hoping to avoid an argument that happens from time to time. Jay32183 04:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- OK. Personally, I think that having that many footnotes is less aesthetically pleasing than simply linking to the Wikipedia page for the individual serial, which contains all the information, but if there's a consensus that this form of citation is preferred I'll go with the consensus. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Inline citations are required as part of verifiability. LuciferMorgan 10:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- OK. Personally, I think that having that many footnotes is less aesthetically pleasing than simply linking to the Wikipedia page for the individual serial, which contains all the information, but if there's a consensus that this form of citation is preferred I'll go with the consensus. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, they are required - where appropriate. And inline citation is not syonymous with dinky footnotes. Having said that, the suggested footnotes above are excellent, and if the authors are prepared to add them for people who like to count them, then I'm sure we will all be content. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - article is perfectly fine to me.....endnotes are somewhat archaic, so I respect the progressive thinking of the authors of this article. — Deckiller 08:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Now you tell me, after I did this! ;-) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- XD it's all good, I was just paraphrasing what my English professor said about endnotes :). Great article BTW, as per the norm from WPWHO. — Deckiller 09:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Whole paragraphs still remain uncited. So no it isn't excellent or perfectly fine. Still needs a lot more work - just splashing a few inline cites here and there doesn't make an article meet 1. c. Also, if the authors are that progressive, why didn't they keep this article up to FA standards? Why is this at FAR? Exactly, because it doesn't meet FA standards. LuciferMorgan 20:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I fully intend to finish the citations: the diff I posted above was only the beginning of the work. As for the article being at FA standard, clearly it was considered up to FA standard at one point. Now, perhaps standards have been raised since then, which is fine — but that doesn't mean that the authors don't care about maintaining FA standard. I'm going away this weekend, but will continue the citation work when I return. This stuff takes time. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- You should have plenty of time. The FAR process is two weeks, and the FARC process is two weeks but it won't close if good faith efforts to improve the article are being made at a reasonable pace, which you seem to be willing to do. Jay32183 05:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I fully intend to finish the citations: the diff I posted above was only the beginning of the work. As for the article being at FA standard, clearly it was considered up to FA standard at one point. Now, perhaps standards have been raised since then, which is fine — but that doesn't mean that the authors don't care about maintaining FA standard. I'm going away this weekend, but will continue the citation work when I return. This stuff takes time. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Whole paragraphs still remain uncited. So no it isn't excellent or perfectly fine. Still needs a lot more work - just splashing a few inline cites here and there doesn't make an article meet 1. c. Also, if the authors are that progressive, why didn't they keep this article up to FA standards? Why is this at FAR? Exactly, because it doesn't meet FA standards. LuciferMorgan 20:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- XD it's all good, I was just paraphrasing what my English professor said about endnotes :). Great article BTW, as per the norm from WPWHO. — Deckiller 09:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Now you tell me, after I did this! ;-) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The lead section is meant to be a summary of the article. All info there should also be in the body of the article and inline cited there, not in the lead section. LuciferMorgan 21:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Just a query regarding the section on the major appearances by daleks in novels. Is the 'Novels' section intended to only list original stories? The novels which are listed appear to be relatively recent original novels, rather than, for example, the 1970s novels which were based upon the television episodes like The Dalek Invasion of Earth, Day of the Daleks etc. If so, it may help to clarify this in the heading or with a line of explanatory text. Also, for consistency, it would help to include the year of publication for the novels and the audioplays, to give the reader an idea of how they fit into the Dr Who chronology. Jazriel 10:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Done. I think that "original novels" should adequately distinguish these books from the Target novelizations, which are or should be mentioned under the episode they were adapted from. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The "Culture" section reads very much like original research, and is wholly uncited. LuciferMorgan 02:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. This article is greatly improved, but I still see some referencing needs - one example:
- When the new series was announced, many fans hoped the Daleks would return once more to the programme. After much negotiation between the BBC and the Nation estate (which at one point appeared to completely break down), an agreement was reached. According to media reports, the initial disagreement was due to the Nation estate demanding levels of creative control over the Daleks' appearances and scripts that were unacceptable to the BBC. However, talks between Tim Hancock and the BBC progressed more productively than had been expected, and in August 2004 an agreement was reached for the Daleks' appearance in the 2005 series.
- Sandy (Talk) 18:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I have now added two BBC News Online cites to the paragraph quoted above. I hope that's better? Angmering 07:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Not all areas though. LuciferMorgan 16:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- It would be helpful if {{citation needed}} were added to the statements that are of particular concern. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Last time I did that, I was reprimanded. LuciferMorgan 01:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- I added cite tags to the History section only, which was undercited. I found several instances of WP:WTA while there, and suggest that the article is going to need an independent copy edit once more thorough referencing is done. Here's a prose sample from the section I just tagged:
- However, despite this adoration, the Daleks were forever associated with Doctor Who. Nation, who jointly owned the intellectual property rights to them with the BBC, therefore had the problem of owning a money-making concept that proved nearly impossible to sell to anyone else and was dependent on the BBC wanting to produce stories featuring the creatures.[citation needed]
- I added cite tags to the History section only, which was undercited. I found several instances of WP:WTA while there, and suggest that the article is going to need an independent copy edit once more thorough referencing is done. Here's a prose sample from the section I just tagged:
- I think every section is undercited, only the History section is the most undercited. It's nice people are working on the article though. LuciferMorgan 02:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- During this FAR process, the article has gone from 7 footnotes to 67 (as of this edit), and you still think it's undercited? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes I do, as I just stated. There isn't many cites considering the article's size, though there have been improvements to editor's credits. LuciferMorgan 08:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
FARC commentary[edit]
- Suggested FA criteria is insufficient citations (1c). Marskell 06:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Lots of work done. Moving it down because there was not consensus not to. Marskell 06:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - A lot of work done, the 1c criteria has been fulfilled successfully. Wiki-newbie 16:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Remove - Whole paragraphs still uncited. LuciferMorgan 18:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep — the article currently has 69 citations, and is more thoroughly cited than many other featured articles (e.g. Armand Jean du Plessis, Cardinal Richelieu, Calvin and Hobbes, Søren Kierkegaard, etc.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I still see a [citation needed]. A FA should be nowhere tagged like that.--Yannismarou 21:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. If that's all that's bothering you, the offending sentence could easily be removed pending a citation. (as of the above comment, there were two {{cn}} tags. I added one citation and commented out the other. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - The article looks good. The editors working on it have done a fantastic job. - Lex 05:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - as per Josiah. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I notice all the editors from the Doctor Who Wikiproject are here to use their keeps - how convenient. LuciferMorgan 14:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Whatever happened to WP:AGF? Should you recuse yourself as well since you nominated this for FAR? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not part of the Doctor Who Wikiproject. My "keep" came from looking at the article, checking the history to examine the changes since this FAR started, and coming to the opinion that this article is up to FA standards. You disagree with me and that's perfectly fine. But your disagreement doesn't give you the right to assume these keeps are in bad faith. - Lex 15:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- I have every right to come to my own conclusions - you, nor anyone else will stop that. And my conclusion is most of these keeps are in bad faith. With the exception of yourself, the others are part of the Doctor Who Wikiproject. Having said that, I still think all the keeps including yours are in bad faith - I have every right to come to that conclusion. There's still many uncited, weasly statements in the article, and all the Doctor Who fanatic editors blindly assume that teaming up here will save their article - improving it will, just saying keep won't. Article definitely needs further work. LuciferMorgan 17:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- I find this blatant assumption of bad faith quite offensive, actually. A substantial amount of work has been done on this article since the FAR began, and your characterization of editors is rather uncivil — as if being a Doctor Who fan automatically made one's judgment as a Wikipedian suspect. Your opinions about the content and quality of the article are welcome; your opinions about the motives of your fellow Wikipedians are not. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Tell you what - I'll remove my "keep" vote if you remove your "remove" vote. After all, if you're saying that the Wikiproject editors have a conflict of interest, since you nominated this for review, so do you. How about that? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Tell you what - how about instead of making BS "keeps" without adequate reasons for them, whereas my remove is based on inline citations, how about you give us good reasons for your keep as opposed to "fantastic"? Better still - how about you cite the sections that remain totally uncited? Have your vote, I don't deny anyone a vote. LuciferMorgan 17:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- My keep is based on the same reasons as Josiah's, which is based on the number of inline citations, and far more cited than many other FAs out there, including some which have recently been passed. Nowhere do I use the adjective "fantastic" - you can take that up with Superlex. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 18:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Tell you what - how about instead of making BS "keeps" without adequate reasons for them, whereas my remove is based on inline citations, how about you give us good reasons for your keep as opposed to "fantastic"? Better still - how about you cite the sections that remain totally uncited? Have your vote, I don't deny anyone a vote. LuciferMorgan 17:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Tell you what - I'll remove my "keep" vote if you remove your "remove" vote. After all, if you're saying that the Wikiproject editors have a conflict of interest, since you nominated this for review, so do you. How about that? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I took a look at the version of the article from when it was initially named an FA, and it seems to be in even better shape, reference-wise, than it was then. --Brian Olsen 20:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The "movement" and "construction" sections are still under cited. Jay32183 21:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- How about now? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- I feel those sections are good now. The only sections low on citations now are the "parodies" and "pop culture" and I'm not sure how necessary they'd be since those are mostly mentioning that certain things exist. Jay32183 01:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- How about now? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- List -
Remove unless fixed:External link farm, including commercial links. Pls cleanup per WP:EL and WP:NOTISBN please on Terry Nation book in References(Fancrufty - inadequate reference - ref is to a Wiki article - *who* says they have a poetic quality, and where - exact ref please - in fact, many of the footnotes are to other Wiki articles - Wiki is not a reliable source) Some of the more elaborate Dalek battlecries have an almost poetic quality about them (for example, "Advance and Attack! Attack and Destroy! Destroy and Rejoice!" from the televised story The Chase).[65]- Book references for specific statements need page numbers - for example - ^ Bentham, Jeremy (May 1986). Doctor Who — The Early Years. England: W.H. Allen. ISBN 0-491-03612-4.
There are massive uncited sections from Parodies onward, including a statement about someone posing nude that certainly should be cited.- Prose problems and redundancies throughout - article needs a thorough copy edit - one random sample: The reason for the multiple titles is that in the show's early years each individual episode had a different name and overall story titles were used only by the production office. Subsequently, several different overall story titles were circulated by fandom without access to the correct records.[46] See: Doctor Who story title controversy.
- There's still time to bring this to standard if someone gets out a big red pen. Sandy (Talk) 01:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Sandy, many of the references that appear to be to Wikipedia articles are referring to specific television episodes, and use {{cite episode}} because that was recommended above. The citations are not using the Wikipedia article as reference, but the television episodes about which those articles are written. It's the same as using {{cite book}} for a book which also has a Wikipedia page: you're referencing the book, not the Wikipedia article about it.
- I've removed several extraneous links (thanks for pointing the commercial ones out, as I hadn't noticed that those had been added), and I'll remove the "Dalek humour" ones if people think it's necessary (I think it's a rather nice addition, but I understand if people feel that it's inappropriate). I've provided the ISBN for Terry Nation's Dalek Special and a citation for Katy Manning posing nude with a Dalek. I've also tweaked the specific sentence you mention, and will try to get around to a full copyedit in the next few days. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 11:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've removed the "almost poetic quality" sentence (although I'm sure I've seen that referenced in print, after several days of searching I can't find it). I've also added a few more references in the last few days. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Regardless of cite episode, there's still a lot of original research in the article. LuciferMorgan 18:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Could you please give a few examples? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah ok will do - thanks for kindly requesting, which goes a long way.
1. "The non-humanoid shape of the Dalek, unlike anything that had been seen on television before, did much to enhance the creatures' sense of menace. With no familiar points of reference, it was a far cry from the traditional "bug-eyed monster" of science fiction that Doctor Who series creator Sydney Newman wanted the show to avoid. The unsettling form of the Daleks, coupled with their alien voices, also made many believe for a while that the props were wholly mechanical and operated by remote control."
"Sense of menace"? Says whom? Are we interpreting the reaction of the TV audience? It's wholly possible many found their shape rather ludicrous. "Unsettling form"? This could be original research also - maybe perhaps there are TV critics that can lend weight and authority to the above points of view? LuciferMorgan 22:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the example. That paragraph has a citation from Doctor Who: The Television Companion by David J. Howe. (Howe is a professional historian of television in general and Doctor Who in particular; citing him on the subject of Doctor Who is roughly akin to citing David McCullough on the subject of Harry S. Truman or John Adams.)
- Here are some relevant excerpts from that work: I'll let you decide if they're sufficient to justify the paragraph or not. If they're not, I'll either reword the paragraph or find more sources.
The Daleks are undoubtedly the highlight of the story. Nothing even remotely like them had ever been seen before, either on television or in the cinema, and they dominate every scene in which they appear. Their sedate, gliding movements and harsh, electronic voices make for an unforgettable combination. The fact that they are constantly in motion, their three stick-like 'limbs' twitching with alien life even when they are otherwise stationary, creates a very creepy effect. ...
The arrival of the Daleks has often been cited, with some justification, as the development that sealed Doctor Who's popular success. Certainly the creatures' appeal was immediately noted by journalists, as is apparent from the following review by Peter Quince that appeared in the Huddersfield Daily Examiner dated 11 January 1964: 'As for spine chillery... well, I take back what I said a few weeks ago about Doctor Who having gotten off to such a bad start it could never recover. It has recovered, and, though it still has its daft moments, it also produces some first class sensations — as, for example, last Saturday, when the Dalek "intelligence" had been lifted unseen from its robot and placed in a blanket on the floor, the episode closed with something very horrible indeed just beginning to crawl from underneath the blanket. So horrible was it, that I very much doubt whether I shall have the courage this evening to switch on to see what it was. Lovely stuff!"....
The Daleks are one of those science-fiction ideas that, in retrospect, seem so ridiculously simple that it is hard to understand why no-one had done anything similar before. There had been many different robotic monsters previously created for films and television shows, but these had always turned out looking like a man in a suit. Terry Nation must have realised this and, in his scripted description of the Daleks, specified that the creatures should have no visible legs and should glide along on a base .... [a description of the Daleks' design follows, which I won't bother to transcribe].... The resultant prop was both unsettling and unique. The simple 'pepperpot' shape with its three emerging appendages — eye-stalk, sucker-stick and gun-arm — was memorable, as was the strange gliding motion. The illusion of an alien creature was completed by the harsh electronic voice that grated instructions and barked out orders.
To viewers, the Daleks seemed truly alien beings — indeed, fooled by their relatively small stature, many initially believed that they were operated by remote control rather than by actors inside them. This was the intended effect, and the Daleks were a huge success. ....
- Personally, I think that justifies the paragraph in question, but perhaps my judgment is skewed by my closeness to the subject matter. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Weak remove. "Merchandising" is undercited (only two citations in its subsections), and IMO "Popular culture" needs another look: I see some stubby paragraphs, and, in general, the prose in this particular sections does not look "brilliant" to me (after the first paragraph the particular section gets almost like a "trivia" section).--Yannismarou 18:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Remove. Not written to the required "professional" standard. Here are examples.
- Second sentence: "The mutated descendants of the Kaled people (referred to in the first Dalek serial as "Dals")[1] of the planet Skaro, they are integrated with tank-like mechanical casings; a ruthless race bent on universal conquest and domination." It's a snake that needs chopping up; the semicolon is grammatically wrong.
- Third sentence: "They are pitiless, without compassion or remorse. They are also, collectively, the greatest alien adversaries of the Time Lord known as the Doctor." Flabby. Why not "Without compassion or remorse, they are the greatest adversaries of the Time Lord known as "the Doctor"."? Minus six words.
- "and were first introduced"—Spot the redundant word.
- "in the second Doctor Who serial"—Do you mean "series", or perhaps "episode"?
- "with the viewing audience"—"with viewers"?
- "They have become synonymous with Doctor Who and their behaviour and catchphrases are part of British popular culture"—With two "ands", what's wrong with a comma after the first?
- "The Daleks have appeared with every incarnation of the Doctor, with the possible exception of the Eighth Doctor in the 1996 television movie (where only their voices were briefly heard)." The last bit: what, you saw them being silent for a lengthy period? No, you need: "(where only their voices were heard, briefly).", or something like that.
That's the lead alone—well, there are other things there I haven't listed. This needs to be confined to the dustbins of Skaro. Tony 01:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: While this is the least of your expressed concerns, "serial" is the correct word: classic Doctor Who was broadcast as serials of (usually) 4 to 7 episodes. In the programme's first few years, the serials did not have on-screen names, which has led to some confusion about what to call each story. For the serial which introduced the Daleks, there are several alternative titles, which is why the article uses that circumlocution.
- That said, your other concerns about the writing are legitimate ones, and I'll see what I can do (time permitting). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Update: I have amended the offending sentences. I'm sure there are other prose problems which can be addressed if anyone has the time to point them out. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, comma before, not after "and", as you probably realised. Now, fixing just these examples is beside the point. I was demonstrating that the whole text his this density of problems. At this stage, I'd be going cap in hand to the Wikipedia:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors, asking for an urgent job. Tony 03:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- IMO, the LoCE can be most effective on an article that meets all the other criteria - best used when only the prose needs attention. This article has over 40KB of prose (needs trimming), and still has a lot of uncited text - not sure it's ready for a copy edit, as that could be misused effort if the text is later pruned or found to be uncited, original research. The lead is also rambling and choppy, not yet a well-organized summary of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- True; sorry, I should have accounted for that. Tony 07:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- IMO, the LoCE can be most effective on an article that meets all the other criteria - best used when only the prose needs attention. This article has over 40KB of prose (needs trimming), and still has a lot of uncited text - not sure it's ready for a copy edit, as that could be misused effort if the text is later pruned or found to be uncited, original research. The lead is also rambling and choppy, not yet a well-organized summary of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Back for another look: still not able to strike my remove.
- A random check of the references looks good, but there are still a few questions:
I'm unable to find information on their website about this source - it looks like a personal webpage (not sure), and doesn't seem to be a reliable source. ^ THE DALEK CHRONICLES (2004-04-28). Retrieved on 2006-11-28.- I've replaced this with a citation from the book Doctor Who: The Sixties. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Based on one letter to the editor, I wonder how the word "many" is justified in the text this letter is citing? ^ Michael Anthony Basil (2003-10-06). Science Fiction Weekly - Letters to the Editor. Retrieved on 2006-12-18. If I'm reading it correctly, it looks like one letter from one fan is the basis for the statement about many fans. When the new series was announced, many fans hoped the Daleks would return once more to the programme.- I've added another citation for this sentence. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Jessesword.com seems to give more info about the reliability of this source, which could be included in the ref: Science Fiction Citations for OED - Dalek (2005-06-21). Retrieved on 2006-12-01.
- Either someone else has added the citation you're mentioning, or I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. Could you please clarify? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
There are still cite tags throughout the text - I counted at least eight.- Down to one now, and I'm still investigating a likely source for it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't look at the prose, as Tony has done that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Until Sandy's and Tony's concerns have been met fully, this one should be removed. LuciferMorgan 12:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- They've been met in part; cite requests down to two, for instance, since Sandy's last comment. I've contacted Josiah again. Marskell 12:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hi — sorry for my tardy reply. Since Marskell's note, Jeffpw has posted to Talk:Dalek saying that the article has passed FAR [17]. Is this accurate? There are still a couple of citations that I haven't been able to supply (yet), and Tony's prose concerns haven't really been addressed. On the other hand, the original issue of concern (insufficient cites) is certainly no longer an issue, with 85 distinct footnotes. Obviously, I've put a lot of work into the article during the FAR period, and I'm happy if it has passed muster, but I'm a bit confused. Can someone clarify the situation? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- To clarify. I only completed the administrative tasks that another user Diez2, initiated but did not follow through on. I have contacted several people about this, as he has now delisted 4 articles from FARC this evening, none of which were carried out appropriately. I do not feel procedure and protocols have been followed in this matter, and am very concerned about it. Please see my talk page and his for more details. Thanks, Jeffpw 20:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hi — sorry for my tardy reply. Since Marskell's note, Jeffpw has posted to Talk:Dalek saying that the article has passed FAR [17]. Is this accurate? There are still a couple of citations that I haven't been able to supply (yet), and Tony's prose concerns haven't really been addressed. On the other hand, the original issue of concern (insufficient cites) is certainly no longer an issue, with 85 distinct footnotes. Obviously, I've put a lot of work into the article during the FAR period, and I'm happy if it has passed muster, but I'm a bit confused. Can someone clarify the situation? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Marskell, I said Tony's and Sandy's concerns should be met in full. I welcome any efforts in addressing this, but if they've only been partly filled this one should be removed. LuciferMorgan 23:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, this has been reopened for the time-being; hope this doesn't throw too much of monkey wrench into things. As Josiah is posting within the last 24, we can wait to give him time. If Sandy can be moved to strike her remove re the references, maybe I'll just try to ce it myself and then we can (properly) close the thing. Marskell 19:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sandy can only strike her remove when her concerns are addressed, and as concerns copyedit it would have to meet Tony's concerns. Good luck though. LuciferMorgan 20:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- We're down to one {{cn}}, which I'm actively working on. Sandy seemed to think that it wasn't appropriate to ask for copyediting help until the citation requests were finished — do we have time to do this? I know that the two weeks are up, but much of the review period was over Christmas/New Year's, when many editors were away. I'm happy to continue to work to improve specific sentences and elements, but I'm at a bit of a loss when the concerns are so vague ("prose not brilliant" and the like). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well once Sandy's ref concerns have been met, message Tony about the prose. LuciferMorgan 02:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've commented out the last {{cn}}, which I couldn't find a source for after several days of hunting. Sandy's talk page says she's travelling till the 23rd, so I went ahead and asked for help at the League of Copyeditors. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- My apologies for the delay: I'm struggling to catch up, but will read now and strike my objections as appropriate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Further comment—Still not well-enough written. My eyes went straight down to the opening of "Physical characteristics" for a random sample.
- "Man-sized"—can we find a gender-neutral term? "Kill a man"—Why not "person"? Are you sure that no woman has ever been killed? And there are other examples of guys being everything, too. This is unacceptable in the 21st century.
- "Kill a man" is a reference to one specific incident in which a Dalek used its "plunger" to crush a man's skull — it's only happened once, and yes, it was a man. That said, "man-sized" is fair comment, and I'll try to weed out any other sexist language I can find. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Metric equivalents, please (no, give us the metric, and if you must, bracket the US equivalent).
- Metric equivalents have been given, but most of the original sources were in Imperial measurements (not US — these are British sources). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- "but various episodes have shown Daleks whose arms end in a tray"—"Various"? I'd have thought that the notion that each episode offers something different would be too obvious to need pointing out.
- Fixed. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Redundant "alsos". Tony 23:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've asked the League of Copyeditors for assistance, but will continue to do what I can until they show up. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Great. By the way, they don't "show up"; they decide on the merits of your article whether it's worthy of their excellent input. Tony 02:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks — good to know. It's my first encounter with the League. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It's been suggested this article has come under undue criticism from FAR/C commentators as its a sci-fi FA on several talk pages. I would like it to be noted that every article at FARC comes under fair, objective and thorough scrutiny, regardless of whether it's a sci-fi FA. Furthermore, I personally happen to like the Daleks. Also, my fave band of all time is Marilyn Manson, and if you scroll above, you'll see I've nominated that article for FAR. My apologies if you and other Wikiproject Doctor Who members have obtained a flawed opinion of us people at the FAR/C process. LuciferMorgan 22:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Great. By the way, they don't "show up"; they decide on the merits of your article whether it's worthy of their excellent input. Tony 02:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've asked the League of Copyeditors for assistance, but will continue to do what I can until they show up. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- "Man-sized"—can we find a gender-neutral term? "Kill a man"—Why not "person"? Are you sure that no woman has ever been killed? And there are other examples of guys being everything, too. This is unacceptable in the 21st century.
Section break[edit]
Back for another look. External jumps and the external link farm appear corrected; referencing is much improved. I still have the following list:
Their most infamous catchphrase is "EX-TER-MIN-ATE!", with each syllable individually screeched in a frantic electronic voice ... Why is it ex-ter-min-ate rather than the correct ex-ter-mi-nate? Is that the way it's syllabicized according to the reliable sources, or is that a Wiki-mistake?- Yeah, that was just a wiki-goof. Fixed now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the question above about one source - this is an example only, all should be checked: Science Fiction Citations for OED - Dalek (2005-06-21). Retrieved on 2006-12-01. This reference gives no publisher. Clicking on it reveals jessesword.com - warranting further investigation (is it a personal website, is it a reliable source?) http://www.jessesword.com/ gives an author and information which seem to rise to the level of WP:RS. This kind of information (author, website publisher) should be included in the references.Pls doublecheck that all websources identify the publisher and author (when available). (UPdate: corrected that one myself - am now going through the rest.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)- I've corrected this one, but this is making me realize that I'm a bit confused about who the "publisher" of a website is when it's not an organization: do we list the same individual as both author and publisher? (In this case, Jesse Sheidlower appears to be both.) I'll try to look over the rest of the references. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- In that case (as an example), I would list the ref as author name first, article, publisher, date, retrieve date.
- Sheidlower, Jesse. Science Fiction Citations for OED - Dalek. Jessesword.com (2005-06-21). Retrieved on 2006-12-01.
- In that case (as an example), I would list the ref as author name first, article, publisher, date, retrieve date.
- I've corrected this one, but this is making me realize that I'm a bit confused about who the "publisher" of a website is when it's not an organization: do we list the same individual as both author and publisher? (In this case, Jesse Sheidlower appears to be both.) I'll try to look over the rest of the references. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
There is some inconsistency in book footnotes - some have p. or pp., while most have just a number, and some are still missing page numbers. Pls have a second look, with an eye towards consistency.- This should be resolved now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- I still see weasle words - examples: This belief is thought to be the reason why Daleks ... and This is probably not an innate ability, ...
- The culture section has a lot of unreferenced assertions which, without citation, appear as original research or opinion - we need to know according to whom.
- Working on this. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- There are still significant copyedit needs. I started reading at the Culture section, and encountered this: Due to their frequent defeats by the Doctor, he has become a sort of bogeyman in Dalek culture, and the mention of his name often gives them pause.
A copyedit is needed: Tony already gave examples. I do think the article has come far enough that it would be productive to get LoCE involved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for giving this another look, Sandy, and for contacting the League again. I fear that the copyediting needs may exceed my meagre skills. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Anything a matter of opinion always needs citations. Congratulations on your efforts thus far though.LuciferMorgan 00:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Still working on this. LuciferMorgan added a few citation requests a day or two ago, which I've taken care of, but that's slowed down the more difficult tasks of finding citations for the "Culture" section and copyediting. (Still no word from the LoCE.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- In CE'ing a bit of the first part, I found the writing was good. It does fall down in Culture, however. To many unneeded emphasizers and not enough cites.
- All in all I think this is close. Marskell 09:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've decided it would be quicker and easier to fix the references myself: can someone pls tell us what this is and what makes it a reliable source? I can't find anything to indicate it's anything other than someone's personal AOL members website.
- Balcombe, Chris. Daleks and the Kit Kat advert. personal website of the Dalek operator. Retrieved on 2007-01-19. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm... yes, it is someone's AOL website, but it's the AOL website of someone who was involved in the production of that particular advertisement. I had thought that might qualify as "a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field", but I can see that it's a bit borderline. I'll try to find a better source. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I've found a YouTube clip of the advertisement in question here, but we probably can't use that because it's a copyright violation. I can't find any reference to the ad in print, either. Should we delete the sentence, or is there some way to use the references, which are problematic in themselves but indicate clearly that the ad in question did exist? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- If the original website is a reliable source, it works - I just couldn't find anywhere on the website that indicated who the author was or what makes him reliable - can you locate it on the site? Youtube is rarely a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- The author (Chris Balcombe) is indicated here, on the front page of his website (scroll down). I suppose that technically identifying him as one of the operators is slightly OR-ish — I deduced it from the photograph showing him in the Dalek on the Kit Kat page [18] and the one showing him (named as Chris Balcombe in the caption) with Sylvester McCoy on the main page. (I think it's safe to say that this and this are the same person.) As I said, it's borderline whether this qualifies as a reliable source or not. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- An alternate source would be better - there's nothing there to indicate he's anyone who can speak authoritatively. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- The author (Chris Balcombe) is indicated here, on the front page of his website (scroll down). I suppose that technically identifying him as one of the operators is slightly OR-ish — I deduced it from the photograph showing him in the Dalek on the Kit Kat page [18] and the one showing him (named as Chris Balcombe in the caption) with Sylvester McCoy on the main page. (I think it's safe to say that this and this are the same person.) As I said, it's borderline whether this qualifies as a reliable source or not. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- If the original website is a reliable source, it works - I just couldn't find anywhere on the website that indicated who the author was or what makes him reliable - can you locate it on the site? Youtube is rarely a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I've found a YouTube clip of the advertisement in question here, but we probably can't use that because it's a copyright violation. I can't find any reference to the ad in print, either. Should we delete the sentence, or is there some way to use the references, which are problematic in themselves but indicate clearly that the ad in question did exist? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm... yes, it is someone's AOL website, but it's the AOL website of someone who was involved in the production of that particular advertisement. I had thought that might qualify as "a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field", but I can see that it's a bit borderline. I'll try to find a better source. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Balcombe, Chris. Daleks and the Kit Kat advert. personal website of the Dalek operator. Retrieved on 2007-01-19. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The article lists this under the same ISBN as both 1998 and 2003, but the ISBN finder lists it as 2004 - which is correct and which edition is used?SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- The ISBN for the first edition (which I have) was incorrect. A different editor added the citations from the second edition (which I don't have a copy of). Should I find the reference in the first edition and change it, for consistency's sake? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- That would help; then we can list the book once, and know that the page nos are correct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- What is there now works - no need to find the other page number, now that the confusion is cleared up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Usenet is not a reliable source - since you have two sources on the statement, this ref should go:- Dippold, Ron (1992-02-06). Federal Department of Transportation Bulletin #92-132 (USENET post). alt.fan.warlord. Google Groups. Retrieved on 2007-01-15. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- That was meant to indicate that the joke was of long standing. The USENET citation isn't to verify any particular assertion, just to indicate "this joke existed at least as far back as 1992". I understand that USENET wouldn't be reliable for an assertion of fact, but why isn't it reliable for "this was being said at this point"?
- I'm OK letting that go since you do have another source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- That was meant to indicate that the joke was of long standing. The USENET citation isn't to verify any particular assertion, just to indicate "this joke existed at least as far back as 1992". I understand that USENET wouldn't be reliable for an assertion of fact, but why isn't it reliable for "this was being said at this point"?
- Dippold, Ron (1992-02-06). Federal Department of Transportation Bulletin #92-132 (USENET post). alt.fan.warlord. Google Groups. Retrieved on 2007-01-15. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
What is this reference? It only points to a Wiki article. Is it supposed to be a cite episode?- ^ Seaborne, Gilliane (director) (2005). "Dalek", Doctor Who Confidential BBC Wales. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it should be a cite episode, but for an episode of the documentary series Doctor Who Confidential, not an episode of Doctor Who. I've corrected it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- ^ Seaborne, Gilliane (director) (2005). "Dalek", Doctor Who Confidential BBC Wales. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
"Destiny of the Daleks" is listed once as Episode Two, once as Episode 4, and once with no episode: does the one with no Episode need a number ?SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- That reference is to a facet that's visible in all episodes of the story, so no episode listing is necessary. I suppose the citation could say "episodes 1–4", but that seems redundant to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- OK, just checking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Ditto for "Remembrance of the Daleks" - there's a part one, a part three, but one with nothing listed - does it need a listing?SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Same for this one: the reference is to a theme explicitly stated in each episode of the serial. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- OK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please explain the extensive use of piped links on the cite episodes: as examples only, why is The Dimensions of Time piped to The Space Museum, and why is Day or Reckoning piped to The Dalek Invasion of Earth ?
- Early Doctor Who serials had titles for each episode. For example, the six episodes of The Dalek Invasion of Earth were individually titled "World's End", "The Daleks", "Day Of Reckoning", "The End Of Tomorrow", "The Waking Ally" and "Flashpoint". (See The Dalek Invasion of Earth#Production.) "Day of Reckoning" is episode 3 of The Dalek Invasion of Earth; "The Dimensions of Time" is episode 2 of The Space Museum. The individual naming of episodes was dropped around 1966. (Incidentally, this is why Doctor Who stories appear to go against the standard MoS style for television episodes: individual episodes are placed in quotation marks, but serials are in italics.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- ugh - OK, I get it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- If these items can be addressed, references will be complete; a ce still needs to be done. In case anyone is wondering, the reason I've spent hours in this article is that Doctor Who missing episodes still needs to come up for review for citations lacking, so it seems worth the time for Project members to understand how to cite. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sandy, thank you for your help on this. I hope that if we can get Dalek up to snuff, the reviews of other Doctor Who FAs will go more smoothly. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm hoping other Doctor Who FAs can be collectively worked upon without review, and in a more relaxed atmosphere. LuciferMorgan 20:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- That would be good; once this is completed, I do plan to work on the other FAs, whether an actual FAR is filed or not. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Update: I've provided some primary source citations for the "Culture" section, but I still have some concerns about it (see Talk:Dalek#"Culture" section). I'd like to have some secondary sources as well, to avoid the appearance of original research. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Size check By the way, the article is at 41KB prose, which is approaching a limit on too long - you'll all have to watch that the article doesn't grow (see WP:LENGTH). Note that by changing the way the books are cited, I shaved 4KB off the overall size. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- So, two months today. I'm plodding through a ce, but I'd suggest that this is already within 1a. Everything I'm noticing is very minor—perhaps greater minds can find other problems. There is a bit of purpleness in the prose: three adjectives or nouns ("conquest, domination, and complete conformity") where two will do.
- I read that "The naming of early Doctor Who stories is complex and sometimes controversial." Is this the reason for Sandy's link concern? Will it be solved with an initial note explaining how you have settled upon titles? Marskell 08:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorta, kinda, ish. We actually have a Wikipedia article on the matter, Doctor Who story title controversy. Basically, in the original series of Doctor Who, a given story was a multi-episode serial; however, for the first few years of the programme, the only titles that were used publicly were names of individual episodes. (So, for the first Doctor Who serial, the episode titles were "An Unearthly Child", "The Cave of Skulls", "The Forest of Fear" and "The Firemaker".) The production team used titles for the serials in-house, but these sometimes changed during production and weren't widely known until years later. This led to some confusion: for two early examples, see here and here.
- Sandy's link concern was a slightly different matter, albeit one with the same origin. The first link in the article uses the title "The Survivors" instead of "The Daleks episode 2", because that was the title under which that episode was broadcast; however, the Wikipedia article on that episode is at The Daleks, so I piped the link. If a reader clicks on "The Survivors" and arrives at The Daleks, he can read down to The Daleks#Production and discover that
(Perhaps we should consider moving episode titles up to an earlier point in the serial articles, but that's another matter.)The seven episodes of the serial had individual titles: "The Dead Planet", "The Survivors", "The Escape", "The Ambush", "The Expedition", "The Ordeal" and "The Rescue".
- Sandy's link concern was a slightly different matter, albeit one with the same origin. The first link in the article uses the title "The Survivors" instead of "The Daleks episode 2", because that was the title under which that episode was broadcast; however, the Wikipedia article on that episode is at The Daleks, so I piped the link. If a reader clicks on "The Survivors" and arrives at The Daleks, he can read down to The Daleks#Production and discover that
- Now, I don't think we should have to explain all that to readers of Dalek. I had hoped that the link to Doctor Who story title controversy and the footnote to the Andrew Pixley essay would suffice, but if you think we need to give further explanation I can try to wordsmith something. It'll be tough to avoid self-reference though. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- What else remains? Marskell 08:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm striking my remove, since my concerns have been addressed - if you're fine with the prose, so am I. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, what I'll do is finish going through it, so that all the prose has been checked. The link concern sounds like one of those complicated pup cult "canon" things; I don't think it a remove basis and I trust Josiah's suggestion that readers will find the target they're looking for. Marskell 19:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Inches away. A little work remaining for "Other appearances". I have left a note on the talk. Marskell 18:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Taken care of, and thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Note on closing: Sandy has struck the referencing remove and the prose has been gone over. I'm not entirely happy with "Other appearances" and "Merchandise", as I think some of it remains trivial (I removed what I thought was the obvious stuff), but "taking a flamethrower to the place" can often cause more problems than it solves, and I don't think what remains rises to remove. In sum, this has been extensively looked over, the referencing is robust, and the prose is much better. So a keep (finally!). Marskell 19:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
V for Vendetta (film)[edit]
Review commentary[edit]
- Messages left at Mailer diablo and Films. Sandy (Talk) 22:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
As there's been a rather heated war over the "Letter V and the Number 5" section, this needs a review since it appears consensus is to keep the section in. The problem? The section is entire original research, and does not cite any reliable sources to back up the claims. No featured article should have original research in it, period. If the section doesn't stay out, it shouldn't be featured. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
NOTE: This was originally removed from FAR because it was on the main page the same day. As continued talk page discussion has not resulted in a fix, I'm putting the listing back up. Featured articles should not have original research. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see any OR in that paragraph. Can you point to a particular statement that is original research? — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 18:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The letter V and the number 5[edit]
Heck, I'll go through some of them and see.
There is repeated reference to the letter “V”, as both letter and number, throughout the film.General introduction summary statement, doesn't need sources, is justified by further statements that should be or are soured.This would be fine if the rest of it was sourced. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
For example, V’s introductory monologue to Evey (above) begins and ends with “V”, has five sentences, and contains 49 words that begin with “V”.Trivial statement, can be deduced from counting the monologue's letters and sentences.Perhaps.
Similar references are made through V's background, choice of words and action.General introduction summary statement, doesn't need sources, is justified by further statements that should be or are soured.Agreed, but a lack of sourcing...The whole point of the section is about this statement and items are shown below listing these instances. Do you want the script?If the script is a source for it, then yes, sourcing the material is a good start. But it may cause problems...- Fixed enough.
V is held in Larkhill cell number “V”.Sourced.Not sourced. Also, there's no indication that this is in fact relevant to the section - it may look obvious, but is it?Its sourced directly for the movie no OR about this statement! It is relevant because he was known as prisoner 5 his identity was lost even to himself (all facts from the movie) He took the latin 5 that was on the door (ie V) as his name, again all from the movie.I see no source in the article for it. Am I missing something?- Fact from the comic book, script & movie. Is this disputed somehow? How many references to the script are needed? The reference to the script below should be fine :-)
- Fixed enough.
- Fact from the comic book, script & movie. Is this disputed somehow? How many references to the script are needed? The reference to the script below should be fine :-)
It is revealed that his favorite phrase is “By the power of truth, I, a living man, have conquered the universe”, which is a translation of the 5 "V"ed Latin phrase: “Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.”- Needs a source, but is not original research. Should be written as "it is revealed in the film" or whatever to imply that it was indeed revealed in the movie.
- It is original research, as it's a translation, and I don't know Latin so cannot vouch for the accuracy of the translation, nor can I be sure of its relevance to the section.
- Not quite
- Vi veri universum vivus vici found in wikipedia
Latin proverbs in wikiquoteThe Tragical History of Doctor Faustus. by Christopher Marlowe
Asside from all of this it is directly quoted from the movie, both the latin and its english translation.EVEY: (She turns back to the carving) I was reading the inscription. What is it?V: A Latin quotation. A motto. "Vi veri veniversum vivus vici." "By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe."EVEY: (She nods) Yes, I suppose you have. This place is the only universe I have right now. Undated Early draftBecause it is a direct quote from the movie I see no reason why this is questioned as OR!First, Wikipedia cannot be a source for itself. Second, the article does not state that it's the film's translation, merely that the words translate and we're supposed to take the article's word for it. Third, this could be fixed by saying that the character translates it as such, or that the translation is indeed this, but it needs a source.Script as source addedThanks. Please change the statement in the article, however, that the translation comes from the script.
- Not quite
- It is original research, as it's a translation, and I don't know Latin so cannot vouch for the accuracy of the translation, nor can I be sure of its relevance to the section.
- Needs a source, but is not original research. Should be written as "it is revealed in the film" or whatever to imply that it was indeed revealed in the movie.
In a dance with Evey, the song V chooses is number five on his jukebox.Trivial information that can be sourced from the movie itself.Fair enough, maybe.
When V confronts Creedy in his home, he plays Beethoven's "Fifth" Symphony, whose opening notes have a rhythmic pattern that resembles the letter “V” in Morse code (···–).The first part is a trivial fact, and the second part is well-known information that should be very easy to source.Second part, if the second part is well-known (and I was a music minor in college and never noted the morse code similarity), it should be easy to source.The last point is the best but here is everything I have found from just inside wikipediaGo to Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven) and hear the 1st 4 notes
or you can listen to this (ⓘ). in the article it even has this section It is commonly asserted that the opening four-note rhythmic motif (short-short-short-long; see above) is repeated throughout the symphony, unifying it. Here are examples taken from the Web: "it is a rhythmic pattern (dit-dit-dit-dot*)... Then you follow the internal link provided and you will see that it has a rhythmic pattern resembling the letter “V” in Morse code (···–)
That's fine. Where's the source for this article that says it resmebles it? Hell, where's the source there? Furthermore, where's the evidence that this was intentional? Source for that?
If one goes to Beethoven's Fifth Symphony in popular culture#1940s you will find During World War II the BBC adopted the first four notes as the call sign of the European Service principally because they represent the letter V for Victory in Morse code. The irony that they were composed by a German was not lost on many of the audience or for the more musically educated that it was "Fate knocking on the door" of the Third Reich.
That's fine as well. There's still no source for that. I know it, you know it, does random user who isn't educated in music history or British history going to?
or Beethoven's Fifth Symphony in popular culture#1980s In Chapter 8, Book 1 of the graphic novel V For Vendetta, the Symphony is identified as the piece played while title character V commits an assassination. The song is significant because, as is noted by one of the detectives, the initial "da da da dum!" is morse code for the letter "V".
And we still assert this without a source. If we want to attach that to the graphic novel, we have to be clear about it.
The best reference is the human ear please (ⓘ) to the 1st 4 notes. You will also see above in my previous notes that they are rythmically (dit-dit-dit-dot). If you check morse code you will see that ***- is the letter "v".
The human ear is most certainly not a reliable source.
BBC News "Next came the realization that the three short notes and one long at the start of Beethoven's Fifth echoed the Morse code for "victory". The V sound on drums immediately became the call sign of all the BBC's European services."
Okay, and whenever you want to add that to the article...
Added
At the moment, the source is still a random website. The following line w/the BBC is fine, but before that is not.
- now its both.
The Symphony’s opening was used as a call-sign in the European broadcasts of the BBC during World War II in reference to Winston Churchill’s “V for Victory”.Should be very easy to cite.And yet, months later, it still isn't.Look aboveYeah, it's still not there.- now it is
The film’s title itself, is also a reference to “V for Victory”.Might be OR. This sentence is on shaky ground.Yup.Philip Coppens an investigative journalist, author and founder of Frontier Magazine; He was nice enough to do a review.On a self-published website, from the looks of it. Probably not a reliable source unless we attributed the information to him.- now cited
- Okay, but needs attribution in the text.
- done
- Okay, but needs attribution in the text.
- now cited
In the battle with Creedy and his men at Victoria station, V forms a “V” with his daggers just before he throws them (shown in picture above).- Trivial fact, sourced using a picture.
- Relevance?
- Trivial fact, sourced using a picture.
After the battle, when V is mortally wounded, he leaves a “V” signature in his own blood.Trivial fact as above.Fair, although it's an assumption that doesn't belong here.
The destruction of Parliament results in a display of fireworks which form the letter “V”, which is also an inverted red-on-black “A” symbol for anarchy.Cited.No it isn't.Sure it is. It has an internal wikipedia reference. It also used to have an external reference to A for Anarchy, E for Execution for some reason it was removed. Not only that, the v is seen in the trailer on youtube or as an image of the v dominoes here.Okay, but still, not cited.- was internally now also externally... again
- Thanks.
- was internally now also externally... again
Like the Old Bailey and Larkhill, Parliament was destroyed on the fifth of November.Trivial, by definition.Not to an American.In real life Old Bailey and Parliament never have been blown up so I don't know why this would only be known to a Brit! It is a part of the movie and their destructions have been mentioned many times in the article.So think about how someone unfamiliar with the film or with British history is going to interpret this. That was my point here. At best, it's an in-universe statement without context, at worst it's an amazingly inaccurate statement in a featured article.- I don't think that in the 1996 movie independence day they would have to reference to the script saying that only a model was blown up and not the actual White House ¯\(°_°)/¯
- Does it present it as such?
- does now
- Does it present it as such?
- I don't think that in the 1996 movie independence day they would have to reference to the script saying that only a model was blown up and not the actual White House ¯\(°_°)/¯
Finally, when Evey first tells V her name, he remarks that it is ironic, since her name (pronounced "eevee") is "vee" said backwards and forwards put together.Trivial fact from the script itself.Complete original research, and the relevance is questionable because there's nothing to indicate it's intentional.This sentence is silly but it is sourced from the script so again it is not OR.It's still OR.- Only OR if it is made up from the author not if taken from the script, movie or comic.
- So which is it?
- In all three actually, but its not in the section any more. if someone want to add it just ref it to the script.
- So which is it?
- Only OR if it is made up from the author not if taken from the script, movie or comic.
- I can see only one sentence here that should be removed. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 18:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- I see a number of unsourced, poorly sourced, or entirely useless and trivial information that doesn't belong. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hope I helped :-) -- UKPhoenix79 11:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, not really. A start would be to add sources, really. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- maybe this time? -- UKPhoenix79 09:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've struck the parts that are all set, there are still issues that need to be addressed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Looks all finished :-) -- UKPhoenix79 11:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've struck the parts that are all set, there are still issues that need to be addressed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- maybe this time? -- UKPhoenix79 09:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, not really. A start would be to add sources, really. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hope I helped :-) -- UKPhoenix79 11:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- I see a number of unsourced, poorly sourced, or entirely useless and trivial information that doesn't belong. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- I can see only one sentence here that should be removed. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 18:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Comments[edit]
- Why mention all of this, though? It just seems like trivia. Has anyone but Wikipedia cared enough to write about the importance of all of these references? --W.marsh 18:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- I second Shikari completely. Of course it's all trivia when taken individually. (how many times did he say "trivial", after all?) But taken together, it becomes a notable theme in the movie. A good list of some of the very subtle (and not-so-subtle) examples, then, just serves to illustrate how carefully the film was put together. (And I have no doubt that someone somewhere has certainly compiled a similar if not much-more-extensive list.) At the same time, if it's all obvious trivia which can be found simply by paying attention, it can hardly be OR. --Arvedui 09:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- So where's the evidence, then? If it's this obvious and notable, where's the reliable sourcing? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It is not mentioned in any reliable sources because it's so obvious. I think they only need one reference that talks about that mentions the subtle V references, and the rest of the entries they can just leave as they are. Since they've already done that, the section is fine.--Dark Kubrick 00:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Are we allowed to just accept so-called "obvious" things? Some may be somewhat obvious (the "V" with the daggers, I'd even accept cell V), but the morse code/Beethoven thing? Keep in mind, The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but the sentence you're mentioning appears to be cited.--Dark Kubrick 02:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- We both are, I think. I missed the cites that have been added, but I will note that no one would ever consider "shadowgalaxy.net" reliable for this context. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but the sentence you're mentioning appears to be cited.--Dark Kubrick 02:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with some of your comment Jeff and appreciate the time you are taking to troubleshoot this article. However, I don't think you're taking the time to properly evaluate the situation or the evidence that is being provided. If you read the Shadowgalaxy article you will notice that it mentions that the Beethoven reference is actually from the original graphic novel itself. So instead of simply saying that the refernce is no good, a more constructive criticism would have been to tell us to reference the graphic novel instead of Shadowgalaxy. (With that said, I'm hoping this review will at least, last a few weeks, as it may be hard for me to respond to you promptly.) But in any case, I encourage you to examine more carefully the arguments being presented and make sure you go into more detail when describing your concerns. (Keep up what you are doing though.) --P-Chan 04:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- So why not source the novel? I can't stress this enough - little is sourced in the section, and the few sources there are are not currently reliable. If there were reliable sources and proper attribution, I wouldn't be beating this drum. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Reference the novel directly? That's a great suggestion. What I'm getting at here is that I don't think you are thinking critically about the evidence or situation, because throughout the entire discussion you've repeatedly forgotten about the progress we've made. This won't happen anymore, because from now on you and I will keep a very accurate record of what's been accomplished. For example, we've come to an agreement that the Beethoven statmenet is fine, as long as it references the novel. (I will now start a new section below.)--P-Chan 04:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- If there has been process made, I'm not seeing it. Being told to use my ear or told that it's obvious when it's not isn't really progress. And no, we haven't come to agreement with the Beethoven statement, really, unless it's worded very differently. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Again how can this be OR when the BBC itself says that is the reason it was used? BBC News "Next came the realization that the three short notes and one long at the start of Beethoven's Fifth echoed the Morse code for "victory". The V sound on drums immediately became the call sign of all the BBC's European services." This is a proven fact now, pure and simple, end of story! -- UKPhoenix79 09:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- If there has been process made, I'm not seeing it. Being told to use my ear or told that it's obvious when it's not isn't really progress. And no, we haven't come to agreement with the Beethoven statement, really, unless it's worded very differently. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Reference the novel directly? That's a great suggestion. What I'm getting at here is that I don't think you are thinking critically about the evidence or situation, because throughout the entire discussion you've repeatedly forgotten about the progress we've made. This won't happen anymore, because from now on you and I will keep a very accurate record of what's been accomplished. For example, we've come to an agreement that the Beethoven statmenet is fine, as long as it references the novel. (I will now start a new section below.)--P-Chan 04:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- So why not source the novel? I can't stress this enough - little is sourced in the section, and the few sources there are are not currently reliable. If there were reliable sources and proper attribution, I wouldn't be beating this drum. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with some of your comment Jeff and appreciate the time you are taking to troubleshoot this article. However, I don't think you're taking the time to properly evaluate the situation or the evidence that is being provided. If you read the Shadowgalaxy article you will notice that it mentions that the Beethoven reference is actually from the original graphic novel itself. So instead of simply saying that the refernce is no good, a more constructive criticism would have been to tell us to reference the graphic novel instead of Shadowgalaxy. (With that said, I'm hoping this review will at least, last a few weeks, as it may be hard for me to respond to you promptly.) But in any case, I encourage you to examine more carefully the arguments being presented and make sure you go into more detail when describing your concerns. (Keep up what you are doing though.) --P-Chan 04:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the nominator that the section violates WP:NOR, and note that there are stability concerns with the article. Jkelly 21:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)- Mind telling us in more detail how there may be concerns with the stability of the article, to see if it is actionable? - Mailer Diablo 12:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- I was misled by the flurry of main-page-day editing, so please disregard. Jkelly 00:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Mind telling us in more detail how there may be concerns with the stability of the article, to see if it is actionable? - Mailer Diablo 12:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- I note that at time of promotion this section was included in its entireity and not raised as an issue [20]. I was not aware of this until notification of FARC, so I'll have a look through the whole thing in just a while. - Mailer Diablo 22:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- If I had noticed it then, I would have objected on those grounds. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Step-by-step approach[edit]
This is going to be an interesting process. If I'm not mistaken, we have already determined that there is a "V theme" in V for Vendetta. What we have to do now is decide what is in the V/5 theme and what is not. Is this not correct?--P-Chan 04:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Well since the section is cited now I suggest that we close this review. -- UKPhoenix79 05:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've been busy with other things, I still have questions. Check back in a couple hours. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- well this is now referenced so lets close this -- UKPhoenix79 11:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Status?[edit]
Have concerns of all reviewers been addressed ? Sandy (Talk) 14:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- I feel there are more important concerns now, at closer look. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
So I've relooked at this again per request, and the biggest problem areas are dealt with in terms of my original complaint about sourcing. A few new notes as I give it a second closer look over.
- I still don't think we should be referencing shadowgalaxy.net as a source on anything per current standards at WP:V/WP:RS.
- I'd prefer if the things sources to the novel were actually cited as such, but I'm confident it will be dealt with.
- Are all of these relevant to the theme? Are we confident that we've indeed touched on them all? I'm reviewing some of the cites now, and I'm noticing something disturbing: Boudreaux's annotations do not, in fact, source the statement that "Similar to the graphic novel, there is repeated reference to the letter “V” and the number five throughout the film." The source, in fact, does not even mention the film, which was - at best - in development at the time of the most recent cited update. Perhaps some of these notes would be good in the graphic novel section, but I'm a) not at all convinced that these are relevant to here, and, more importantly, b) the notes don't back the entire assertion of the section up! It definitely puts the relevance of the section in question, and makes me question the rest of the sources.
More later. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I think the reference to Boudreaux sources the part of the statement that there is repeated reference to the letter V in the graphic novel - it doesn't necessarily have to provide a source for the exact phrasing here, otherwise we'd be left with "The graphic novel repeatedly references the letter 'V'.[ref] So does the film." The case for the film also containing references to "V" needs to be made by the cited examples that follow, so I don't see that as a particular problem. I do notice that some of those examples still aren't cited - some of which might be regarded as obvious, but some which are distinctly dodgy: "fifth of November, the only month containing the letter V" - hardly likely to have choosen 10th June, when 5th November is Guy Fawke's night (or if he had would there be a case for saying "in Roman times June was spelt JVNE, the U later replaced the symbolic V and 10 is twice five"?). There are more than enough examples without this uncited stuff, you don't need to list every occurence to make the point. Yomanganitalk 15:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I'd review the article, only this review is too hard to follow with the load of page breakups. LuciferMorgan 01:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I'm going to reply to badlydrawnjeffs comments.
- That is a minor gripe that in no way should affect its Featured Article status
- Sounds good
- The whole section is cited and sourced giving support and credence to the sections topic and theme. So like you said earlier "This would be fine if the rest of it was sourced." I am also surprised that you now bring up this extremely helpful website now! This page has everything that I have now managed to find sources for and in fact supports the "V & 5" theme by referencing even more v themes then shown in this section.
- I again move for this nomination to be removed! The nominating factors have now been dealt with. -- UKPhoenix79 08:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I only really noticed the complete irrelevance of the lead-in source then, that's why I broguth it up. The entire section is built up upon a source that doesn't even mention the film, thus causing problems with the relevance and the basis of the section. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
FARC commentary[edit]
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are OR and referencing (1c). Marskell 14:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I see there is work going on right now, but there is no consensus to close. Moving to keep it on track. Marskell 14:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The rest of the article looks good, but having a major section that's based on a source that doesn't once reference the subject combined with other sourcing and relevance issues worries me. My concerns evaporate with either a) a worthwhile, reliable source for the basis of the section, or b) the removal of the section entirely. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Again, I don't see a problem with that source, as it establishes that "V" is used symbolically throughout the novel. The sources that follow need to establish that it is also used in the same way in the film. Where the film follows the book and the symbolism is indicated in the book, then I think it is fair to say that the film is duplicating the symbolism (even unintentionally). I really have a problem with the strained "fifth of November" link though as any thematic use of "V" there is clearly secondary to the symbolism of the destruction of the Houses of Parliament on Guy Fawkes Night. Yomanganitalk 14:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- The source is for the novel, not the film. Given the complete difference in tone (the novel was inspired in part by Thatcher, the film having more of a connection to current events), it's entirely reasonable to request a bit more in regards to the theme in this case as well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but the source establishes the repetitive use of V in the novel as stated in that sentence, the later sources establish more specific uses in the film. Also, while the tone may differ, I think there is enough of a connection that if a use of V is established as symbolic in the book and it is used identically in the film then we can take it as a symbolic use in the film without demanding a separate film specific citation. What requires citing are uses in the film that don't appear in the book, or uses where nobody has credibly established the intentional symbolic use in the book. Yomanganitalk 16:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- But at the same time, a closer look at the initial source may in fact map out a pattern in the book, but it's not a pattern that is directly replicated in the film that I know of, nor does our article assert as much. Much of the source has to do with the types of books V has on the shelf, things like that, something the film article doesn't touch. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- The symbolism goes deeper in the book, but unless you suppose that all uses of V in the film which duplicate the use in the book are coincidental I can't see your point. We don't claim the film isn't adapted from the book because Alan Moore had his name taken off - whether he admits it or not the book is clearly the source material - so it's not a leap to use a source based on the book for themes that are obviously drawn from it. For example, we wouldn't demand different citations for an analysis of Hamlet's psyche if we were writing about a film production rather than the play (unless the film introduced an new aspect that was not in the play and then only for that particular aspect). We shouldn't demand that level of precision here either. Yomanganitalk 17:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- But at the same time, a closer look at the initial source may in fact map out a pattern in the book, but it's not a pattern that is directly replicated in the film that I know of, nor does our article assert as much. Much of the source has to do with the types of books V has on the shelf, things like that, something the film article doesn't touch. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but the source establishes the repetitive use of V in the novel as stated in that sentence, the later sources establish more specific uses in the film. Also, while the tone may differ, I think there is enough of a connection that if a use of V is established as symbolic in the book and it is used identically in the film then we can take it as a symbolic use in the film without demanding a separate film specific citation. What requires citing are uses in the film that don't appear in the book, or uses where nobody has credibly established the intentional symbolic use in the book. Yomanganitalk 16:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- The source is for the novel, not the film. Given the complete difference in tone (the novel was inspired in part by Thatcher, the film having more of a connection to current events), it's entirely reasonable to request a bit more in regards to the theme in this case as well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment "Music" section needs citations. LuciferMorgan 04:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Still FA-level. Wiki-newbie 16:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The references need to be cleaned up, exanded, and to follow a consistent style. Cite web (rather than cite news) was used for news sources, so the news information is obscured (information like author, title, publication date). This occurs on a large number of magazine and news footnotes. Readers need to be able to locate the news articles should the weblinks go dead. There are some footnotes which are just URLs - the information should be completed in a bibliographic style. Last access date should be given on all web sources. Please use a consistent footnote style: some entries have last name, first name on author, while others have first name last name. Sandy (Talk) 04:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's good actionable advice there. We'll get to that in the future for sure.--P-Chan 04:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Tentative keep, given original concerns are addressed, and article is in good hands that would address/are addressing any subsequent concerns that are being raised slowly. - Mailer Diablo 18:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Closure[edit]
This has dragged on far far too long, almost to the point of silliness. Let’s end this soon. There are far more critical areas in this article (AND ELSEWHERE IN LIFE) that deserve our time and attention. :) In fact, I find it quite strange that the two other sections in Themes have not undergone the same level of scrutiny that this one has, even though they contain information that is more controversial. If you want to help me troubleshoot those areas, please do, but let's close this FARC so we can all go home.
As Yomangani has quite insightfully pointed out, the graphic novel reference establishes that there is a V theme in the novel, and since several of the V references in the film have been directly pulled from the novel, I think we can comfortably include those references in the film's V theme. Even if the novel were disregarded, you must admit that there are all sorts of personal signatures from V that are clearly intended to be based on a V theme. Fireworks, signatures, monologues and messages on mirrors... these are no brainers, and to say that all of these happen to be coincidences, certainly would be a stretch credibility.
You're not going to get a 100% level of assurance Jeff, but what you will get is a very robust argument for the V symbolism in the film.--P-Chan 07:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Your points as usual are right on the mark. Close -- UKPhoenix79 08:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- I still think that's ORish in nature, and I think we should be more careful about that. I also recognize that i'm in the minority here, but whatever the closing party decides, I won't complain about much more. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well if there is anything specific you want to suggest or want clarified feel free to mention them (and I'm going to emphasize the word specific here). Notice how Sandy just wrote a list of specific, actionable comments for us to address. We're working at a very micro-level right now, so clear and actionable communication is key.--P-Chan 16:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- With all due respect, I think I've been very clear and actionable regarding my specific complaint - the section is OR and the source that justifies it does not back up the claims made in the section. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well if there is anything specific you want to suggest or want clarified feel free to mention them (and I'm going to emphasize the word specific here). Notice how Sandy just wrote a list of specific, actionable comments for us to address. We're working at a very micro-level right now, so clear and actionable communication is key.--P-Chan 16:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- (reply after edit conflict) Thanks for the inquiry on my talk page about closing this FARC: Marskell and Joelr31 sometimes close FARCs early if there is clear keep consensus. There's only a weak/tentative keep consensus here, and an outstanding referencing issue of the music section, raised by Lucifer. For example,
- (Is this referenced, or is it opinion/editorializing?) Many of the tracks from the original score evince notes with a discordant, metallic, or fleeting theme, contributing to the generally dystopic atmosphere of the story.
- That's a good point. This statement must have been just dropped in by someone after frontpage day. This will be removed, as it is inappropriate.--P-Chan 17:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- I also mentioned that the references need to be cleaned up, which hasn't been done yet. I just fixed the last URL, but still see examples of problems. For example
- (This is not a Warner Bros. reference - it's IMDB, which I believe some consider to be a less than reliable source. Your references should accurately indicate the sources.) Warner Bros. (2006) V for Vendetta Unmasked [TV-Special]. United States: Warner Bros.
- (This reference is missing the author - Utichi, Joe. ) Exclusive Interview with Stephen Fry - V for Vendetta. filmfocus.com. Retrieved on 19 April 2006.
- (This reference has an incorrect title). Exclusive Interview with Stephen Fry - V for Vendetta. filmfocus.com. Retrieved on 19 April 2006.
- (This reference is missing the author and the publication date - if you use cite news on all the news sources you're less likely to miss information.) V for Vendetta. Christianitytoday.com. Retrieved on 29 April 2006.
- Please check that all your references are complete and accurate, since almost every one I happened to click on wasn't correct: FAs represent our best work, and readers need to be able to locate the sources if the links go dead in the future. If you have the wrong titles on web references, it will be hard to find the info on a search. IF you don't include author and pub date on news sources, it will be harder to find those sources in hard print.)
- (Is this referenced, or is it Original research, editorializing, or opinion?) The story retains some anarchist themes from the original story, using them as a means of examining terrorism and state control in a modern context. V for Vendetta sets the Gunpowder Plot as V’s historical inspiration, contributing to his choice of timing, language and appearance. (For example, V adopts the identity of a dead man called Rookwood, named for Ambrose Rokewood; colleagues of this "Rookwood" mentioned in the film are called Percy and Keyes, also the names of Gunpowder Plotters). Revenge is a central motivation for V, the film stressing explicit thematic connections to The Count of Monte Cristo. The film also incorporates the idea of V as the embodiment of an idea rather than an individual, minimizing V's past, and giving the viewer no glimpse of a humanizing face.
- I also saw a cite needed tag.
- I've never understood badlydrawnjeff's commentary on the article, but then, I haven't seen the movie. The only way I can verify that the article isn't extensive original research/opinion/editorializing is by checking sources in a thoroughly and correctly referenced article. I'll be glad to have another look when the referencing work is completed. If the OR concerns aren't addressed by thorough referencing, I'll be a Remove. Sandy (Talk) 14:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- More: where does the statement about the first four notes of Beethoven's fifth signifying the letter V come from?
- Please check section again for given refs and striked conversations above for this. -- UKPhoenix79 11:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. This has been addressed numerous times in the review.--P-Chan 18:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please check section again for given refs and striked conversations above for this. -- UKPhoenix79 11:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ref needed on "seems to allude to contemporary 9/11 conspiracy theories" - according to whom?
- That statement keeps popping up in the article every few months. I agree. That statement has got to go.--P-Chan 19:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- How do we know the V on Big Ben's clock face was intentional? Is there a source for that, or is that Wiki original research/opinion?
- Week statement that I have given up on removing since it keeps on being re-inserted. -- UKPhoenix79 11:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- It has been removed.--P-Chan 23:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Week statement that I have given up on removing since it keeps on being re-inserted. -- UKPhoenix79 11:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ref needed on Prothero evoking image of Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, etc. According to whom?
- More: where does the statement about the first four notes of Beethoven's fifth signifying the letter V come from?
- Each time I peek into this article, I find more of what looks like original research, essay, and opinion - please comb through it and thoroughly reference everything; I'll be a Remove next time I check in if everything that looks like someone's opinion isn't referenced and attributed. Sandy (Talk) 00:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sandy. You're one of the few who are looking at this article critically and pointing out specific issues that we can address. If all you're doing is peeking, then I totally encourage you to do it more, as it provides us with an independent set of eyes. Your feedback is very much appreciated, because it leads to better things. Thanks.--P-Chan 00:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Why, thanks, P-Chan - I'm starting to wonder if *everyone else* took all of December off, as I seem to be the only person responding on quite a few FARs :-) On the other hand, considering the volume at the top of this article's FAR, I'm not surprised others aren't looking - I sure didn't when I saw all that verbiage. If I have to read that much back and forth to found out why the Beethoven bit isn't referenced, that's a good reason for referencing Beethoven - it's either OR, or it's not, and a long discussion shouldn't be needed. Sandy (Talk) 06:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well that's a misrepresentation. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't reference Beethoven. I'm saying that Beethoven is already referenced. In fact, there are two references on that sentence and both of those references are very robust. Therefore, we should not have to address that topic again, because we've addressed it so many times and have resolved it. In any case, Merry Christmas Sandy. --P-Chan 16:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ooops! Actually, it just occurred to me that you may have been referring to the Beethoven line in the Music Section. If that were the case, then yes, you're right. It wasn't referenced and should have been and is now. Sorry about that... and Merry Christmas still.--P-Chan 21:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well that's a misrepresentation. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't reference Beethoven. I'm saying that Beethoven is already referenced. In fact, there are two references on that sentence and both of those references are very robust. Therefore, we should not have to address that topic again, because we've addressed it so many times and have resolved it. In any case, Merry Christmas Sandy. --P-Chan 16:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Why, thanks, P-Chan - I'm starting to wonder if *everyone else* took all of December off, as I seem to be the only person responding on quite a few FARs :-) On the other hand, considering the volume at the top of this article's FAR, I'm not surprised others aren't looking - I sure didn't when I saw all that verbiage. If I have to read that much back and forth to found out why the Beethoven bit isn't referenced, that's a good reason for referencing Beethoven - it's either OR, or it's not, and a long discussion shouldn't be needed. Sandy (Talk) 06:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sandy. You're one of the few who are looking at this article critically and pointing out specific issues that we can address. If all you're doing is peeking, then I totally encourage you to do it more, as it provides us with an independent set of eyes. Your feedback is very much appreciated, because it leads to better things. Thanks.--P-Chan 00:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Each time I peek into this article, I find more of what looks like original research, essay, and opinion - please comb through it and thoroughly reference everything; I'll be a Remove next time I check in if everything that looks like someone's opinion isn't referenced and attributed. Sandy (Talk) 00:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Remove. Another look - the WP:WIAFA deficiencies in this article continue to astound me, and I don't understand how it got by FAC (it had 3 Supports and one Oppose - thin).
- Comment: Many of the problems you’ve mentioned have been addressed through new changes and through reverting parts of the article back to its original FA state. I stand firmly behind the FA quality of the article at the time of its promotion. That said, the comments mentioned here have improved the article beyond its original state. (Standards seem to constantly be on the increase at Wikipedia, and as those standards increase, so will this article.)
Again, starting from the bottom (and hoping the top is better):
- Look at the section on DVD release - how is an ad for retail outlets considered of encyclopedic notability ????
- Best Buy, Circuit City and Target each offered exclusive collectibles with their two-disc special edition copies of V For Vendetta. Best Buy offered an all-out collector's set, which contained four limited-edition art prints, a half scale (1:2) replica of V's mask, and a display box. Circuit City and Target both offered a limited-edition slip sleeve with a lenticular cover and a 64-page excerpt of the graphic novel.
- The entire section has limited encyclopedic content, borders on advertisement, and could be deleted.
- Addressed: The materials concerning the retail outlets has been removed. This section should stay but should be modified to include a description of the actual contents of the DVDs. --P-Chan 05:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- (Repetitious, redundant prose:) Even though the film is based on the graphic novel, there are several key differences between the two that make them fundamentally different from one another.
- Addressed: --P-Chan 05:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- (Redundant prose:) made it the target of both criticism and praise from
differentsociopolitical groups.
- Addressed: --P-Chan 05:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- (POV, many? and missing punctuation) Many libertarians, especially at the Mises Institute's LewRockwell.com see the film as a positive depiction
- Addressed:--P-Chan 05:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- (Direct quotes need citation:) Justin Raimondo, the libertarian editor of Antiwar.com, praised the film for its sociopolitical self-awareness and saw the film’s success as "helping to fight the cultural rot that the War Party feeds on".
- Addressed: For some unknown reason, several of the references to Justin Raimondo and his article were removed after the original FA. --P-Chan 05:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- (Redundant prose:) taking in an estimated
total of$25,642,340.
- Addressed:--P-Chan 05:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- (Awkward prose:) Despite the film taking place in the UK, the film did not reach number one at the UK box office on opening weekend; ("it" did not reach?)
- Addressed: --P-Chan 06:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- (WP:WTA and snake - sentence too long - and, and, and, and:) However, the BBC's Jonathan Ross, a keen fan of the graphic novel, blasted the film, calling it a "woeful, depressing failure" and stating that the "cast of notable and familiar talents such as John Hurt and Stephen Rea stand little chance amid the wreckage of the Wachowski siblings' dismal script and its particularly poor dialogue", and David Denby of the New Yorker described it as "a dunderheaded pop fantasia".
- Addressed: Reverted section back to original FA. --P-Chan 06:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- (What is the "moreover" connection?) Moreover, one of the most negative reviews came from Michael Medved, who called the film "V for vile, vicious, vacuous, venal, verminous and vomitaceous." Medved also said that the audience will lose interest about halfway through the film and that it has a confusing ending.
- Addressed: Reverted section back to original FA. --P-Chan 06:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Confused - trying to check on some changes. I questioned the word "Moreover", but a significant criticism by a well-known movie reviewer is now gone? I didn't object to the sentence, which was well sourced - just wondered why it was preceded by "moreover" (which seemed like a WP:WTA) - deleting criticism from a well-known critic doesn't make sense to me. ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Addressed: Reverted section back to original FA. --P-Chan 06:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- That's an excellent question Sandy. It's always good to ask questions.
- The removal of the Michael Medved comment was no accident. Why he was removed, has been discussed a few times in the V for Vendetta (talk), and has been brought up by multiple users. You're probably new to a lot of it, so I'll give you the lowdown.
- 1) The person: Michael Medved is not a pure film critic. The other critics in the reception section are known primarily for their role as film critics, whereas Michael Medved is seem as a conservative pundit as well. This is the same reason why Ted Baehr is not listed in the reception section, but the political commentary section instead: because there can be a perceived conflict of interest.
- 2) The review: Michael Medved’s film review is simply not a detailed as the reviews of other critics (or conservative commentators). Plus, there is a very strong political flavor to what he has written.
- 3) The Balance: Ted Baehr and Don Feder are already listed as social conservative pundits in the political section. Placing Mr. Medved in that section, I think overlaps too much.
- However, that last point of course, is just my opinion. I’m open to your opinions on this Sandy. We should have some open dialogue on this. I would like to hear what you have to say.--P-Chan 04:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't want to get too much into the politics of Wikipedia (that's usually A Bad Place To Go and Not Good For Blood Pressure), but I was surprised that a blogger of something as biased as a site called antiwar.com was there, and Medved (well known commentator) wasn't - seems unbalanced, and whether these people are known mostly for being film critics doesn't seem relevant, considering the article makes unattributed political commentary (one blogger or writer compares a character to O'Reilly and that makes it into the article - really should be attributed as one writer's opinion, rather than stated as fact). I do consider Medved a film/TV critic - he has branched out from his early days, but I believe he began as a TV critic, concerned about the effects television was having on the pop culture. I was more concerned that I'd have to now re-read the entire article, since there were big changes. I'll do that after Indon is satisfied, but I do see a lot of "political" statements that need better attribution as someone's opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- (Awkward sentence, single-sentence paragraph) As of December 2006, V for Vendetta was listed in the top 250 films as voted on by IMDb users, occupying the 116th position.
- Addressed: --P-Chan 06:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- (Prose redundancy) With the intention of making the story relevant to today’s audience, the filmmakers included
manymodern day referencesas well.("audiences"? Is modern-day hyphenated? Not sure - ask Tony. Today - that word will become outdated.)
- Addressed: --P-Chan 06:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- (uncited, choppy paragraphs)
- The film's fictional fascist government deliberately used a biological agent against its own people to attain power, paralleling the burning of the Reichstag.
- Addressed: Removed through a revert to the original FA. --P-Chan 06:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Several times during the film, such as Valerie's note, characters make referrences to "America's war" expanding beyond control, presumably an outsized War on Terror. Terrorism and protesting over the course of action to take grew to high levels, resulting in Norsefire developing their ploy to seize power by deploying a biological weapon against Britain itself.
- Addressed: Removed through a revert to the original FA. --P-Chan 06:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- "Modern fears of totalitarianism" has too many unattributed statements - even though they are cited, they are someone's opinion, and need to say who is the holder of the opinion, unless it's a statement of the filmmaker. Too much POV here. For example, the last paragraph of that section does refer to the filmmaker's statements - the others don't say.
- Will address: This will be addressed in the future and will take some time.--P-Chan 06:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Themes starts with an entire paragraph that looks like someone's opinion, but only one sentence is cited.
- (uncited) Major theatres decorated the exterior of their buildings with Norsefire flags.
- Addressed: This has been removed. --P-Chan 06:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
That's as far up as I read - doesn't meet WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I encourage you to keep reading and adding your comments. This is probably one of the most effective ways of maintaining the quality of this article (through a very critical evaluation).--P-Chan 06:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- P-Chan, I'm glad you're still so hard at work on improvements. I seem to be the only one reviewing: maybe you can urge others to have another look now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- My primary concern right now is satisfying your concerns with this article. I'm sure you can understand from my perspective that when you get to two months into a FARC your main focus becomes compliance with policy. That said, I think I'm keeping an objective eye as to what comments are helpful and appropriate and what comments are not.
- I really respect your comments and think you have a good eye as to what constitutes an FAC. Keep up the good work.--P-Chan 17:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, P-Chan; I'll look in on it again soon. In our defense (with respect to the two months), the first nom was removed (too close to main page date), and later restarted - but it has been a long one :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Look forward to it.--P-Chan 23:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Section break[edit]
- Fresh review: as of [21] (Note: please don't response my comments in the middle, because it looks awful, hard to follow and breaks-up my full comments. Please add your responses after my signature.)
- The license for Image:V for Vendetta Portman.jpg is not correct from the source. I updated the license which in turns CSD-ed. Please remove it. (ah it has been deleted before I finish this review :-)
- The Image:VforVendettaNorsefire.jpg was taken not from the official source, but rather from 3rd party website. Information from that website gives the following terms: All information and images are (unless otherwise noted) © Warner Bros. No other uses are permitted without the prior written consent of owner. Use of the material in violation of the foregoing may result in civil and/or criminal penalties. Credits are not final and dates are subject to change. For more information, please visit their official site. I believe that this has violated its copyright and particularly it fails criterion #8 of the WP:FAIR that the image serves only as a decorative purpose. I have asked the image for a review. Please remove the image from this article.
- Image:Vforvendettamov.jpg has a tag for reducing its size, per WP:FAIR. Please reduce the size.
- For this source: (Moore, Alan: "V for Vendetta", Chapter 8: The Valley, pg 4, 1998). What is this? A book? paper? Who is the publisher? What's its ISBN id?
- In this fact: "The film’s title itself is a reference to "V for Victory".". Why did you take from the following source: (Brice, Jason. "Drugs, Blow Jobs, And Howard", Silverbulletcomicbooks. Retrieved on 4 January 2007.)? Isn't it strange (look the title of the citation)? Shouldn't it be taken from the official website? BTW, I've tride to look the source, but it keeps loading.
- The source (A for Anarchy deleted scenes. aforanarchy.com. Retrieved on 8 April 2006.) is a personal website (unauthorized). Therefore, unless the source is replaced by reliable sources, then the following fact:
- An anarchist group in New York City has used the film's release to gain publicity for anarchism as a political philosophy. However, the group felt that the film waters down the anarchist message from the original story in order to satisfy mass Hollywood audiences, and instead focuses on destruction without proposing any alternatives.
- is an element of original research.
- b In this text "..., placing the book firmly in the top sales at Barnes & Noble and Amazon.com.", you must give information about the time. The novel is not always at the top right? When and how long?
- b A quibble formatting issue. Why is there an italic and unitalic version of the "V for Vendetta" term in the article? What's the difference between them?
- There are also some of my concerns regarding the citations. Some citations do not mention their publisher. There is also a strange used of a source only to put a citation for some terms of "V for ..." in the text. For example, the "V for victory" used this source: Newswatch 1940s. news.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved on 21 Nov 2006., but the source is talking about BBC's history during the WWII. There is no any relation with the subject (the movie). For the moment, I vote for
remove. — Indon (reply) — 17:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Let's roll.
1) You're going to have to go into detail over this point. What is CSD-ed? And what was wrong with the copyright on the picture? Also, why was the picture deleted without any warning?
2) That is one of the most robust pictures in the article. It's certainly not a decoration and why it is not a decoration, is clearly stated in the fair-use description.
3) I can't find the specific passage relating to size. Could you elaborate? What size do you feel comfortable with?
4) Addressed
5) You're going to have to elaborate here as to what level of assurance you're expecting on such a statement. I'm questioning whether this reference needs to be referenced at all.
6) Yes, it's the website of the Anarchist group that said the statement. If Anne Coulter or Cindy Sheehan said a political statement, then I would link to their personal sites as well. What is your opinion?
- Addressed: This has now been addressed through the addition of new sources.--P-Chan 05:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
1b) Addressed: I've a robust reference to address that point, which contains the Best Sellers date. However, I believe it may be very difficult to find information regarding when the Best Sellers status finished. (If you have any ideas as to how to obtain this info, I'd like to hear them). In any case, I'm going to assume that people know that best seller status is not permanent thing. (Not being sarcastic or anything, but just pointing out the robustness of it's current state)!
2b) Addressed: Those were typos. Feel free to copy-edit any spelling mistakes or typos you see in the article.
3b) In regards to the missing publishers, you can a) flag them so I or someone else can fix them b) be bold and fix them yourself. All the information should be available to you and it would save us both time in the long run. I've went through all of the references recently, but could have certainly missed some info.
4b) In regards to the BBC reference, take a look at the reference again and think about what it's referencing. Despite it not mentioning the film, it's key to the points that it is referencing. (Mind you, I consider that reference a high-level assurance one, as I believe that it may not even be necessary).
--P-Chan 20:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your nice response. I understand that this has gone through a long FAR time, but I believe everybody here wants the best work for FAs. I am going to address responses to your comments/questions first, before going to specific issues related to the current article, as of [22] (Note: now I'm going to use numbers, so you don't have to edit my comments.)
- Regarding your comments about "feel-free to edit", "be bold", "flag them so someone else can fix them", etc., I believe, you have mistaken the meaning of FAR here. I have flagged them here by raising questions, so that you (or someone else) can fix them. Got it? And the burden of giving full citations, including publishers, is not on the readers' shoulder for FA-level articles, but on the editors.
- Re 1), the deleted image falls into category of speedy deletion, because according to the source, the image is licensed with unfree Creative Commons license. Any images/articles that falls into CSD are subjected to be deleted without prior notice.
- Re 2), I have asked fair use image review, so please discuss about the image in the image's talk page.
- Re 3), please go to the image page and you will read the template.
- Re 5), you said "I'm questioning whether this reference needs to be referenced at all." (???) Honestly, I don't understand this recursive statement. Anyway, I read the source for this statement: The film’s title itself is a reference to "V for Victory".[34]. If you read it clearly, then it is not the original source, but rather a citing from Dez Skinn's reply on the Comics International eGroup. Throughout his reply, he did not tell the story that the film refers to "V for Victory", but rather the first story of the original comic creation, when he thought of naming the comic as "V for Victory", but then was decided to be "V for Vendetta". The "V for Victory" was only inside Dez Skinn's head and has never been implemented in the comic. So, there we have a factual error in the article.
- Re 6), you have replaced the source, so I'm not going to response your question.
- Re 1b), you said, "In any case, I'm going to assume that people know that best seller status is not permanent thing." That's why I asked when and how long? Okay, I've seen the time there, although the prose becomes awkwardly long now with "#" signs.
- Regarding BBC's history that they used "V for Victory". Yes you refers for that statement, but there is no relationship between BBC's action of "V for Victory" with the "V for Vendetta" film.
- As a conclusion, there are improvements, but there is still WP:OR element. I'm still on remove. — Indon (reply) — 15:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- I am well aware of the role of the reviewer in the FARC/FAR/FA process, as I have evaluated several FA and GA articles myself. At its heart, the role is to objectively review, measure and apply FA criteria and Wikipedia principles to the article to evaluate if it still meets FA standards. It is not to simply order, nor is the role of the editor to simply comply. (To me, the “got it?” statement and tone was mildly offensive). It is to my opinion, that both parties (the evaluators and subject matter experts) are equal partners in addressing these issues, are bound by the same principles, and work toward the same goals.
- In retrospect, I believe my 3b) was worded poorly, as I should have simply requested a clarification. That said, if you and I are truly running under the same principles in the FARC, then I would expect you to specifically identify a mistake if you see it and not force a treasure hunt, and if possible, provide actionable recommendations and solutions.
- This isn't cold compliance process, nor is it some “gotcha” audit. It’s collaborative, it’s iterative, it’s Wikipedia, so we’re working towards the same goals here.
- That’s my 3 cents.--P-Chan 05:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Re 5) Actually that was vandalism and a rather rude one at that. It has been reverted back now.
- The BBC reference was a direct response to another users concerns saying that there was no proof that Beethoven's "Fifth" Symphony's 1st 4 notes resemble the letter “V” in Morse code(···–). Even though it is a logical conclusion known by listing to those notes, the user wanted us to include a citation. This conversation is striked out higher in the page. It is not OR when citations prove each statement logically and clearly :-) -- UKPhoenix79 10:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, and that's good that it's sourced, but we don't do "logical conclusions" here, that's why the section is still an OR mess. You've done a great job sourcing the individual statements, but your entire reason for including the paragraph (the opening line and source) do not mention the film at all. It's still OR. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- How can it be Original Research if the research is not done by Wikipedia users but is actually cited and sourced material? Isn't that opposite to what original research means? I managed to cite your objections and show that it was not OR... I think were having a communication problem using the same words but using a different definition for them... -- UKPhoenix79 03:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, no, you didn't. Check the source that allegedly references the first sentence of the "Letter V and Number 5" section, and you'll see that it's talking about the graphic novel. Not the movie. Is the section itself better sourced than when I started protesting this two months ago? Yes. Is it still original research based on people's assumptions as to what references what in the movie? Yes. I'm working off of the Wikipedian terminology of original research, I'd hope we're working off of the same definition. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- How can it be Original Research if the research is not done by Wikipedia users but is actually cited and sourced material? Isn't that opposite to what original research means? I managed to cite your objections and show that it was not OR... I think were having a communication problem using the same words but using a different definition for them... -- UKPhoenix79 03:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, and that's good that it's sourced, but we don't do "logical conclusions" here, that's why the section is still an OR mess. You've done a great job sourcing the individual statements, but your entire reason for including the paragraph (the opening line and source) do not mention the film at all. It's still OR. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- (unindent) I am okay now with the sources' reliability. Actually the source V for Vendetta review. philipcoppens.com. Retrieved on 21 Nov 2006. is a good one (I've read it), and should be used more in the section, instead of the other two (BBC's history and Allan's comics). So, I'm in the weak oppose now. The section in question ("Letter V and Number 5") needs to have a small citing re-adjustment:
- One direct quote below the headline needs a citation.
- Similar to the graphic novel, there is repeated reference to the letter “V” and the number five throughout the film.[33] → please replace the source, because the source does not says something about the movie. You can use the philipcoppens or lewrockwell source. Then the following facts, for instance, V was held in cell number "V", V's Zorro-like signature, etc., as long as they are written in the same source, you don't have to put a citation.
- — Indon (reply) — 11:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Inchon. I think we've fixed and addressed all of your comments in the FARC. Is there anything outstanding or anything further to add? If there is, please feel free to express it, so it can be addressed. Thanks.--P-Chan 21:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely no Philip Coppens[edit]
In response to UKPhoenix's comments regarding rude vandalism, I'd just like to say that I was the one who added that reference. [23]. And despite the "rude" title and the mention of rumours, it is still light-years better than the Philip Coppens article it replaced, which quite frankly is one of the worst cases of plagiarism that I’ve ever seen. If you’ve actually read the article, you should have noticed that it copies straight out of the Wikipedia article, in some cases verbatim. For example:
- "In the original story, Fate was a Big-Brother-like computer which served as Norsefire's eyes and ears and also helped explain how V could see and hear the things he did."
- “As November 5 nears, V's various schemes cause chaos and the population grows more and more intolerant and subversive towards the regime.”
- “Playing Chancellor Sutler was also a complete role reversal for John Hurt, as he played the part of Winston Smith, a victim of the state in the film adaptation of 1984.”
- “On a nearby rooftop, Evey and chief inspector Finch watch the scene together and hope for a better tomorrow.”
- “Ted Baehr, chairman of the Christian Film and Television Commission, called V for Vendetta "a vile, pro-terrorist piece of neo-Marxist, left-wing propaganda filled with radical sexual politics and nasty attacks on religion and Christianity". Don Feder, a conservative columnist from Frontpage Magazine has called V for Vendetta "the most explicitly anti-Christian movie to date."
There’s much more, see for yourself: [24] And just so you know, this is no coincidence, as I remember writing many of those statements myself. In fact, there is so much material lifted from current or past V for Vendetta (film) articles that people are going to start thinking we’re copying from Philip Coppens. (Which is just wrong)! Again, this is the absolute worst reference that you could possibly have and I think its addition will harm the credibility and integrity of the article far more than a “rude” word in the references. If this is kept, I don’t see how I can support the article anymore, and I’ll have to vote “remove”. (I’m not kidding about this, there is also my own personal integrity at stake here)!
P.S: Indon, Ukphoneix79 and BadlydrawnJeff, I’m absolutely shocked that none of you caught this, as each of you said that you read that article. Let’s have some dialog on this.--P-Chan 06:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Wow where did this hostility come from? For one thing I never said I read that I reverted the link since I was the one who added Philip Coppens to begin with. So when BadlydrawnJeff gave the citation for that statement and said that it was referenced from "Drugs, Blow Jobs, And Howard" I knew that was not what I had added and reverted it believing that someone changed the citation to something nonsensical. Look I have always been on your side and backed you up, so why are you attacking me? If I thought you had added this I would have followed the link instead of ignoring it. -- UKPhoenix79 06:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yikes!! Sorry about that dude. I didn't mean to attack you nor did I mean it to sound personally threatening. :( If it's any consolation, it was a global comment and not directed against you.
- Again, I'm honestly very sorry about that UK. --P-Chan 07:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- No prob man I now your character and that was not typical of it. Your a very cool cat. I was more concerned since I knew that was not like you. -- UKPhoenix79 07:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- If you really wrote that statements yourself without source and then Philip Coppens took it from here (though his biography is really something), then I vote absolutely for
strong remove, because the article is clearly WP:OR. I'm not questioning your integrity here, but it's a nature of Wikipedia that all editors cannot be trusted; we are all anonimous editors. — Indon (reply) — 08:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- (Statement or statements?) Which one are you referring to here? In any case, I don't understand your point. Just because someone writes a statement(s) without source, doesn't mean that it is original research. It just means that it needs to be sourced, (either that or it was part of the plot, lead, etc). Not sure what you're referring to, but I'm going to assume that you are not questioning my trust as an anonimous editor. If you are, then I'd like to hear why. I'm very very open to what you have to say.--P-Chan 08:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- I believe we are talking about "The letter V and the number 5" section, right? Now based on P.Chan's argument that Philips Coppens took your statements from this article, then the whole section does not have reliable sources to support repeated reference to the letter “V” and the number five throughout the film. — Indon (reply) — 09:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Wow you want to delete an article about a movie because someone plagiarized information on this cite? Do you think that the "Wizard of Oz" or "Gone with the Wind" should be removed if someone plagiarizes their wikipedia article? I don't think thats a logical move... (Sorry if that sounded sarcastic just making a point) There are many statements one can make about a movie and not need a source. If one was to try to source the plot the article would become too unwieldy to read. I do think that sources serve a great purpose and keep information honest. But there has to be limits to that... just for practicality sakes. Ok I just realized you meant strong remove of the FA and not a delete... sorry about the confusion. Even so P-Chan has given us a link to another article sourcing those statements. -- UKPhoenix79 09:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- That’s correct UKphoenix! These are the two references here, both of them from primary to almost primary sources.
- -Moore, Alan; David Lloyd (November 2005). V for Vendetta. DC Comics. ISBN 1401207928, (inside cover).-
- In this graphic novel, Alan Moore explicitly links both of the statements in his introduction by stating:
- “Good Night Home and V for Victory”
- “Hello the Voice of Fate and V for Vendetta”
- (So obviously, he’s playing with the quote and the title).
- The second reference is from the original editor of the Warrior comics - Dez Skinn. Mr. Skinn did have some input in the creation of the comic, so if he says on his site that V for Vendetta was a twist on V for Vendetta, then it should at least have some weight.
- I quote Dezz Skin: “Given the cost of Warrior, after years of small option fees it will be nice to get the part royalty for coming up with the name (as a twist on Churchill's V for Victory thus providing the author with a root for the whole V structure) plus commissioning Lloyd and Moore to produce it and editing/publishing the story in the first place!”
- [25]
- There may be a third reference in existence that directly quotes Alan Moore explicitly saying that Dez Skinn was the originator of the statement. (I will investigate this).
- In any case, each of these statements are much more robust than most other sources you’ll see because they are (or are very close to) primary sources. Hope this helps.--P-Chan 09:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Now, this is what is wrong of citing sources. The Moore, Alan; David Lloyd (November 2005). V for Vendetta. DC Comics. ISBN 1401207928 talks about the comics, not the movie. And also for Dezz Skin's comments, it is about a story when the comics was created, not the movie. Correct me if I'm wrong. — Indon (reply) — 09:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right Inchon. They are both referring to the graphic novel. However, the graphic novel is the source material for the film. Both of the mediums share many of the same references: (The titles, the zoro-signs, the room numbers, etc). So unless you assume, each of the repetitions are just coincidences, you should be able to flat out accept that both of the mediums have the same V theme. Yomangani said it best with the analogy that we basically wouldn't expect Wikipedia to demand a new analysis of film on Hamlet, that is seperate from the original play. Again, hope that helps.--P-Chan 09:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I do think you are wrong. The film is based on the book, so if a reference to a theme is true for the book it can be assumed will be true for the film unless it is specifically excluded. For example, the Des Skin reference establishes that the title of the book was derived in part from "V for Victory", so unless we assume that although the movie is based on the book, the title itself is original, and just happens to be identical to the title of the book (doesn't sound too likely does it?), then we can quite safely use that reference for the title of the film. The same goes for the use of themes established in the novel - where they are used identically in the movie, demanding separate references that specify "in the film" is not necessary. This isn't original research, it is applying references with some intelligence rather than requiring a verbatim quote for every statement. Yomanganitalk 10:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Huh? So according to that logic the Book titles of the Lord of the Rings "The Fellowship of the Ring" "The Two Towers" and "The Return of the King" have nothing to do with the movies with the same name? If a movie is based off a book and the title of both are the same wouldn't logic dictate that the reasons for the novel having its name would be the same for the movie? Conversely if they were different there would be a different reason. -- UKPhoenix79 10:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Wohoo, calm down, I have three simultaneous replies here. All right, if you can assume that, then it's fine (this is a review from the person who has never read the book nor seen the movie). I was pointing how the sources are used in the context and during writing the article. When I read the section and then looked into the references, only one source goes to a movie review (excluding Philips Coppens). Even one source talks about BBC's history during WWII. That's the only thing that raises my question. — Indon (reply) — 10:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- The film version of V is different in tone and intent than the comic version of V, I think we all agree with that. That point alone makes using an analogy to the comic as a source for the film to be less than useful. I have no problem with the BBC thing sourcing V = 5 or whatever, but it's the entire section that still asserts something that isn't verifiably true about the film. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- That point alone makes an analogy to the comic for the film less than useful where they differ, not where ideas are taken wholesale from the book. To take a reference that establishes a motif in the novel on which the film is based, and to disallow the application of that reference when the motif appears in an identical manner in the film is, frankly, silly. This leads us to a point were we can not combine information from more than one source, because, although the connection is clear and logical, we are conducting "original research". Yomanganitalk 12:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Tone and intent? To build on Yomangani's point, that would only be relevent to much more sujective topics or ones altered between the two mediums. This is not in reference to that, and is referring to instead, V saying 49 V-words in a row and then carving a giant V on the wall. (No subtlty there.)
- And with that said... BadlydrawnJeff, if you take a look at our FARC history/Article Talk so far, you'll notice that we've gone through this several times already. In fact, this exact discussion happend a month ago. (Please refer to the following timestamps on this page):
- badlydrawnjeff talk 16:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yomanganitalk 17:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- In that instance there was no resolution because you simply didn't respond back (either that or we didn't request a response). In any case, this time, I think we owe it to ourselves to come to a consensus or else we're going to be doing this all over again. Therefore, I'm going to ask you directly: have your V/5 concerns been addressed? And what is your response? And if we have not addressed your concerns, please explain in a clear and exacting way, why they have not been addressed.
- Cheers.
- PS: Not trying to trap you here, I'm just trying to end this line of agrument so we can address other things in the article.--P-Chan 07:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps this is what you were referring to? No, my concerns haven't been addressed - a massive OR section continues to exist on a featured article, with its main source being something that does not even mention the film. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- PS: Not trying to trap you here, I'm just trying to end this line of agrument so we can address other things in the article.--P-Chan 07:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- NOTE on closing: work is ongoing, please don't close without checking with reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Having finally looked through it I'm a
weak remove- I gave it a light copyedit but there are still problems with it:
- The character listing makes a number of comments that are opinion or original research - connection between Stephen Fry's homosexuality and that of his character, Stephen Rea's marriage to an IRA terrorist, John Hurt's role reversal, the use of stuntmen in the role of V (it's hardly unusual to have stuntmen on a film).
- The the section on differences between the film and novel is almost entirely unreferenced.
- The section on themes (not the section on V and the number 5!) is light on references too - for the Count of Monte Cristo and Nazism
- If those can be fixed up, I'll be a keep (although it might be good to drag it out a little longer to make sure this is the longest FARC of all time). Yomanganitalk 13:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's competing with Superman for longest running; depending on the ultimate outcomes, we may learn from something from this about the usefulness of extending these reviews indefinitely. <frustrated> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Proposal for Closure[edit]
Based on past experience and from the notice on Badlydrawnjeff’s userpage, there is good chance that Badlyrawnjeff won’t be returning to the FARC process. As I’m looking forward to closure on his issue, I think this unfortunate. However, I also think that this will allow for the process to end more quickly. I would like to propose a solution for closing the FARC process in a timely manner, (for the sake of the FARC process and ourselves.) It’s in three parts.
1. When badlydrawnjeff does come back and if he still has concerns, he can go through some other wiki-arbitration process, if he so chooses. I don’t see how we can move the ball any further than it already has here.
2. Minor issues that have been brought up by Yomangani, Sandy and Indon will be addressed within the remaining timespan of the FARC. (Hopefully, these can be addressed quickly).
3. Issues such as how to reference the “differences between the graphic novel and film”, can be partially dealt with here. However, I imagine that issue will take a while as it sounds much more involving than the other issues. So instead of coming to a complete closure in that area during the FARC, perhaps we could set a clause where I would guarantee to resolve that issue in a satisfactory way… say in the next 2 months or so.
That's my 2 cents. How does that sound?--P-Chan 07:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Close This has gone on far enough and I don't think that the 3rd step is even needed since you have been very good at resolving everything that has come up. I hope you don't mind that I put this at the bottom of the page since I couldn't find what you wrote originally. -- UKPhoenix79 08:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm still here, don't worry. My main issue still hasn't been addressed, regardless, over two months after first raising it. I don't know what you mean by "past experience," either. If "close" means "we leave it as is," that's unacceptable - the section is still problematic. If close means "we take what's above and remove based on the criteria," perhaps that's best to do, given that no one seems to actually want to repair the issue. Perhaps some clarity on this would be helpful. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Jeff, I agree that that section is largely trivial, but I wouldn't defeature on that basis; I'm not sure I agree if it's OR at this point (which would of course be a serious concern). I don't want to rehash what's been said, but what specifically do you feel is insufficiently sourced? Simply observing, for instance, that 49 words begin with V in a scene, is basically an extension of the plot summary and with plot summaries some leeway must be allowed to describe them as primary sources, while avoiding OR "synthesis". I don't see synthesis here. Marskell 17:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with it being "trivial," and everything to do with the entire basis for the section lacking a source. The section claims a link without anything to back it up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Jeff, I agree that that section is largely trivial, but I wouldn't defeature on that basis; I'm not sure I agree if it's OR at this point (which would of course be a serious concern). I don't want to rehash what's been said, but what specifically do you feel is insufficiently sourced? Simply observing, for instance, that 49 words begin with V in a scene, is basically an extension of the plot summary and with plot summaries some leeway must be allowed to describe them as primary sources, while avoiding OR "synthesis". I don't see synthesis here. Marskell 17:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
We have (I think - the thing is so long, it's hard to count) four reviewers voting Remove based on OR, and now I'm concerned about POV as well, since the Medved review was not reinstated (per my earlier question). I think we've beaten this to death and given it our best shot in probably the longest review ever. The article structure and referencing is in good shape; it should be delisted, and if the editors/authors feel OR/POV has been addressed, the article should have no problem passing the broader scrutiny of a new FA candidacy. We've done all we can here - delist it and expose it to broader review at FAC. I didn't read the book, didn't see the movie, and think a fresh review from a broader base would sort these issues out. And I pledge not to vote on a new FA candidacy, since structural items that I usually check have been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Sandy. I have addressed your Medved concerns already. Yes, the Medved statement was not reinstated, and I explained to you in 3 points as to why (timestamp P-Chan 04:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)). 1)He has a clear political orientation and thus his comments should be in the Political Comments section. 2)However, there are quite a few comments of his orientation already in that section. (If you don't think there is enough representation in that area, please don't hesitate to flag it, as there are plenty of comments from conservative pundits that can be added.) 3)Also Medved's review is actually much less detailed than the reviews by other film reviewers.
- In regards, to your comments of why Antiwar.com is used in the article, when Medved wasn't... For each statement on O'Reily referenced by Anti-war.com, there is also a reference from Debbie Schlussel, a person from the a very different political orientation. This was done intentionally to show that the right-wing pundit connection was made, not simply by individuals on one end of the political spectrum, but by very different pundits with very different views. If one were to remove the Antiwar.com references and just leave the Debbie Schlussel references, it would look unbalanced.
- Have I addressed your concerns regarding the Medved reference and Anti-war.com?
- It should be noted that there were no POV concerns in the last FA nomination (in May 2006) and you are the only reviewer that has mentioned POV as a concern in this FARC. I think I've addressed them very well here. To delist an article simply because (quoting Sandy) "the editors/authors feel that the OR/POV has been addressed", is a very bad reason. (That's like arresting someone without changes, and saying that "if you feel you're innocent, you should have no problem going to court.") There should be actionable objections, backed by evidence that can be addressed by the editors, and if they aren't addressed, the the delisting should go forward. However, if there aren't any actionable objections, there aren't any actionable objections. That's my 2 cents.--P-Chan 22:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- My worries about this article is that editors, which I assume are very familiar of reading the comic and watching the movie, wrote their experiences into textual forms and then tried to fill in the inline citation requirement by searching in the internet of terms they'd wrote; rather than did a research, collecting sources and then combined them into a well-referenced article. I feel that how sources are used is a bit odd. The article still has many OR elements, that is why I'm keeping my remove voice (though it is not strong anymore), and my fresh review above also revelead image problems that should be seen first during FAC. I did some quick reading again, here I state one OR element because it was written not based on a source (this is just a sample):
- Norsefire in the film is largely based on present-day fears of an ultra-conservative police state, whereas Norsefire in the original story is based on a fascist regime closer to that of the Nazis. In both stories Norsefire actively participates in the systematic elimination of racial minorities, homosexuals, and political dissidents from society. But whereas the ultra-conservative regime of tomorrow also targets Muslims, the fascist regime of yesterday is explicitly focused on the protection of racial purity. Despite playing down racial elements of the regime, the film retains the Aryan superhero Storm Saxon.
- The above paragraph is completely unsourced and has POV statements. I put a statement in boldface that I don't understand how that statement can be an encyclopaedic one. It looks like reading someone's opinion in a blog. — Indon (reply) — 23:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- My worries about this article is that editors, which I assume are very familiar of reading the comic and watching the movie, wrote their experiences into textual forms and then tried to fill in the inline citation requirement by searching in the internet of terms they'd wrote; rather than did a research, collecting sources and then combined them into a well-referenced article. I feel that how sources are used is a bit odd. The article still has many OR elements, that is why I'm keeping my remove voice (though it is not strong anymore), and my fresh review above also revelead image problems that should be seen first during FAC. I did some quick reading again, here I state one OR element because it was written not based on a source (this is just a sample):
- In regards to your first method… of course editors do that! That’s what happens in tons of articles. (It’s absolutely impossible not to have some bias.) In reviewing the FA and GA’s that I have, I can safely say that references usually pop-up last. (Hit random article, and tell me how many well-sourced articles come up). It would be totally dishonest to deny this.
- That said, it would be equally dishonest to say that editors don’t research from the bottom-up, don’t seek out other people’s opinions and don’t challenge their own opinions. That’s what I do and if anyone wants to make a decent article, that’s what they have to do as well. FA 1c/1d are all about that.
- Now, with that said, the whole collaborative process is designed to filter out any editor specific bias. This article has gone through 2 peer reviews, a GA and a FA… and now we’re going through a FARC. Anyways, in regards to your Differences quote, I think you’re correct. The section has been heavily modified. You may recall that I mentioned the need learn more about the "#3/Differences section", before moving on. That’s because I think it’s impossible to simply rely on secondary resources for a section like that, and wanted to get some clarification on what the principles for primary source use would be.--P-Chan 05:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not saying that the first method is not allowed, but the latter method is better, because by writing first then trying to find matching references, some assertions are left unsourced. Anyway, I've been watching the article transformation lately and I'm pleased with your work. You used reliable sources and POV statements have been removed. I like the difference between novel and film section now. However, I found an inline image linking in the main article, so I'd removed this assertion. Please use the usual Image and caption format. Only then these statements: "There is even a brief scene (during the Valerie flashback) that contains real-life footage of an anti-Iraq war demonstration, with mention of President George W. Bush. Finally, the film contains reference's to "America's war" and "the war America started" as well as real footage from the Iraq War." are still unsourced, but I am striking my remove vote and happy now the article can be KEPT as FA. You can find a source for that statement above. — Indon (reply) — 16:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand do you want references to the book for the 1st part and the holocaust for the second part? Nazis exterminated people based on their race & religion, Norsefire did the same... Is this OR especially when there are so many references in the entire article stating this? Does every sentence need a reference? Also SandyGeorgia why would this page loose its FA status? Baring the last statement the objections have been resolved every objection had had a source brought up & Parts that have been called OR have been resolved one way or another... Unless specific actionable objections are listed this page should not be desisted but have the FAR removed and be allowed to continue as the FA it is! -- UKPhoenix79 03:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- This is not true. Every objection has not been resolved. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand do you want references to the book for the 1st part and the holocaust for the second part? Nazis exterminated people based on their race & religion, Norsefire did the same... Is this OR especially when there are so many references in the entire article stating this? Does every sentence need a reference? Also SandyGeorgia why would this page loose its FA status? Baring the last statement the objections have been resolved every objection had had a source brought up & Parts that have been called OR have been resolved one way or another... Unless specific actionable objections are listed this page should not be desisted but have the FAR removed and be allowed to continue as the FA it is! -- UKPhoenix79 03:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Jeff, let me rephrase my question. RS states "Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic." Taking the movie itself as a primary source (on this basis, plot summaries are passable in general IMO) editors are allowed to describe scenes. So, again: what in the section is synthetic or interpretive? Surely that the letter "V" is repeatedly use is not "challenged or likely to be challenged." Is the number 5 the kicker? Can we remove it? Marskell 06:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well your leaving me in suspense. What has been missed... Please be specific since, and I am sincere that no sarcasm is meant by this, I cannot read your mind... Please think of this as a court of law and show us specific reasons that you think this article is not Featured Article Worthy. One cannot defend oneself when one does not know the crime one is accused of! -- UKPhoenix79 06:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- What's been missed is that we have an enitre section that asserts something that has nothing to back it up for the subject of the film. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm assuming that was a further exhortation to Jeff and not me, correct? One thing I would say is that the Beethoven bit strikes me as synthetic analysis and should probably go. Marskell 07:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well yes it was sorry for the confusion. Actually the Beethoven bit is a well known fact and is cited as such to the BBC's own website, no conjecture on that part. Hope that helped. -- UKPhoenix79 09:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- The idea that it was chosen to reinforce a theme is a supposition. Marskell 10:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Let me add/rephrase: the "V" bit is arguably not a theme at all so much as an asthetic that saturates the film. A "theme", classically, unifies and provides (or thoughtfully obscures) meaning. Is there some implicit larger meaning to 49 uses of "V" in the first appearance? No, beyond showing that the writer has a (rather tedious) talent for alliteration. You might call the "V"/5 a motif, but even motifs ought to "speak to something" and this doesn't speak to anything. So what is the point with Beethoven? Are we supposed to be reminded of Churchill or WWII? I don't think so, and even if you do think so it would be OR to assert as much.
- This being the case, might we radically shorten this section and insert it as a smaller reference somewhere else? Again, I see this section more as trivial than truly OR and wouldn't remove on the basis of it, but Jeff is concerned and I'd badly like a compromise so I can close this. Marskell 10:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know if we can "shorten" it without it continuing to be OR. The assertion lacking any sort of sourcing to back it up is still a problem, albeit not as big as it is now. My only issue with this right now is that we have a section of a featured article that is OR. The OR goes away, and so do my issues, and I no longer care to see this delisted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- This being the case, might we radically shorten this section and insert it as a smaller reference somewhere else? Again, I see this section more as trivial than truly OR and wouldn't remove on the basis of it, but Jeff is concerned and I'd badly like a compromise so I can close this. Marskell 10:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- To beat the other side of the drum again: Jeff, are you suggesting that the idea that the letter "V" is repeatedly used in the film is OR? "The assertion lacking..." What assertion? Please...just so we know what we're debating. Marskell 15:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm saying that it being a thematic element is. Read the section. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- To beat the other side of the drum again: Jeff, are you suggesting that the idea that the letter "V" is repeatedly used in the film is OR? "The assertion lacking..." What assertion? Please...just so we know what we're debating. Marskell 15:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- My head is a little swimmy after two days of looking at the review, so I understand if you are frustrated repeating yourself. But there is no need to be patronizing. I have read the section—three or four times at this point. You have not properly explained your OR concern in terms of what is actually said in the section. "Thematic element"—I have agreed that "theme" is the wrong descriptor. Let's move it out of theme, drop the Winston Churchill allusion (which is implicit OR) and finish. There is nothing OR about observing that the letter "V" occurs regularly in the film. As noted, this in within bounds in treating it as a primary source. Marskell 19:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Think about how I feel after 2 months. I'm not at all comfortable with the switch that happened recently to say that "oh, the number 5 comes up a lot," but I guess that problem is gone now. I see where the triviality comes into play now, but I suppose that's not a reason to oppose it anymore. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I removed the Churchill bit myself and moved the section to its own level two. Reading again, it is just a random string of examples where one or two would do. But no, I don't think it an oppose basis at this point. Marskell 19:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Think about how I feel after 2 months. I'm not at all comfortable with the switch that happened recently to say that "oh, the number 5 comes up a lot," but I guess that problem is gone now. I see where the triviality comes into play now, but I suppose that's not a reason to oppose it anymore. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- My head is a little swimmy after two days of looking at the review, so I understand if you are frustrated repeating yourself. But there is no need to be patronizing. I have read the section—three or four times at this point. You have not properly explained your OR concern in terms of what is actually said in the section. "Thematic element"—I have agreed that "theme" is the wrong descriptor. Let's move it out of theme, drop the Winston Churchill allusion (which is implicit OR) and finish. There is nothing OR about observing that the letter "V" occurs regularly in the film. As noted, this in within bounds in treating it as a primary source. Marskell 19:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I am going to be traveling soon, and can no longer keep up with this lengthy FARC. If/when Indon and Yomangani are satisfied, I can be considered a Keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - there are still two points that I'm unhappy about, but I don't think either of these is enough to strip it of its status:
- Actor Stephen Rea is also Irish and was once married to Dolours Price, a former member of the IRA, imprisoned for bombing the Old Bailey - unless you can provide a reference from somebody stating that this informed his performance it is irrelevant. It might be OK to feature in an article on Stephen Rea, but not here.
- Revenge is a central motivation for V and the film makes explicit connections to similar themes in the Count of Monte Cristo. - needs a reference. Yomanganitalk 09:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The talk page says that this is closed..... Can someone officially close this now? -- UKPhoenix79 12:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
USS Wisconsin (BB-64)[edit]
Review commentary[edit]
This article falls within the scope of the Military history Wikiproject, but was sidelined from the start for having "citation problems": there were a total of 14 inline citations for roughly 40 kilobytes of info. Today I had a chance to dig into the article to add sources for the information, the article now has 90 kilobytes of information and over 300 inline ciations (before I reduced the number by using the <ref name=""> tabs to bring the number down). I feel the ciation issue has been adressed, now I am looking for any other complaints that other may have with the article’s FA status. Note that I am in school at the moment, so if I appear slow to respond be patient; its likely school work has me tied up. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I hope the MilHist group will weigh in on the quality of the citations. Although four books are listed in references, the article is almost entirely cited to one website, which is unofficial. Further problems with the current references;
- Cite 1 - Wiki is not a source
- Cite 2 is the same as 5 and 7
- Cite 3 is the same as 8 (it looks like named refs weren't used correctly throughout)
- Cites 4 and 14 aren't refs, rather notes that seem to require refs themself.
- Many of the citations need to be expanded to bibliographic style: 16, 17 and 18 at least.
- The bibliographic style on the footnotes needs attention. Has the article been run by MilHist for a peer review on the referencing? Sandy (Talk) 14:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - http://www.navysite.de/bb/bb64history.htm ref 2 is a direct copy of DANFS, an official USN dictionary of fighting ships. I've fixed the ref to point to the original PD DANFS source. --Dual Freq 16:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Those appear to be split so there won't be so many refs on one line. Do we want to fix this? I can make them all point to one DANFS link? That would put about several dozen refs all on 1 line. --Dual Freq 16:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- FYI, combining all the DANFS refs results in Cite error 7; Ran out of custom backlink labels, define more in the "cite_references_link_many_format_backlink_labels" message So they have to be split or it will create an error. The limit appears to be 129 ref and there are about 150 DANFS links and about 130 USS Wisconsin.org links. --Dual Freq 18:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting - can we ask somewhere if some tech folks can fix that limit? Sandy (Talk) 19:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Good question. I found out the hard way that the custom ciations were capped, otherwise I would have continued to cite the same source with the same reference tag. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like the limit is set by MediaWiki:Cite references link many format backlink labels, I put a request in with the last editor to change that page to add more so the article can exceed 130. Maybe the solution is not to add more but to trim somewhere so that there are less. I don't know, but I'm not an admin and can't add to the Mediawiki backlink page. --Dual Freq 20:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting - can we ask somewhere if some tech folks can fix that limit? Sandy (Talk) 19:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- FYI, combining all the DANFS refs results in Cite error 7; Ran out of custom backlink labels, define more in the "cite_references_link_many_format_backlink_labels" message So they have to be split or it will create an error. The limit appears to be 129 ref and there are about 150 DANFS links and about 130 USS Wisconsin.org links. --Dual Freq 18:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I thought an FA Review required that "a nominator must specify these criteria" that the article fails. This nomination seems to be looking for someone else to find failing criteria. Is this a proper nomination? What is the criteria this article fails? I've never edited the article before today, but I'm trying to understand the FAR process. Since no issues were brought up on the talk page about delisting, I'm not sure I understand why this article was nominated. --Dual Freq 18:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- I had the same problem with this review, which is why I asked if it had a MilHist peer review (which seems to me to be a more efficient means of accomplishing the goal), but the FAR instructions do say, "FARs are intended to facilitate a range of improvements to FAs, from updating and relatively light editing—including the checking of references and their formatting ..." Not sure. Those notes are the ugliest I've ever seen, with such a reliance on one source, and they do need to be expanded to a biblio style still. Sandy (Talk) 19:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Kirill Lokshin, our lead cooridinator, has several FA class articles that he wants put through the FAR process because they have "citation problems", and this article happened to be in that category. While citations were the primary reason behind the FAR request I would be open to additional criticism, although from my stand point all other criteria remain sufficently satisified that there should be no large scale problems. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- I had the same problem with this review, which is why I asked if it had a MilHist peer review (which seems to me to be a more efficient means of accomplishing the goal), but the FAR instructions do say, "FARs are intended to facilitate a range of improvements to FAs, from updating and relatively light editing—including the checking of references and their formatting ..." Not sure. Those notes are the ugliest I've ever seen, with such a reliance on one source, and they do need to be expanded to a biblio style still. Sandy (Talk) 19:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oh my gosh. Has Kirill taken a close look at the citations here? I took a closer look at what was going on with the references, and
strongly suggest that this article should be removed from FAR and run through a MilHist peer review.The referencing isn't done correctly. The problems are:- Named refs aren't used correctly: every single named reference is completely repeated, chunking up the size of the article. Please use the slash at the end of the ref for repeat refs - see the examples I did at the top of the article.
- Within one paragraph, multiple sentences are each cited to the same source, when the source could be listed once at the end of the paragraph. This would remove about 2/3 of the overdone footnotes.
- A massive number of statements have two references - the same ones - wouldn't one source suffice for some of those?
- This referencing situation is elementary stuff, that could be cleaned up via a MilHist peer review -
FAR might not be the best place for addressing basic referencing.Sandy (Talk) 19:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Per feedback from Kirill, striking my comment that FAR not the best place for review. Sandy (Talk) 20:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC) - The reason everything is so heavily (exhaustively?) cited is that our citation guidelines recommend such thoroughly citing sources, and "when in doubt, cite" has always been a rule I try and follow. I am sorry if this has created a headache for you or anyone else involved in this FAR, as that was never my intention. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Completely agree and thoroughly endorse that rule, but 1) does every sentence need two cites, and 2) if all the sentences in one paragraph are from one source, you can cite once, not every sentence. There is still the problem that the article overly relies on one source, and doesn't use any of the book references. Sandy (Talk) 20:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- 1) Every sentence was cited was cited because I really got into it. In reality the only sentences that absolutely need to be cited are the ones that have information on combat action — shots fired, hits taken, missiles launched, etc. I cited each sentence because a specific date (day, month, and year) was given for the action, which I felt nessicitated an inline citation. Something I want to add about the two primary sources: DANFS and the wisconsin.org cite do not always agree with each other on dates and battle engagements; DANFS omits some material and has virtually nothing on Wisconsin in the Gulf War, which was the driving force behind the two-sources-per-sentence citations: if two sources were cited it meant that both sources agreed on an action, if only one is source is cited it usually means the other source ommitted or glossed over the material. 2) I tried citing one source for an entire paragraph before (not in this article though) and people came along and added 'citation needed' tags to parts in the paragraph they thought were not cited. I wanted to avoid that this time around, so I cited everything. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Completely agree and thoroughly endorse that rule, but 1) does every sentence need two cites, and 2) if all the sentences in one paragraph are from one source, you can cite once, not every sentence. There is still the problem that the article overly relies on one source, and doesn't use any of the book references. Sandy (Talk) 20:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Status? Tom, were you planning to finish the ref cleanup work here, or did you need help? Sandy (Talk) 20:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I intend to, I just need another day; I got roped into an emergency typing session. Aparently I incorrectly tyrped my professors email adress when I sent two essays to her;she never got them and I do not have copies of the essay because of space issues on my hard drive. Grades are do at the end of the week, so its type or die for the passing grade. Trust me, I am getting back to the article, but I do not want fail the class; I been there before, its not fun :( TomStar81 (Talk) 00:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ok Sandy, I think I got all the inline citations that needed fixed. I also rearranged the citations so they appear at the bottom of the paragraph unless their is a really good reason for them to be in the main body itself. I fixed a few links and made a few gramatical corrections as well. Sorry that took longer than expected, I caught a cold and the light from my computer moniter is bugging my eyes. (What is it with my luck anyway? Sheesh...) TomStar81 (Talk) 03:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Please delink all of the dates that aren't full Month-day-year dates, and review all of your wikilinking for consistency (link only important terms, link the first occurrence of each term, etc.). You moved *all* of the references to the ends of paragraphs, and combined them all at the end of the paragraph? You might want to doublecheck that some of those references weren't intended to cite a very specific fact from one source, that would be better placed at the end of the sentence, rather than the end of the paragraph. What I was referring to earlier is that (for example) a paragraph of five sentences - all from the same source - didn't need to have that source repeated on each sentence. If the entire paragraph comes from one source, you can cite the paragraph once. On the other hand, if you have a paragraph cited to 3 different sources, it's better to specify which sentence comes from which source, rather than grouping them all at the end. Hope you're feeling better ! Sandy (Talk) 19:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Status: does this need to go down or are people pleased? Marskell 20:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Month-Day dates are subject to user date prefences (e.g. 1 March versus March 1), and still need to be linked appropriately; removing the formatting from the article was a bad idea. Kirill Lokshin 02:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Commment Ref 1 is a note with web links that should be refs themselves. Ref 7's "found here" is a link to an IMAGE, not a reference, and the web refs are not in conistent format (ex, they don't all have retrieval dates. Would like to see more different refs that 15 (some of which are notes). Rlevse 13:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Finding more refernces is somewhat difficult because the article is almost entirely the story of Wisconsins history. I will look into the prospect of finding other refernces that have new information, but I do not hold out much hope for that possibility. Ref 7, the image as you put it, was created to help people find the new missile magazines and phalanx mounts after a question was raised on Wisconsins talk page as to why there were none showing. I can remove that if you want, but I thought it would be easier to find added weapons systems if visitors had a visual aid. I will look into adressing the other complaints forthwith. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- As for ref 7, you can't use wiki as ref for a wiki article anyway. On top of that, the writing is so small on that image (even blown up), that you can't read it. The ref in the article says "a complete guide"; a pic with some caption isn't a complete guide.Rlevse 21:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I will post my detailed comments on this article on its talk page. I have to do a little research in a few areas, though (namely call the handiest US Marine I can find to pump for information). Overall it's still a pretty good article, nothing too substantive that needs changed, other than a discussion of the armaments at the beginning of the article, and not just in the box. KP Botany 02:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It's a bit hard to believe there aren't more sources on this ship, though, her mention in all the battles, memoirs of the officers of the TFs, etc., etc. I haven't been following the sourcing controversy, I like to do the edits. KP Botany 23:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
FARC commentary[edit]
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are citation sufficiency and format (1c). Marskell 00:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Moving down as it was not definite to close. Marskell 00:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Big improvements have been made to the article over the last three weeks, I feel the citation issue has been adequately addressed. Note that I am the one who originally brought the article up ta FA standards low these many monthes ago, so my opinion is somewhat bias :) TomStar81 (Talk) 02:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- I hate the sexist "she" for a ship. It's all about male control/ownership, isn't it. Tony 04:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- If it makes you feel batter, I here that russian ships are refered to as "he". I know for a fact that the Imperial German Battleship Bismarck was refered to as "he". TomStar81 (Talk) 08:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Are there any other comments on this one? Marskell 08:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's what is used, we're not here to set precedent in gender relations. KP Botany 23:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Remove. I find the referencing inadequate. For example, it's most unsatisfactory to have [3] occurring paragraph after paragraph, as though a tongue in cheek response to reviewers' requests for a professional approach to verification. Although the reference appears to be affiliated with the US Navy, it is totally unreferenced itself and has no explicit authorship. I wouldn't be so concerned if there wasn't such a heavy reliance on a single website. I've removed the female pronouns standing for the ship at the top, which I, and no doubt many other readers, find offensive. Tony 12:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Further, those cites to that one source are what's left after I helped Tom remove about three times as many that were initially there - I would like to see a better method of referencing this article, and wish MilHist reviewers would jump in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. It hugely depends on one source. Whole sections have no other source! I agree with Tony. If this is not fixed, I'm afraid I'll be a remove voter.--Yannismarou 19:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- How else then do you propose I/we/Wikipedia cite the article? This is a historical text about one ship, not about the class, not about battleships in general, just Wisconsin. The primary source for US ship articles here has always been the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (DANFS) so far as I know, other sources on the web cite DANFS when discussing this battleships history. There will likely be no other Military History members commenting here, for some reason project members either do not care about what happens to the page or believe that since the page has been reinstated on our own FA showcase section it will likely clear FARC without there two cents. Short of leaving messages on every members talkpage, it will likely just be me commenting and improving. As for the use of "she": if you check out the talk page for the battleship USS Missouri (BB-63) you would see a large section devoted to the use of "she" versus the use of "it". Raul654 and others who commented there agreed that either one was ok, so long as the article used the same elected word (she or it) for the entire length. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I am also a member of the military project as you can easily find out. Now ... I definitely disagree with Kirill's position that in order to criticize a certain article's referencing, I must be able to propose alternative sources. As a reviewer I notice a problem and I refer it; this is my role! And for me the heavy reliance of 3-4 sections of the article on a single source is a huge problem for me as far as FA status is concerned. I believe that FA quality demands a better research and variety of sources, even though the location of these sources may be difficult. Therefore, the current level of referencing impedes me from being a keep voter and still brings me closer to a remove vote. Thanks!--Yannismarou 18:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- But the point being made is that it's not (necessarily) a problem! There are any number of good reasons for having a limited number of sources; the chief ones are (1) that there simply aren't any other (useful) sources or (2) that the sources already used are the canonical works on the topic, and that any others are merely derivatitive or redundant. It's perfectly fine to criticize the sourcing if you actually have some concrete reason to believe that some significant source has not been adequately consulted; but it's silly to insist that an article must have some arbitrary number X of sources without actually knowing whether there are X useful sources for this topic. Kirill Lokshin 19:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- If, Kirill, more sources are not available, then I understand the difficulty, but do not ask me to accept such an article as a FA! Silly or not, this is my opinion, and I strongly insist on it! I believe that a strong reliance of 3-4 sections on a single source, parts of which have been copy-pasted, impedes an article from being FA. The editor cannot find a solution to this inherent problem of the article? Then, I'm sorry, but this is not my problem! Not all articles can become FA. As it is now the article, the huge reliance on a single copy-pasted source is a huge flaw.--Yannismarou 08:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- But the point being made is that it's not (necessarily) a problem! There are any number of good reasons for having a limited number of sources; the chief ones are (1) that there simply aren't any other (useful) sources or (2) that the sources already used are the canonical works on the topic, and that any others are merely derivatitive or redundant. It's perfectly fine to criticize the sourcing if you actually have some concrete reason to believe that some significant source has not been adequately consulted; but it's silly to insist that an article must have some arbitrary number X of sources without actually knowing whether there are X useful sources for this topic. Kirill Lokshin 19:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I am also a member of the military project as you can easily find out. Now ... I definitely disagree with Kirill's position that in order to criticize a certain article's referencing, I must be able to propose alternative sources. As a reviewer I notice a problem and I refer it; this is my role! And for me the heavy reliance of 3-4 sections of the article on a single source is a huge problem for me as far as FA status is concerned. I believe that FA quality demands a better research and variety of sources, even though the location of these sources may be difficult. Therefore, the current level of referencing impedes me from being a keep voter and still brings me closer to a remove vote. Thanks!--Yannismarou 18:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- How else then do you propose I/we/Wikipedia cite the article? This is a historical text about one ship, not about the class, not about battleships in general, just Wisconsin. The primary source for US ship articles here has always been the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (DANFS) so far as I know, other sources on the web cite DANFS when discussing this battleships history. There will likely be no other Military History members commenting here, for some reason project members either do not care about what happens to the page or believe that since the page has been reinstated on our own FA showcase section it will likely clear FARC without there two cents. Short of leaving messages on every members talkpage, it will likely just be me commenting and improving. As for the use of "she": if you check out the talk page for the battleship USS Missouri (BB-63) you would see a large section devoted to the use of "she" versus the use of "it". Raul654 and others who commented there agreed that either one was ok, so long as the article used the same elected word (she or it) for the entire length. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The level of citation—that is, the direct connections made from the text to the sources—is now quite adequate. As far as the sources themselves are concerned, I'd argue that if you wish to take issue with an article's referencing, it's expected that you be able, at the very least, to name other significant sources which the editors have failed to consult. As far as I know, the reliability of the DANFS is not a controversial matter; the work happens to be the canonical source for the histories of individual USN ships, so it is entirely unsurprising to see it cited as often as it is. Kirill Lokshin 21:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, per Kirill. If there are important sources that have not been consulted, please point them out. Otherwise, the level of citation seems adequate. Carom 21:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Question, I'm concerned that three books are listed in
Further reading,References so there are other sources, but they aren't used. I'd like to hear from MilHist on this. Would those books add anything new, give alternate viewpoints, etc? In general, I would object to overreliance on one source when others are available, so pls educate me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)- Maybe I'm just completely daft, but I don't see a "Further reading" section here. What might you be referring to? Kirill Lokshin 19:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, References <darn memory>. So, question becomes even stronger - they're listed as Refs, should they be used, or switched to Further reading? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, if they're listed as references, they presumably were consulted. The fact that there are no citations from them isn't really indicative of anything, in my opinion; given how densely cited the article is already, they would likely be redundant, at best (particularly as they appear to be quite general works, and so are likely sources more for the general sense of the narrative than for highly specific details). Kirill Lokshin 20:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Consulted?! And what proves that they were actually consulted? How were they used in the article? Per Sandy. And let me ask you another thing: We have a hot debate about whether the reliance on a single source is a problem or not. Then, excuse me, but if the editor has indeed consulted these sources, why hasn't he used them as inline citations to face the above problem. If this section is really "References", then these books should be used as such; otherwise, it is "further reading".
I think it is time to vote: weak remove as it is now the article per all my above comments. If the single-sourcing problem is not resolved, I'm afraid I can go as far as neutral.--Yannismarou 09:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Consulted?! And what proves that they were actually consulted? How were they used in the article? Per Sandy. And let me ask you another thing: We have a hot debate about whether the reliance on a single source is a problem or not. Then, excuse me, but if the editor has indeed consulted these sources, why hasn't he used them as inline citations to face the above problem. If this section is really "References", then these books should be used as such; otherwise, it is "further reading".
- Well, if they're listed as references, they presumably were consulted. The fact that there are no citations from them isn't really indicative of anything, in my opinion; given how densely cited the article is already, they would likely be redundant, at best (particularly as they appear to be quite general works, and so are likely sources more for the general sense of the narrative than for highly specific details). Kirill Lokshin 20:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, References <darn memory>. So, question becomes even stronger - they're listed as Refs, should they be used, or switched to Further reading? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm just completely daft, but I don't see a "Further reading" section here. What might you be referring to? Kirill Lokshin 19:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Status. There obviously isn't consensus to close, and I'd like to make a couple of points on the above debates.
- There are sixteen sources, not one; for a subject this specific, I'm actually surprised to see so many. I also worry that reviewers maybe focused on a nose count re sources, ahead of taking the article as an individual piece. Per WP:V, is there any material "challenged or likely to be challenged"? Yes, there are an enormous number of notes for the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, but it's a .mil site and I will certainly trust Kirill in suggesting it's canonical.
- I'd guess those general books listed under References were placed there when the article was still young and other sources hadn't yet been provided. We can't assume they were consulted for specific info, so I'd suggest changing it to Further Reading. I don't see this as decisive. Marskell 10:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sixteen sources covering specific parts of the article. I still believe the research is not adequate, but I respect the majority here. The "references" or "further reading" thing is not decisive, but it must be clarified. Since most people here believe that the citing of the article is adequate, and, if the "References" or "further reading" thing is clarified, regard my vote as neutral.--Yannismarou 14:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I only asked about the other books because I want to know if they may present anything new or alternate viewpoints to the .mil sources. I guess what I really mean is I need to know if military sources have a pov that might be addressed by anything in those books. If the answer is no, then I'm happy with the article, but I'm not sure I've gotten answer yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I can not testify as to what information is present in "The Floating Drydock", as that was not one of mine. The other two are; the information drawn from "The Battleships" and "The Navy" is small since both books deal with the their topics in an "forest" view, looking at the big picture in stead of the trees. "The Battleships" presents a little information on the Iowa’s during there WWII service, and notes that they have all become muesem pieces, while "The Navy" presents a limited amount of information on the role of the four Iowa’s in the "600-ship Navy" plan outlined in the 1980s. Nothing specific was taken out of those two books for Wisconsin since the information they presented could be better cited to other sources. For example, in "The Navy" it notes that all four Iowas were modernized, recieving new gun and missile mounts, while the Federation of American Scientists website provides an armorment chart showing that the battleships recieved tomahawk missiles, harpoon missiles, and Phalanx CIWS mounts. Given a choice between the two, the latter source provides more information of value. Under the circumstances, I would assume that "The Floating Drydock" would also be a "forest" type book and would endorse the recommendation to rename the secion with the books "Further Reading". TomStar81 (Talk) 20:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Tom, why don't you cite twice where you can, incorporating those two books as much as possible. Marskell 22:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Poor Tom - I had him remove double cites :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Gotcha. In lew of the newly posted suggestions on Wisconsin’s talk page I think I will take a copy of the current version and place it in my sandbox to do some rebuilding to adress the excelent points raised here and there. I will try to rush the new additions so as not to keep everyone waiting in suspense, but this may take a while since finding printed material in a book is harder than finding it online, not to mention all that double citing I now have to do :) TomStar81 (Talk) 04:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Now that you know how to used named refs, it shouldn't be as hard - remember to cite page nos on books. Also, if you can strongly cite something from a book, maybe you can remove some of that long list cited to DANFS, to shorten the list? Let me know if you need any help on citation formatting or anything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I took a stab at adding what I could from the books to the article. I mamaged to eek out 3 citations from "The Battleships" and one from "The Navy"; I would have done better but the books are just to broad to cite specifics. I also played with the introduction and construction some based on suggestions left on Wisconsin's talk page. Note that "The Battleships" has to seperate inline citation points because the page numbers are different for the cited info. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep with some work if the references check out. I've noticed that with few exceptions (although I stopped looking) articles on Wikipedia get all of their main information from 1-3 primary sources, then only get subsidiary information from the other 3 dozen sources listed (in this article, find the name of the hurricane, subsidiary source). The article is fine in general, needs a lot of attention to detail, the primary editor appears to be willing to do this. I will also discuss it with the various experts in my family as I get the chance. KP Botany 23:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Titanium[edit]
Review commentary[edit]
Has some general formatting issues, especially the long bulleted list in the middle. Almost no inline sources, there are many references listed at the bottom but only one of them is attached to a point in the article. On a side note, this became featured several years ago with only 2 votes. Vicarious 04:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I would recommend the translation from the French for the label of the World Producers table. Also the table's source should give publisher's data.There are also several statements with {{fact}} tags that ought to be rectified. Not as serious, but still notable in a FA, is that there is a mix of all three citation styles. It would be best that it settles on one. --RelHistBuff 10:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Fixed table label and cite. --RelHistBuff 14:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yep - FA standards have drifted past the quality of this article since it was promoted in November 2003. I noticed this some time ago and expanded the article early in 2005. Looks like more work is needed. I'll get to that after I upload some more photos to the Commons and fix the remaining issues with the Mount St. Helens article. -- mav 04:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
FARC commentary[edit]
Remove– insufficients inline citations, there are still many {{fact}} tags, mixed citation styles, non-standard references items and there are 2 embedded external links to commercial sites selling titanium rings and other titanium products (see the 5th paragraph of the Application section). This is based at the time of my review: [26]. — Indon (reply) — 15:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Remove. Per Indon.--Yannismarou 19:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)- Remove per Indon. LuciferMorgan 04:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Remove--RelHistBuff 07:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)- Delay -- I'm starting to address the above concerns. --mav 22:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Many cites added. More later. --mav 01:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Krebs needs page numbers. Does Nature have an article title?Sandy (Talk) 20:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)- I no longer have the Krebs book and page numbers are not really needed; all info is from the chapter on titanium and that chapter is only a few pages long. Some of the external cite links to webpages have more combined text than that entire chapter. Anyway, I have two better references (Nature's Building Blocks and The Encyclopedia of the Chemical Elements) that I will be using to replace many of those cites. --mav 05:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Many cites added. More later. --mav 01:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment "Medical applications" subsection needs citations, while the "Isotopes" section needs citations. LuciferMorgan 05:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comments: I moved one link to a Wikipedia article into the See Also section. Based on [27]:
- Ref. #14 is a link to an image (it's not a source).
- Ref. #13 is not reliable because it links to a commercial titanium ring website.
- Ref. #12 is also link to a commercial jewelry website and it is unnecessary inline citation at the image caption. The source of the Image:Ti-color-strip.jpg is given at the image description. Furthermore, the image is inappropriate, though it is claimed uploaded by the owner of the commerical website. It looks to me of an external spam link to promote the site: ext. link in the article and also in the image description. (smell a bit fishy)
- For the moment, I still stick on remove vote. — Indon (reply) — 09:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The are still a couple external jumps in the body of the text. Jay32183 21:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's because a whole chunk of new, commercial, and mostly uncited text was just added to the article. (I deleted the most commercial parts.) I'll be a Remove if this article isn't finished up by the end of the FARC period, as it doesn't appear anyone is tending the article, and there is still much too much uncited text. Sandy (Talk) 00:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
From my talk page, from Pzzp (talk · contribs). Sandy (Talk) 18:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
TITANIUM ARTICLE - removing "commercial" references.
Good Day SandyGeorgia,
I am not convinced that the mention of names of companies engaged in the production of titanium sponge and melting of ingot is not useful in the article. IMHO the inclusion of the list does not constitute advertising or commercial activity, not least due to the interesting fact that the list is EXHAUSTIVE (source was cited); moreover, the club of players in this market has barely changed since the beginnings of titanium manufacture. In fact the economics of titanium metal (and several other exotics like tantalum and zirconium) are influenced by the fact that so few firms are involved in its processing and manufacture. I think that in order to have a well rounded understanding of these metals, their sources and applications, the reader is well served by being made aware of the economics of the thing. For anyone working in the metals industries (as I do), knowing who processes the materials, where they are located and how they're doing is as important as who uses them. If you're going to be religious about policy, then mention should also be deleted of Airbus, Titanium Metals Corporation, Boeing and Tiomin, all companies mentioned in other areas of the article. Note also that we're not talking consumer goods here; these kinds of companies don't advertise since they sell business-to-business only, and don't need to.
I'd like to solicit other opinions on this issue.
Manufacture and fabrication: I will add citations when I have time.
pzzp DEC 18, 2006
Remove. Mav indicated he'd be working on the refs, but seven days have passed, the work isn't proceeding, new unreferenced text was added, and the article is still largely uncited. Sandy (Talk) 13:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)- Not so fast. :) Notice that we are having a fundraiser right now? I helped to set it up. But now I have some free time and will restart work on the article. --mav 02:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Fine, but would you please keep us posted? Checking the article and the FARC every day for progress is tedious; FARCs are extended when editors keep us posted and progress is apparent - that wasn't the case here, and the process isn't indefinite. Striking my Remove for now. (And can you make that fundraising bar at the top of my page disappear - I hate telemarketing, mass marketing, mail marketing and all forms of marketing solicitation - I sit down to write my year-end charity checks based on those orgs that *didn't* market to me :-)) Sandy (Talk) 16:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Not so fast. :) Notice that we are having a fundraiser right now? I helped to set it up. But now I have some free time and will restart work on the article. --mav 02:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I've added citations in the manufactur and fabrication section, I trust they're satisfactory. The Applications section is still all over the map. Although I've added to it I think it needs a re-work to classify applications into, firstly, metal and non-metal subcategories, then further into subcategories of metal: aerospace, industrial, recreation (incl jewelry and body jewelry), emerging, etc., and further non-metal into say, pigments, coatings, etc.Pzzp 16:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've just removed a commercial link to a jpg which was given as a reference. This text now has external jumps (imbedded links) that need to be corrected and the text referenced:
- Fewer than 10 grades are readily available commercially; most are melted upon demand. The grades covered by ASTM and other alloys are also produced to meet Aerospace and Military specifications (SAE-AMS, MIL-T), ISO standards, country-specific specifications (e.g.:JIS: Japan, DIN: Germany, BS: England), as well as per proprietary end-user specifications for aerospace, military, medical and industrial applications. Some of these alloys are patented and not available on the open market.
- I'm adding cite tags to the article. We need to get this done, or de-feature the article per the vote above. Sandy (Talk) 10:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- I spent some more time on this article tonight; more this weekend. A general reorg will likely be in order after I've exhausted my sources. --mav 03:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Spent some more time. Pretty much just needs a bit of clean-up now. None of things mentioned in the original nomination are still issues, IMO. -- mav 05:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- I removed the external jumps to websites about standards - we don't need external links to websites discussing military standards, we need a citation supporting the statements (see passage quoted above). Refs need cleanup - maybe someone will get to it before I do. Sandy (Talk) 14:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- I spent some more time on this article tonight; more this weekend. A general reorg will likely be in order after I've exhausted my sources. --mav 03:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Considering new work, I left notes for previous voters to pls have another look. Sandy (Talk) 01:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment When the objections of all other voters have been addressed, my vote will change to neutral. LuciferMorgan 02:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I actually like it now! Keep.--Yannismarou 06:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I think it's improved a lot. Great save. Jay32183 06:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- I did some copyediting, reformatting & added metric comparisons. The article is greatly improved to a FA level again. No ext. jumps to some fishy ads websites. Nice work!
I changed my vote to Keep, butsome cleanup is still needed (I didn't finish the cleaning). I'll be back to clean the references.— Indon (reply) — 10:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- It would be more correct to say, that the article has been brought to current FA standards. Even before this FAR, this article had significantly improved over the original FA version of 2004. So it never degraded below FA standards (those standards simply became much more stringent since the time of promotion). My vote is weak keep until I have time to do a final pass with my last ref (lead needs to be expanded a bit as well). --mav 14:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Frustrated. I'll admit to being thoroughly disgusted by the sloppiness in this article. I went to the trouble to ask reviewers who had voted Oppose to double check their votes, and having just spent a ridiculous amount of time in the article, I now found that the references were so screwed up that their re-votes are now invalidated. In fact, the commercial links were not removed - an entire patch of the text was obscured by a referencing error which took me *forever* to find. I *think* I've now fixed the referencing errors, and that caused missing text to re-appear - invalidating the Keep votes above. If the editors of this article want those Keep votes, they can get in touch with all the editors again - this article is too high-maintenance for me, and has tried my patience. If someone isn't paying closer attention to FAs, they shouldn't keep their stars - they need to be tended, and references need to be correct. Sandy (Talk) 16:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- By the way, I also found the final reference completely hanging in the air (obscured, since the final part of the article didn't show due to an earlier ref error), so I stuck it onto the preceding paragraph - someone pls check if this is correct. <grrrr> Sorry for the vent, but every single FAC I checked yesterday had faulty, deceptive, misleading, and incorrect referencing, and WP:V is policy - people should take it seriously. Sandy (Talk) 16:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
REMOVEuntil referencing is fixed. For those who had re-voted to Keep because the commercial links were gone, they were simply obscured by an incorrect ref tag, which caused a chunk of the article to go missing, along with missing references. They're still there:- Exotica Jewelry (2006). Titanium Wedding Ring Catalog. Retrieved on 2006-12-10.
- "Information on Titanium used for Body Piercing, body-piercing-jewellery.com (accessed 26 December 2006)
- Cascadia Design Studio (2006). Anodized Titanium Ring Colors. Retrieved on 2006-12-10.
Sandy (Talk) 16:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Also, once you decide what to do with the commercial references, this image caption needs copyediting:
- selected colors achievable through anodization of titanium.[28]
- Sandy (Talk) 16:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- COMMENT - Er, almost everything you are fixing was screwed up earlier today. Why not just revert? --mav
- Because (as someone who does a lot of it) I appreciate the hard work that goes into correct referencing, and I'd rather find the error than revert someone else's referencing work. Besides, what has me so frustrated is that other reviewers checked an incomplete article, with obscured text, and the commercial links still need to be addressed. Besides, the references are now fixed - the commercial links still have to be dealt with, and then reviewers asked to check yet again. Sandy (Talk) 18:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Commercial refs replaced and image removed. --mav
- Striking my remove again, refs look better now. Since I still had to catch a minor ce problem, I'm not going to be a Keep on this article - I suspect it will be back at FAR soon, and I'm concerned about its stability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Here's a nice prose error in the previously hidden text - we need to get a copyeditor on this: It does, however, has a tendency to bio-accumulate in tissues that contain silica. Sandy (Talk) 18:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't check until the end and found out that some unreliable sources are still used, per my first comment on top. Again, I stroke my vote and now with remove until the following ref. problems are resolved:
- Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems (1983). Titanium: Past, Present, and Future. Retrieved on 10 December 2006. → the link is dead
- France, Colin (2006). Extraction of Metals. Retrieved on 19 December 2006. → unauthorized website
- Exotica Jewelry (2006). Titanium Wedding Ring Catalog. Retrieved on 10 December 2006. → why do we promote a catalog here?
- Information on Titanium used for Body Piercing. Retrieved on 26 December 2006. → body piercing??
- Cascadia Design Studio (2006). Anodized Titanium Ring Colors. Retrieved on 10 December 2006. → commercial site
- Link was live just a few weeks ago and the website looked well-maintained. Likely down for the holidays and should be back up in early to mid January.
- Unauthroized website? What does that mean and why is that bad?
- Deleted ref, image and statement.
- Yes, titanium is used in body piercing. Commercial ref replaced with an edu one.
- Commercial ref replaced with an edu one.
- -- mav 18:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- The link is still broken, but I believe you.
- Please read the external link of the source here: [28] and go to the main index. Please tell me if this site is reliable as a source. The author does not attached to an academic institution, only gives paid home private tutorials. Per WP:V and WP:RS, I consider the webpage is dubious unreliable source. Isn't there any reliable academic source for the corresponding citation?
- — Indon (reply) — 18:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Better cite added. --mav 00:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: I changed my vote as a lot of work has been done compared to the original FAR version. It seems it went through a hiccup with the links to commercial sites, but with mav's corrections, it seems fine now. --RelHistBuff 05:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Looking good!Pzzp 22:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Real Love (The Beatles song)[edit]
Review commentary[edit]
I'm nominating this article for FAR as it fails criterion 1. c. This is because;
- All direct quotations need inline citations.
- All the information needs verification from reliable sources.
- All opinions attributed to other people and critical comments made upon situations / lyrics / music etc. need inline citations. LuciferMorgan 20:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
FARC commentary[edit]
- Remove if my FAR concerns aren't addressed. LuciferMorgan 23:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment—The writing is OK, but the first paragraph needs fixing:
- "Real Love" is a song originally written and performed as a demo by John Lennon, later re-worked by the three remaining members of The Beatles (Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr) in late 1995. The song was released as a Beatles' single in 1996 in the United Kingdom, United States and many other countries; and it was also the opening track on The Beatles' Anthology 2 album. It is the last "new" credited Beatles song to date to originate and be included on an album.
- Insert "and" before "later". Remove hyphen from "re-worked". Remove apostrophe from Beatles'. Remove "and" after the semicolon. Remove "also". Remove "to date".
I don't see quite so many problems in subsequent text, but a check of the way ideas are integrated into sentences, and of redundant wording, would not go astray. Tony 02:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- The original FA nominator removed three places where I asked for citations, where original research is clearly an issue. This is in the "Lyrics and melody" section, where comments are made upon lyrics. Unless such comments come from notable critics, then lyrical comments shouldn't be there. I'd put the tags back, but then again I might be accused of trolling - check the edit history to see where my citation requests were removed. LuciferMorgan 21:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- May I add this as another reason I'm not returning - FA nominators are a law unto themselves. Johnleemk is clearly annoyed most of his Beatles FAs were defeatured due to my nominations, so removed the cite tags. So my vote stands at Remove due to the blatant original research which comments upon the lyrics. LuciferMorgan 02:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ahem. I made a comment on the article's talk about my removal of {{fact}}. To date, I can't find any response there. And please cut the bullshit about "FA nominators (being) a law unto themselves". If you wanted the tags put back, you could've told me, or gone ahead and done it. It doesn't make a difference to me; I generally ignore Beatles song articles nowadays for a reason. In my view, there is a major difference between critical commentary ("this song is good" or "this song is bad" or "this aspect of the song is noteworthy", etc.) and an objective description of the song. The three sentences in dispute are merely paraphrasing the song's lyrics, so it's really ludicrous for them to require a citation. All the real critical commentary has been sourced. Johnleemk | Talk 20:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Cut the bullshit? There's no bullshit about it - why don't you cut the bullshit about inline cites? I had this pointless discussion with you months ago regarding inline cites, and you didn't get the message - you just banging on about the References section. As for putting the tags back, I didn't as I've been accused by Raul of trolling - check Operation Downfall's FAR. The lyrics need citation as they're saying what they're about - a music critic now are you? No, I thought not, so it's original research. All the Beatles articles defeatured so far had the same problem and this is no different. Your FAR commentary is the only ludicrous thing going on here, or "bullshit" to be more frank. LuciferMorgan 21:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)]
- If you honestly can't see the difference between now and then, we might as well stop talking. I never disputed that the content we talked about then ought to be cited. This, on the other hand, is paraphrasing the song lyrics. It is not analysis or commentary - it's summarising the song's lyrics. It's not even drawing any inferences from the lyrics. Johnleemk | Talk 12:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: All chart ratings and sales statistics ought to be cited. In "Lyrics and melody" the first paragraph appears like WP:OR. It is better to take someone else's subjective commentary as a quote and then cite the source as is done in the second paragraph (which is only one-line, not good practise and should be merged with the first paragraph). If these are fixed, I would vote Keep, otherwise I would vote Remove. --RelHistBuff 10:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- The charts and sales stats are cited; the only problem is that my source (an online website run by a Beatles biographer) has since apparently gone down. (That's the reason WP:CITE asks us to include the date we originally retrieved the webpages - so it can be determined what revision of the site we got the info from, and it can be looked up in the Wayback Machine.) I've been hunting around for decent reviews which paraphrase the song's lyrics so we can stop beating around the bush here, but most of them seem to assume (for understandable reasons) that if you wanted to know the song's theme, you could just listen to the song or read its lyrics instead of reading a review. Johnleemk | Talk 12:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, after going through a dozen pages of Google results and a few more on Google Books, I dug up a review which briefly touches on the song's message (most others focused on either the song's structure or history). It's not entirely satisfactory IMHO, but it'll do, I think. Johnleemk | Talk 12:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- OK, great. What about the second paragraph in "The release" section? The first sentence states that it entered at #4 of the British charts and eventually reached #1 in both US and UK charts. This is not cited. Actually, there must be something I don't understand as the parenthetical element contradicts the image caption where it says it reached #4 and not just entered at #4. Or does the #1 position refer to the album? If so, this sentence should be rewritten and if the #1 position does refer to the album, a cite is needed. --RelHistBuff 13:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for adding citations. The only concern I have is regarding John Lennon putting the song on the backburner; was he working on it prior to his murder for the next album, or had he shelved it? If a citation could be found for this, then that'd be cool. Thanks once again. LuciferMorgan 13:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- As I said on Talk:Real Love (The Beatles song), putting on the backburner = shelved. As the preceding paragraphs in the section state, he worked on the song informally in the late 70s, and then abandoned it. We don't know of what plans he had for the song, if he had any plans at all. Johnleemk | Talk 14:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I believe LuciferMorgan is wondering where you got the assertion that he shelved it. If no one knew his plans or if he had plans, then it is best not to make that assertion. How about just saying, "The song reappeared in 1988, when ..."? Anyway this is good enough for a Keep for me. Good job. --RelHistBuff 16:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'll note a keep here as well; good work despite some gnashing of teeth. Regarding the last concern, it seems an observation of an absence. Perhaps "Lennon does not appear to have worked..." rather than "Lennon shelved..." Marskell 20:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Contitional keep, if that one sentence that concerns Lucifer can be re-worded. Sandy (Talk) 20:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I noticed you tried to fix some problem with the refs, but I'm not sure what the problem is...the later errors you tried to fix appear to have been introduced by your initial mistaken edit. "British charts" is a named ref that already appeared earlier in the article, so there was no need to redefine it. Johnleemk | Talk 10:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Mine isn't a keep, as these days most song article's have a section properly dealing with critical reaction from music critics. I hope I don't come across as being annoying, but if anyone agrees with my stance then hopefully time can be extended on this one? If not, then consensus is consensus I suppose. LuciferMorgan 21:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, reluctantly. It's not the best FA. Tony 03:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)