Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/March 2007

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removed status

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

The article was removed 16:36, 18 March 2007.

Buddhist art

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Messages left at PHG, Grenavitar, Pharos, and WikiProject Buddhism. Green451 18:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has several grammatical errors and less-than-brilliant prose (failing FA criteria 1a), a complete lack of inline citations and several unreferenced facts (failing 1c), and tries to cover too many topics in one article (failing 4). This article underwent a previous review about a year ago and was kept. Unless the criteria has changed since then, the involved parties in that review didn't seem to notice the lack of inline citations. Green451 18:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am by no means an expert about Buddhist art but looking at the sources (even if I include "further reading" under that category) I am not convinced that this article uses anything authoritative. I know this is not a perfect process, but searching Google books you find many books specifically on the subject of Buddhist art--many are not from academic publishers but some are. The writing is not very good in some places--often because sentences seem to just be throwing out facts rather than weaving an explanation of Buddhist art. Image sourcing problems: Image:Prajnaparamita Java.jpg is from Indische Kunst (museum?) in 1925... it gives no author but claims to be PD by virtue of author+70. The other images seem fine, but their pages ideally should be cleaned up making their copyright / source available at a glance. But, the most apparent problem is no real citation system. I disagreed on my FAR that inline citations alone aren't a reason for removal--but, I don't see how that's the only problem.
It will take a lot of work and some editors who know the subject and the literature. To keep this as an FA it first needs everything to be sourced--there is no point in cleaning up the language when it could easily have to be changed in light of new facts. gren グレン 12:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), referencing (1c), and scope (4). Marskell 14:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 11:12, 3 March 2007.

Cat

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Messages left at Wikispork, Mammals, Tree of Life, and Cats. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead section is far too short, should be 3-4 paragraphs for an article this large and is only 1.
  • Headings are poorly setup, with a comparatively large and overly general "Characteristics" section. Also the section "Survival in the wild" seems like it's mostly a repeat of the section "Feral cats".
  • Article currently has 10 [citation needed] tags (I added one of them), and the references section is a bit sloppy, with most of the links not having a retrieved date.
  • Article is significantly beyond every recommendation for article length, see Wikipedia:Article_size#Readability_issues.
  • Many other minor issues, such as two sections with only a link to the main article and no summary. Too much bold and italics when not needed. Also quotation marks that are used for dramatic effect and not to quote.

Article's original nomination: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cat, and it's first FAR: Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Cat/archive1, also a link to the version that was FARed in case anyone was curious (like a cat): [1] Vicarious 04:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Article could be better off with more citations, and a consistent one with info such as retrieval date etc. LuciferMorgan 02:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lead is insufficent, messy 'see also' section, stubby one and two sentence paragraphs, and way way too many extraneous images. Don't like the bulleted list in "Declawing". The prose and structure are an issue, for example there is no real thread to the "Hunting and diet" section, it's largely a series of unconnected facts. Could be broken down into sub section synthesising related characteristics. And why is "Ears" out on its own? However there is material here for a very strong article, I enjoyed reading it, and its very interesting in places; have two myself, and often wonder why they do what they do ;)+ Ceoil 21:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I plan to clean up this article, I have to wait until my new user status is up though. Latulla 03:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria conerns are LEAD (2a), length and focus (4), references (1c), and TOC (2c). Marskell 10:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Per 2a, 4, 1c, & 2c. Very little progress since nom. + Ceoil 19:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove echoing Ceoil's justification. Although if cuteness of the cats in the images was the deciding factor, I'd be voting the other way. - Mocko13 03:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per Ceoil's criteria concerns. LuciferMorgan 01:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per above. — Deckiller 04:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per above. Some nice gems sprinkled in the text, such as "It is common lore that cats have nine lives. It is a tribute to their perceived durability, their occasional apparent lack of instinct for self-preservation, and their seeming ability to survive falls that would be fatal to other animals." And "Some also discourage the use of laser pointers for pet play, however, because of the potential damage to sensitive eyes and/or the possible loss of satisfaction associated with the successful capture of an actual prey object, play or real." On an unrelated note, the recent history suggests the article could benefit from semiprotection... Gzkn 08:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 13:12, 31 March 2007.

London congestion charge

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Messages left at Business and Economics, Taxation, and London. Gzkn 02:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of problems with this brilliant prose promotion. It is under-cited, featuring a variety of uncited weasel phrases ("some opponents", "it is said", "it has been pointed out that", "it has been estimated that", etc.). Many statistics go uncited. The lead is inadequate, and the prose needs some major cleanup ("Many toll roads and bridges exist in England, both now and in the past", "Due to the wide spread around the globe of sub-contractors and because some data protection regulations vary from country to country", "If you do not pay, your vehicle registration number is recorded via a tag-and-beacon system and you are sent a letter asking to pay the charge"). The article also needs a general restructuring. It's patchy, rambling, and it jumps from one topic to the next; the "Unusual aspects" section needs to be gutted. The article could benefit from a complete rewrite. Gzkn 02:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), weasel words (1d), LEAD (2a), prose (1a), focus (4). Marskell 11:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 10:38, 27 March 2007.

Markup language

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Brilliant prose promotion, talk messages left at Computing and Computer science. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is first most lacking prose, it's pieces of text placed here and there, with no clear connection with each other. The article is under referenced, only three inline references, and two additional references. The last section Some Basic HTML tags is right out of context. When reading the article, you get the feeling it has already been talked about earlier in the article. I feel that the article would need a major rewrite to be able to be called a featured article again. In my opinion, it fails criteria 1:a, 1:c, 2:a, 2:b, 2:c, 3 and 4→AzaToth 16:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; fails across the board. This article is going to need a lot of work, and I hope at least one of the primary editors is interested in a referencing and copy-editing campaign. — Deckiller 16:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), citations (1c), LEAD (2a), MOS issues (2), images (3), and focus (4). Marskell 14:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 08:29, 15 March 2007.

People's Republic of China

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Messages left at Jiang, Countries, and China. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has become a political battleground, filled with excessive detail and arguments for and against various opinions, usually without reference to verified sources.

There are many peacock and weasel words.

It is poorly written, lacking focus with many digressions and awkward phrases attached to sentences they are not relevant to,

The lead is a disaster, does not in any way summarize the article.

--Ideogram 07:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, huge degeneration since the last time I read this article. Parts have been savagely cut, and others massively bloated. References are not all reliable and are in several formats; what has and hasn't been used as a reference is confusing too given the odd overviews and documentaries inclusions. Other issues with article layout - this one deviates quite a bit from the structure used on other featured countries. --Peta 00:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • User Ideogram made many drastic cuts some which I restored. See here [2] prior to his edit. Some of his edits were for the better; I left them untouched. He seems to have a problem with "China is an emerging superpower", which he considrs wastrel and peacock. Mandel 18:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do whatever you like to the article. If you can save FA status more power to you. --Ideogram 18:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There appears to only be one real edit disagreement over the article at the moment (over the wording that "China is an emerging superpower"), so I wonder if this might be a case where it's better to just do a massive revert back to the featured version. — Brian (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If I recall correctly, the article was up for review last year, and underwent some massive changes, and subsequently kept. Perhaps a revert to that version? --Sumple (Talk) 04:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't find any indication of it on the talk page. If true, though, that would be a place to start, allowing for changes in China over the past year, of course. — Brian (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The previous FARC—and the version—is in the ArticleHistory at the top of the talk page. This is the version at the end of the previous FARC; if you revert to that, the article will need, at least:

A problem with this article is heavy vandalism. See Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection. I've asked for this article to be semi-protected. Actually I fail to find peacock or wastrel terms here. Mandel 18:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A cursory look at 2006; it actually looks better now than then. It's lighter and I agree, the phrasing is somewhat tedious then. Maybe something could be restored though. Mandel 18:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article seems fine. Some sections are a little bit long, but nothing too extreme. The History and Foreign Affairs sections need more citation though (although a lot are indeed common knowledge for China-followers). Otherwise, I really don't see much difference between the article now and Spring 2006 when it was last FA reviewed and passed. It's a pretty decent article for a controversial and politically fueled topic. The lead looks quite okay (perhaps it has been changed since Ideogram first commented above). Any attempt at FARC for this article at its current state would receive a Strong Oppose from me. --Naus 05:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The references need extensive work; they're all over the map. There are mixed reference styles, incomplete URL links, and no consistent style. It's not clear if sources listed as References actually belong in External links or Further reading, or are already used in Notes. Many sources are missing full information. It may be helpful to use the cite templates to achieve a consistent, complete reference style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose quality (1a), weasel words (1d), and LEAD (2a). Marskell 18:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You guys can bash China all you want. I remember the Potential Superpowers article was deleted, and it was wonderfully written with great effort. Once an article has been nominated for deletion and failed, it should never be deleted because of Double Jeopardy.
Um, this is not a vote to decide whether or not to remove it from Wikipedia entirely.
  • Remove, Repeated concerns have been expressed regarding the POV maps used in the article, to no effect. As a first step towards retaining FA status, such easily resolvable issues should be dealt with. deeptrivia (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 01:32, 9 March 2007.

Portuguese language

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Messages left at PedroPVZ, FilipeS, José San Martin and WikiProject Portugal.
Message left at Languages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is suffering from rather large gaps in terms of references. The list of sources seems somewhat incomplete, even if it appears as if a lot may be found here. Unforunately I don't read Portuguese, so I can't really tell. It seems as if the sections on history, geographic distribution and at least some parts of the section on classification aren't really verifiable. While I don't favor the recent obsession with footnotes after just about every sentence, a mere 5 for such a comprehensive article does seem a bit minimalistic.

On a somewhat more subjective note, the history section is also rather miniscule and could most likely be expanded.

Peter Isotalo 00:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are other problems besides the ones Peter mentioned, but first I would disagree with him that the History section is too scanty. The article at 51 kB is quite long enough already (not really too long, but it shouldn't get much longer); any expansion should go into History of Portuguese rather than the History section of the main article. By the same token I would say the Dialects section is too long; the list should be moved to Portuguese dialects. The Grammar section is a mess; rather than being divided up into sections on the genetic constituents Portuguese belongs to and what it has in common with them, it should be divided simply into "Phonology" (which is a part of grammar and so should be a subsection), "Morphology" and "Syntax", with brief summaries of the the articles Portuguese phonology and Portuguese grammar. —Angr 00:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that the article needs work, though obviously I have a different opinion on what should be changed. For example, I do not think the grammar section is "a mess". It gives a summary of the interesting features of Portuguese. On the other hand, there is a host of redundancies in the first sections of the article and the intro, the history section and the vocabulary section could be improved, the "lexical stress" section is written in intractable jargon, and the phonetic transcription of the sample text in Brazilian Portuguese is full of errors (I'm surprised no linguistic whiz noticed this yet!)
As for the Classification and Related Languages section, it doesn't seem much larger than the one at Spanish language, about which I see no complaints. Still, perhaps it could be trimmed down. In fact, I did just that a while ago. One thing I always thought was too much was that comparison of sentences in different Romance languages (what's that got to do with Portuguese, anyway?) Besides, Romanian language has the same kind of thing. But when I suggested that this duplication should be avoided, Peter Isotalo, who is otherwise fond of deletions, seemed to get his panties all tied up in a knot, for some reason. FilipeS 20:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree with Angr's suggestion about merging the phonology with the grammar, since this represents a highly academic perspective on language; it makes sense to linguists, but not to the average readership. But the grammar section could use some work.
  • I was the one who called for the dialect section to be reinstated with the maps and all, btw, but if someone can offer a summary which isn't as brutal as the last one, I can certainly acquiesce.
  • Filipe, that diff was nothing but a mistake, as I'm sure you know that I don't engage in mindless vandalism. My reason for requesting a shorter classification section was that it would allow for other sections to be expanded without making the article too big. And let's keep unrelated articles that haven't even reached GA-status out of this discussion. The requirements for FAs are supposed to be higher, not lower, than the average article. / Peter Isotalo 13:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are insufficient references (1c) and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell 11:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 22:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per 1a (the Grammar section is especially poorly written); 1c (AFAICT no references have been added since this FAR began; the Grammar section appears to be mostly original research); 2b (the heading hierarchy is wrong, as the article places Phonology outside Grammar); 3 (Image:Iilp.png has no fair-use rationale, the relevance of Image:Estação da Luz.jpg to the article isn't clear); and 4 (Summary style is not used correctly). —Angr 22:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorting "Phonology" under "Grammar" still doesn't seem to serve any purpose as an objection here. It doesn't make any sense in an encyclopedia (that isn't intended just for linguists), it's not recommended by the language project, and it's not even used in any of our language FAs. Peter Isotalo 07:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What's recommended by the language project is not to use the ambiguous term "Grammar" at all, but to have three separate sections called "Phonology", "Morphology", and "Syntax". I'd support that for this article, except that the current "Grammar" section barely discusses syntax or morphology. But if a language article does have a section called "Grammar", it's simply lying to the readers to put Phonology outside of it. —Angr 07:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You recommended it at the language template and I disputed it. There was some discussion on the issue, but that was pretty inconclusive. There needs to be a lot more discussion about this before we start talking about clear recommendations. Until then, it seems rather obvious to go for the traditional (and seemingly most common) encyclopedic description of grammar. / Peter Isotalo 10:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It doesn't seem obvious to me at all to go for the outdated and completely unscientific definition of grammar, as opposed to the definition called "contemporary" in our own article Grammar. —Angr 11:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • To me it seems as if you're not all that concerned if anyone outside your own discipline actually understands articles about languages or linguistics. But we obviously need to involve more users in this discussion to establish a reasonable consensus recommendation and this is clearly not the place to do it. Drop a note at my user page if you want me to announce a broader discussion on the issue. / Peter Isotalo 14:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 11:12, 3 March 2007.

Margin of error

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Messages left at WikiProject Mathematics. Kaldari 06:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Messages left at Fadethree, Michael Hardy. Jeffpw 07:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only 1 reference and no inline citations. Use and abuse section seems excessively listy. Kaldari 06:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The arguments section needs to be prosified and needs more than the one inline citation currently present. Parts of this section, including those discussing polling in general, are better suited for other articles and could simply be deleted. Most of the rest of the article is pretty basic statistics and doesn't in my view require inline citations, though the article should list a couple of standard textbooks in the references section. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have reorganized the structure for better flow, moving external links to Newsweek source as inline citations, added a very standard statistics book, and a bit of technical clean-up. If I find some sources/books, then I will add them, but I'm not an American so I don't know much about the US election section. I think this article was featured when footnote citations were not yet discovered, but the content is really good. — Indon (reply) — 10:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Both "Calculations and caveats" and "Use and abuse" are argumentative. Opinions need to be sourced or left out. And even if we do source opinions that the press regularly misuse the margin of error, they must be included along with reliable sources on journalistic standards — manuals of style, mass comm textbooks, trade magazines, whatever — that explain how the margin of error is used and why. Currently all the article says is "I searched Google news and I don't like what I found." Melchoir 23:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've edited "Use and abuse" to "Use and misuse." I don't find "caveats" argumentative. I took out some of the opinion-ish tone that has arisen in certain sections. And I agree about the "I searched Google news" comment and edited that. I have added a reference, but I am comfortable with shorter reference lists when dealing with elementary statistics articles where the proofs are easily laid out on the page itself. I also trimmed the list and tightened some language to make it less list-y. This review process is useful. The article has exploded since I last visited. Fadethree 07:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but far more needs to be done. Yes, "Caveats" is argumentative, particularly the last paragraph. The one new citation is an opinion piece on a single incident, and it doesn't contain the quotation to which it is attached. This article currently contains two "frequently misused", an "often interpreted", a "sometimes used", a "continues to be inappropriately applied", a "many pollsters", a "most pollsters". These synthetic descriptions cannot be advanced without reliable secondary sources. "The margin of error grew out of a well-intentioned need to compare the accuracy of different polls." Does that come from a study on the early history of polling, or is it speculation? There are three places where "margin" is placed in quotation marks and it is emphasized that the margin of error isn't a margin. Leaving aside the question of whether that's even a meaningful statement, who cares? Seriously, who exactly thinks that's important, and why aren't they identified in the article? Who thinks that "statistical tie" and "statistical dead heat" are inappropriate? Melchoir 06:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gotcha. Those are helpful comments. I've done some work to rephrase and clarify things. I hope the article is now a little more convincing to you. Let me know what you think. Fadethree 06:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry for the late comment - I only just noticed this was being reviewed. I still have serious concerns about this article, as raised on the talk page back in May 2006. The article is not entirely accurate or comprehensive. For instance, margins of error depend strongly on the sample design used. At present this is only mentioned in one bullet point, and is ignored in most of the calculations shown. This means they are probably incorrect, since the Newsweek data was weighted. In any case, our underlying assumptions should at least be made clear throughout. The press release about the poll is not very clear, but reading between the lines, I think that they have allowed for the sample design, and our implication that Newsweek's 4% margin of error uses a 99% confidence level is incorrect. If I'm right, this would have flow-on effects throughout our discussion of the poll.
I'm also concerned that we never explicitly present a margin of error for Kerry's lead over Bush, which seems a natural approach for this example. The whole section on the_probability_of_leading seems a bit off topic at best. Maybe it could be moved to another article, although it seems to verge on original research. We are also not consistent in referring to the maximum margin of error, where that is meant. Some mention of software for complex survey designs is probably necessary. And I don't agree that references can be dispensed with here - it's not that elementary a topic, unless we simplify it to the point where the Newsweek poll would be beyond the scope of the article.
In my view, the article should not remain a featured article unless these sorts of issues are addressed. Avenue 14:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of complex sampling procedures is certainly important, but I think that going into it in the detail which you seem to favor would make the article even more weighty than it already is while not providing the reader much additional value for the interpretation of the margin of error. No matter what the sampling plan, the target for reporting is the radius of the 99% (or 95%) confidence interval for a proportion of .5. You keep saying that the margin of error is different, but it's the calculations that are different, the interpretation (as flawed and unhelpful as I think it is) remains the same. I don't see a problem leaving the calculations assuming random sampling in the article, and leaving you to make the valuable comments as you have already about complex sampling designs and how they would change the calculations.
Let me be clear that, as I understand it, we are not talking about confidence intervals around proportions here. We are talking about the margin of error as reported by polls in their footnotes or closing paragraphs, which is a very particular confidence interval of limited usefulness.
I agree that the tables presented for the probability of leading are excessive, and I'd be in favor of removing them, but I think the probability of leading is an incredibly important concept that belongs in an article about the margin of error for polling. After all, the probability of leading is exactly the inference that most political polls are trying to make. You even suggest as much where you raise the idea of a "margin of error for Kerry's lead over Bush." The probability of leading addresses this idea in a much more straightforward fashion than reporting the confidence interval for the difference in proportions.
Until you are sure that the Newsweek poll used a complex sampling design, I'm in favor of assuming that they did not. At best, they did use a simple calculation, and nothing needs to be changed. At worst, the calculation will be not be the one they used but still serve the purpose of illustration, and the interpretation will be unchanged.
I appreciate your comments. You raise some very important points. Fadethree 20:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I might see where we are passing each other here. Your May 2, 2006 edit introduces the idea of a maximum margin of error. This leads me to believe that you are equating "margin of error" with "confidence interval," which we had discussions about in earlier versions of the article before it was featured. We ended up deciding that we were going to leave "confidence interval" to the "confidence interval" entry, and let margin of error refer to the specific use of the term in polling, where it is reported, for example, that the margin of error for such and such a poll is 4%. This is aimed to attract readers who read that and say to themselves, well, what does 4% mean? I think you would answer that question, well, that's the maximum margin of error, and then you'd go on to explain that margin of error is a confidence interval around a proportion, etc. If you accept that the article is about the maximum margin of error (which most polls just call, the margin of error), does that change your impressions about its accuracy?
I should note that I am not in favor of the term, maximum margin of error, and I have never heard it before. The reason I think it is misleading is because I could arbitrarily tweak the margin of error by changing the confidence limits, and even then the margin of error isn't a margin at all; it's not like the probability outside the margin is zero. I'd be in favor of rewording that note or deleting it altogether. Does that make sense?
Let me add, too, that I understand that different disciplines use different terms in different ways. Let's see if we can understand how we're using different words to say the same concepts or the same words to express different concepts. Fadethree 20:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying your position - it explains a lot. I agree we are using "margin of error" to mean different things, and I do equate the "margin of error" for a particular result with the "half-width of the confidence interval". This is not just me; for instance, the American Statistical Association's pamphlet What is a Margin of Error? defines the margin of error by saying "To be precise, the laws of probability make it possible for us to calculate intervals of the form
estimate +/- margin of error.
Such intervals are sometimes called 95 percent confidence intervals and would be expected to contain the true value of the target quantity (in the absence of nonsampling errors) at least 95 percent of the time." I agree that the term "maximum margin of error" is not as commonly used as "margin of error", but it is not my invention either. It has been used in the mainstream press - e.g. in reporting on this USA TODAY Gallup poll - and by many other authors. A Google search for "maximum margin of error" gives plenty of examples.
On a minor point, it is not sensible to talk about the margin of error of a whole poll, even using your maximum margin of error definition, unless no analysis of subpopulations is undertaken. For example, the press release for the Newsweek poll quotes twelve different "margins of error", for subpopulations such as registered voters, men, women, Republicans, Democrats, and debate viewers. This seems to negate much of the apparent simplicity of your definition.
More generally, I believe that giving people a practical explanation of the drawbacks of the margin of error is important, much more so than deriving the formula for the maximum margin of error for a proportion under a simple random sample (for example). So we should expand our coverage of non-sampling errors. And at least where I live, the sample design is still ignored in poll reporting often enough that I think we should set a good example. This is why I am uncomfortable with presenting calculations that assume a simple random sample in the context of our example poll, which they don't apply to. (Our apparent confusion here over the confidence level in the Newsweek poll is an illustration of how this can lead people astray.) I also think we should be careful not to limit the focus of our article to polls. Sure, they're high profile, and this means they can provide an easily understood example of the concept, but there are many other sample surveys out there that are at least as important.
I agree the probability of leading is useful in understanding the Newsweek poll results. Can you give a reference to someone discussing this concept? This would help assuage my concerns about it being original research. -- Avenue 23:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed your comment about the Newsweek poll sample design. I can't how they could have avoided using a complex sample design (assuming they select households randomly first, then people, as is typical); either they interviewed interviewed all eligible people in the contacted households, in which case it is a cluster sample, or they interviewed a subsample of the eligible people (e.g. just one person per household), in which case there would be varying sample selection probabilities. Either way it's a complex design, and the standard formula for unweighted simple random samples wouldn't hold. In any case, they do say the sample is weighted, so that rules out the naive formula on its own. -- Avenue 00:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. I don't have too much time to respond to your points just just now, so let me just ask everyone's opinion about moving this article to FARC. Neither you nor I came saw this review until recently, and I think the day and a half of review has already proven helpful. I'd like to keep this in FAR for now and give us the chance to resolve these issues over the weekend. I know I'm being US-centric in saying this, but I'd really like to keep this article's profile high as the presidential race and its accompanying misinterpretations of polling data has already begun. Of course, it may be possible to get the same work done in FARC.
The key issues I think we're going back and forth about are scope and focus. I originally added content to this article because I was frustrated with misinterpretations of the single margin of error that newspaper articles report as a footnote in their coverage. I basically wanted to write about how it can be interpreted (not necessarily how it's calculated) and how it was a mostly unhelpful statistic that is prone to misinterpretations. The margin of error that you seem to be discussing is, I think, equally well addressed by the notion of a confidence interval for a proportion. In fact, it's synonymous.
One of the ways that we can address this is to run some kind of disambiguation page. For a time, there was, in fact, a note saying that this article discussed a margin of error for polling. Could we spin off another article or develop the confidence interval page further to address your concerns? If so, how should we relabel this article to keep its narrow scope clear while we restructure links to other articles? Fadethree 05:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment fails 1a, prose problems - some examples only from the final part of the article:
  • ("The rest of this section"?) The rest of this section shows how the Newsweek percentage might be calculated.
  • an assumption that if anyone does not choose Kerry they will choose Bush, and vice versa, i.e. they are perfectly negatively correlated
  • perhaps something like, assumption that a voter must choose Kerry or Bush; the two possibilities are perfectly negatively correlated if, for the purpose of illustration, the possibility of a voter choosing another candidate is ignored.
  • It's unnecessary to have convoluted English grammar making the math appear more difficult: This assumption may not be tenable given that a voter could be undecided or vote for Nader, but the results will still be illustrative.
  • see above
  • Redundant prose:
  • It is evident that tThe confidence level has a significant impact on the probability of leading.
  • Note that tThe 100% entries in the table are actually slightly less. Here is the same table for the 99% confidence level:
  • This can be easily accomplished by taking a glass of seawater and then chemically analyzing the proportion of salt in that sample.
  • This can be accomplished by chemically analyzing the proportion of salt in a sample of seawater.
  • Why tentatively? This can tentatively be called the Probability of Leading.
  • "very approximately equal"? The margin of error applicable directly to the "lead" is very approximately equal
  • "note that" occurs throughout the article - it's redundant, not necessary, and we shouldn't tell our readers what to note.
  • These are samples only. Again, we find the math is made to appear inaccessible to the average reader not because of the math, but because of the English. Serious copyedit attention is needed by a fresh set of eyes - I suggest the Math Project attempt to get some good copyeditors involved.
  • Referencing has something goofed up - books listed as Further reading are included in footnotes - if they are used as References, they should be listed as such. Why is the Bush-Kerry MSN article given in External links - is it used as a Reference? If not, what is its relevance?

Move to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to address these issues, mostly by trimming things out. Let me know what you think. Fadethree 21:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the Further reading to agree with WP:LAYOUT and added an ISBN on the reference book. I read one section as an example - I found missing wikilinking (sample size - important to the topic), and made prose changes to further reduce redundancy. That's one section only; then I went back to glance at the lead, since I noticed that the first section introduces confidence intervals without defining them. I found that the WP:LEAD gets into too much detail about confidence intervals, which should be handled and defined in the first section - the lead should be a stand-alone summary of the entire article, not the place for defining concepts. I'll keep going after you've done more work. Is there a reference chapter for the entire section "More advanced calculations behind the margin of error"? The tipoff to the possibility of original research is the sentence, "This is perhaps optimistic, but if care is taken it can be at least approximated in reality". Section headings violate WP:MSH; I'll add that these kinds of basic issues (e.g.; following WP:MOS) reflect my ongoing frustration with the Math WikiProject. I do wish the Project would make a concerted effort to make sure their Featured Articles conform with basic guidelines like WP:MOS, and get a good copyeditor on board to review all of their FAs, as many of them coming through FAR suffer from prose problems that seem to be getting through FAC. Perhaps reviewers are intimidated by the math, which is made harder to understand because of prose redundancies which make the math look more convoluted than necessary (sorry, that was a general rant, not aimed at you or this article in particular :-). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made edits to the lead, though I'm happy with your suggestion to move some of its content to a later section. One of the reasons that confidence interval comes up so early is to distinguish the margin of error as a special case of the confidence interval. For those who are used to thinking of them as synonymous, that's something that they'd be confused about quickly. I've taken out the advanced calculations; they were correct but may belong to another article. I really appreciate your comments. There is no excuse for bad prose, but I think a small part of it arises from honest differences in disciplinary norms. As you know, math articles occasionally use passive voice and first-person viewpoints. Oh, and they're often badly written. It's a little bit of assuming that the readers are as fluent in jargon as we are, and it's a little bit of laziness and deliberate obfuscation. I'm do my best to keep things clear. Fadethree 07:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've done a fair amount of editing. Avenue, I've tried to delineate the boundaries and state the assumptions of the article as clearly as possible up front. Let me know how you like this framing. Sandy, I've knocked around almost all the prose that you found cluttered. Please let me know if anything else is clear. I'd appreciate anyone's help with the references; I'm not as familiar as I'd like to be about reference conventions. Fadethree 21:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you stick something in for references and let me know, I can help clean them up to correct formatting style - just get something in there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, Fadethree. I think getting the boundaries and assumptions sorted out up front will help us progress the substantive issues. I agree that the article shouldn't go into too much technical depth, although we may have different ideas about what bits should qualify. I liked the way you clearly distinguished between the two meanings of margin of error, but I felt the way they were described was misleading. I've tried to improve it, and tidy up the rest of the lead section (especially the paragraph on confidence levels, which seemed to ramble). It would also be good to shorten the caption for the graph, and preferably make it a bit narrower, but apart from that, the lead is looking much better.
    • I think the rest of the article still has a way to go to meet FAC 1a and 1c though. A few examples:
  • The fact that the (maximum) margin of error is the radius of a specific confidence interval is not really that important, but it seems to be stressed throughout.
  • It's confusing to assume a 99% confidence level in the example when most other polls[3] use 95%, and this one probably does too.
  • Bayesian assumptions and interpretations are only hinted at, not described or linked to, and I don't believe they apply directly to the calculations shown in our article anyway. These formulae give confidence intervals, not credible intervals.
  • The sentence "When the sample is not random, the margin of error must be estimated through more advanced calculations." sounds like we might be suggesting the sorts of things argued against by the AAPOR. A random sample is not the same as a simple random sample.
Thanks, Avenue. I like your edits. Some replies:
  • The reason I stressed that the margin of error is synonymous with the radius of a confidence interval is because anyone who knows what a confidence interval is but not a margin of error will come closer to understanding it. I think that showing that two things that may be presumed different are in fact the same is a useful endeavor. I'm not strongly against deemphasizing this point, but I thought I'd make a case for its inclusion.
  • I'll take a look at redoing the figure for a 95% confidence interval. That seems to be the biggest timesuck to switching.
  • The Bayesian issue is actually quite subtle, and, as you probably know, there's a long history of Bayesian vs. frequentist interpretation of intervals. The fact is that we have taken a Bayesian interpretation of confidence intervals in this article, and that is what I wanted to acknowledge in case there were any hard core frequentists lying around. The frequentist interpretation of confidence intervals is not that the probability of the "true" value being somewhere in a range is 95% (the true value doesn't have a distribution; it's known) but that the confidence intervals of multiple different samples will contain the true value 95% of the time. This interpretation is awkward, which is why I chose to fall back on Bayesian assumptions. Since so many people take a Bayesian interpretation of confidence intervals, and I don't think this is the place to go into it in too much depth, maybe we can just delete the qualification or refer people to the CI article.
  • Can we change "random" to "simple random sample" to address your last point?
  • Thanks again. I'll try and find that old figure. Fadethree 17:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), and list sections (2). Marskell 05:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Plenty of work done here; just keeping it on schedule. Marskell 05:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment nice work so far, Fadethree - from a quick glance, the prose is much tighter and cleaner. I haven't had time for a complete read, but can someone please review the section headings per WP:MSH - they seem very repetitive. Also, a page number (or range) is needed on note 6, Sudman and Bradburn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tried to eliminate the redundancy in section headings while eliminating the "listiness" previously noted. I added page numbers for the Sudman and Bradburn reference. Editing references to conform to style is always appreciated. Let me know what you think. Fadethree 23:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think the listiness has been fixed and the referencing has definitely been improved. Kaldari 06:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry, I've been away and I do try to be more helpful in these things… I agree that the article has improved but I still have some accuracy/POV issues. Maybe I'll just take them up at the talk page when I get the time. Melchoir 22:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't notice that you removed large parts of the "incorrect interpretations" section. To clarify, do you think that everything that you removed is indefensible, or just that there are statements that are not defended?
I know this is a platitude, but a statistic is just a number until it is interpreted. There are defensible and indefensible interpretations of a statistic. I think it is worthwhile to delineate the domain of reasonable interpretation. I have and hopefully can further reduce the argumentative tone of the article, but if your objection is that the domain of interpretations is not interesting, I'm not sure there's much I can do but respectfully disagree. In fact, I think the common misinterpretations of this statistic are exactly what make this an interesting topic and an interesting article
I think that everything that you removed should be improved, and I will work to do that. But I hope you agree that a description can be communicated both by saying what something is and by saying what something is not. Fadethree 09:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be scientific about it, all I can really say is that the statements were currently undefended. But I can offer my reasoning line by line:
  • Kerry and Bush are "statistically tied" or are in a "statistical dead heat". The fact of two percentages being within a margin of error of each other is elsewhere offered as the definition, or the criterion for usage, of these phrases. Logically it is absurd to then claim they are also incorrect.
  • The difference between Kerry and Bush percentages is only notable if it is greater than 3%. This is not an objective statement that can be correct or incorrect. Strictly interpreted, I wouldn't agree with it. But it's an abbreviation of a correct statement: the difference between the percentages implies that the lead is reflected by the poll, with an insignificant possibility of error that scales with the confidence level used to calclate the margin or error, if it is greater than a statistic that is of the same order of magnitude as the reported margin of error.
  • Any change in the percentages is trivial unless the change is greater than 3%. Again, it depends on what you consider trivial. Again, if you expand out the statement, it becomes correct: the likelihood that the change in percentages is of a different order of magnitude than the reported change, or in the wrong direction, is insignificant (and scaling with the confidence level used to calclate the margin or error) if the change is greater than a statistic that is of the same order of magnitude as the margin of error.
  • Because Nader got 2% and the margin of error is 3%, he could potentially have 0%. This is surely a fallacy but a trivial one. I considered keeping it, but then we'd be left with a list of one uninteresting item. And there are nearby, correct statements: Nader could potentially have a percentage that is so much lower than 3% that for it would be more accurate to think of it as 0%. It could even be that Nader has no supporters besides the ones who responded to the poll, however unlikely that would be.
  • The margin of error is the same for every percentage, i.e. 47% ± 3%, 45% ± 3%, 2% ± 3%. Since the margin of error is defined as a poll-level statistic, it is the same for every percentage. I guess from the numbers that it was meant that the radius of the confidence interval is the same for every percentage. That would be a true fallacy, but it is less interesting than the associated true statements that the confidence interval scales linearly with the margin of error; it can be calculated knowing only the margin of error; and the constant of proportionality is sufficiently close to 1 for a wide range of percentages and purposes. The incorrectness of the fallacy could be brought to light by emphasizing the true statements instead.
Of course, besides the factual issues, there were also the usual problems that the claims were original research, it had not been verified that the statements were sufficiently common to justify comment in the first place, and the implication that they represent a systematic problem was POV. Melchoir 16:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to say remove, at least for the current version. Melchoir's deletions have greatly improved the article, as has all the work put in since this review started, but there's still a lot more that needs fixing. I've reworked some of the easier bits, but there's plenty more that is currently just plain wrong.
One of the more fundamental issues is the reliance on Bayesian interpretations of frequentist calculations. I don't see myself as a hardcore frequentist, but I suspect this can't be justified for surveys in general. I think we should either go the frequentist route throughout, or warn people that we're fudging things by interpreting frequentist calculations in a Bayesian fashion, and that there may be some traps hidden there for the unwary. The Bayesian interpretation is much more natural, which makes the article easier to write and understand, but we shouldn't gloss over the distinction completely, or the potential dangers of ignoring it.
More concretely, I'm still noticing new errors in the text every time I read through it, so there's still a lot of tidying up to do. For instance, by saying finite population corrections would be irrelevant for a survey in a school, while presenting a poll with 1000 respondents, we imply that schools have at least 10,000 students. We should also provide better citations for the theory; no offence to the folks at Research Solutions, but I think even they'd agree that they are not an authority on this subject.
It would be nice to take the example a bit further before we introduce any formulae, because some readers will not get past them. I'd also like to avoid the assumption of perfect negative correlation in the section on comparing percentages; it might not be too bad in this example, but it comes across as sloppy and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. It would be good to eliminate the uncertainty around the Newsweek margin of error calculations as well. -- Avenue 13:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I don't think there's anything further I can do. I will say that I am a bit baffled by your philosophy, Avenue, which seems to be that every assumption that statisticians casually make in practice should be defended with down to the axioms. Statisticians are not obsessive mathematicians, we make assumptions based on convenience and based on the fact that the difference doesn't matter until the third decimal point. Your continuing assertion that things are "incorrect" is of course true but trite, my mantra is the same as that of many statisticians, "all models are wrong, some models are useful." If you are going to continue nitpicking all statistics articles to a standard of mathematical certainty, they will not only be complicated but boring and, worse, inconsequential for all practical purposes. Still, I'm happy with the results of the review, though I'm sad to see the article leave FA. Fadethree 19:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry you feel that way. I should have said that I agree with you that some coverage of common misconceptions and misinterpretations would be useful, even though I'm happy that what was there before was deleted. I do feel that a certain degree of "nitpicking" is appropriate for featured articles, but I wouldn't characterise my comments and edits as insisting on anything like mathematical rigour. Regarding the dual frequentist/Bayesian interpretation, while I agree that this sort of joint approach is becoming common in statistics generally, I don't believe it's as straightforward in this context as you seem to think. For instance, a recent paper by two prominent Bayesian statisticians highlighted finite population sampling as an area where there is "a fundamental philosophical and practical conflict" (p. 35) between the Bayesian and frequentist approaches, which hasn't yet been surmounted. Glossing over this completely in this article seems like a bad idea to me. -- Avenue 01:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — there is still a very solid chance this article will keep featured status. It only needs additional reinforcement from references, and maybe a small copy-edit to weed out any lingering major issues. Implementing Avenue's suggestions will help, as well. — Deckiller 12:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's up here folks? I hate dropping the ball so close to the goal line. Marskell 07:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think it's passable; the issues can be resolved outside of FAR(C). — Deckiller 13:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't believe it's FA quality yet, although I think we're more than halfway there. Lately I've focussed on tidying up the prose, but there are still a number of substantive issues to address. -- Avenue 16:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some attention to flow might help; the definition is halfway into the page. Once sections are ordered more logically, a review of wikilinking may be in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree some reorganisation would be useful. There are also a couple of topics mentioned in the lead section that haven't yet been expanded on in the text (non-sampling errors, effect of sample design). Along with the Bayesian/frequentist issue, these are the main things I think keep this article from reaching featured quality at present. There's also some more tidying up to do, and it would be nice to add more graphics and references, but that's not as crucial. -- Avenue 15:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. After a good start at improvements at the beginning of the review, work on this article seems to have stalled. The review is running overtime, and issues have not been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 12:02, 16 March 2007.

Canadian Heraldic Authority

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Messages left at User talk:Mb1000, Canada, and Heraldry and vexillology. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good article on a very important heraldic topic. I think, though, that it does not quite meet the FA guidelines in its present form. I'd be interested in hearing what others think and listening to ideas on how to make it better (short of a complete rewrite). It seems that this article could use some help in its references, and the formatting could use some work to make it more attractive. The standard of prose is also not met in my opinion. It falls short of being "compelling, even brilliant." I think that these problems are fixable, but it will take some work and I'd like some suggestions on what specifically can be done. Thanks a lot.--Eva bd 21:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've long given up on finding truly "compelling" on Wikipedia.
The two main things I would definitely hold against the article without even reading it (which I'll try to do) are over-reliance on image galleries and lists, as well as lack of inline citations, both of which should be easily remedied to.Circeus 21:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that I've got some reference material at home that will probably be able to back up some of the statements made. I'll see if I can find some of this information in the next couple days (or weeks) to fill things out.--Eva bd 13:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does have potential, but more work is needed. For instance, in the section "Constitutionality", there is a wildly inaccurate accessment of thelegal position, completely ignoring the prerogative, and making a statement about immunity from law which is wholly incorrect. The first paragraph is also not helpful, with its statements about the cost of the College of Arms and Lord Lyon - the CHA is scarcely cheap (its grants can be more expensive than Scottish grants) - and lack of familiarity with Canadian history and symbols. These errors were found simply by looking at these two sections, which suggests that there must be many more elsewhere.Ncox 00:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This "Constitutionality" section was just added to the article a couple of days ago. In fact, this recent addition is what prompted me to start this FAR in the fisrt place. It was added by an IP user that refuses to sign any posts. He listed a couple of websites on the talk page, but they are both rec.heraldry references that are hardly definitive sources. Heraldic law is not my thing, so if you wouldn't mind doing some corrections here, that would be great. I've read some of your work in the "Double Tressure" and the "Coat of Arms," and think that you're qualified.--Eva bd 13:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the grammar issues were caused by me, so I do apologize for that. Honestly, I do not know much about heraldry and when I was working with others on this FA, I admit I didn't know much and put in what I found on the website of the CHA. Regardless, I will take out the badge photos of the various positions and I might remove the coat of arms of Mme. Jean since under our fair use policy, we really need to discuss the arms, not just display it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are refernces and formatting (1c), and prose (1a). Marskell 14:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 08:44, 21 March 2007.

Blackjack

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]

Has only two inline citations (1c) Beyond seven words in the lead, it does not mention anything about the history and development of the game (1b). Message left at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gambling. Andrew Levine 06:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, gotit, I missed the two-step process FAR+FARC. Thanks Andrew. Sander123 14:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), LEAD (2a), and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell 11:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 16:20, 11 March 2007.

Bullfighting

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Messages left at Behemoth, WikiProject Portugal, WikiProject France and WikiProject Spain.

I believe Bullfighting fails 1.(c) "Factually accurate", as it has almost no citations (one inline at last count). I have an interest in the subject, but no real knowledge in it, nor really time to learn enough to add the citations it sorely needs. --Falcorian (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c) and prose (1a). Marskell 07:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 18:33, 4 March 2007.

Weight training

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Message left at GeorgeStepanek. LuciferMorgan 13:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Messages left at Bodybuilding and Sports. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically against my advice they've gutted this article to make what I feel is an ill advised re-organization of the entire weight lifting genre. The fact that featured articles should normally be left alone was thrown out the window and vast amounts of content have been removed. There really is no defense of this as a featured article anymore. The first thing you need to see before you judge this article is the merger discussion. Even though I never worked on the article I was really impressed with it when I first saw it, and am sad to see it go. Quadzilla99 08:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the article when it was featured. Quadzilla99 08:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment have been concerned about FA status of this article since viewing it long ago - unencyclopedic, how-to, listy, and largely uncited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I also feel that the re-organization was ill-advised, and would be happy to see it put back to how it was before. I didn't chip in at the time because there seemed to be some support for it—and it could have even led to a slight improvement—but it doesn't appear to have been implemented very well. GeorgeStepanek\talk 06:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment not my area of expertise at all, but as above there is far too much "howto" here, and not enough encyclopedic content. Its still a good-ish article but definitely not FA standard as it sits at the moment - PocklingtonDan 08:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response One thing I want to comment on is the How-to and list complaints. There is no other way to do a weight training or exercise article. Unless you describe an exercise by saying "a barbell curl is when a person curls up a barbell" you're going to have to go into detail discussing the exercise. There's no way to do that without having somebody describe it as a how-to type of description. Also since everything in weight training is divided up into mathematical form (sets, duration, reps, etc.) some lists and table are also necessitated although the article may indeed have too many of them. Quadzilla99 06:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are organization and focus (2 and 4). Marskell 08:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 14:33, 26 March 2007.

Wigwag (railroad)

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Original nominator no longer active. Message left at Trains and California. LuciferMorgan 23:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern is the lack of references here (WP:FA? 1.c). Only two references are given, and only one of these is inline. The article is tagged as not representing a worldwide view, and hence is not comprehensive (1b). I am also not convinced by the lead section (2a) and the overall quality of the writing (1a). →Ollie (talk • contribs) 13:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), comprehensiveness (1b), LEAD (2a), prose quality (1a). Marskell 14:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 14:55, 12 March 2007.

Zeppelin

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Messages left at Jengod, Germany, Aircraft, and MilHist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complete lack of in-line citations (1c). A 2004 promotion. Hbdragon88 02:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it is only citations, then let me check my library and see if I can source the books. Hiding Talk 18:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was the first problem that I saw (and I made sure to use Ctrl-F to make sure that I hadn't missed any parenthical ones, which backfired on me on Operation Downfall). I reread the article and can't really say that I see big problems with it, but I also lack experience with long articles and picking out problems there. Other revieweres will note and remark on problems here though. Hbdragon88 04:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image thumbs have hard-coding sizes, which is contrary to the MOS. If this article is to be an FA, it really ought to comply with the MOS. Image thumb sizes are a function of user preferences, and should be left unsized so that the users' preferences are not overridden. For example, some of my editing is done on my daughter's computer, which still has a 640x480 monitor, so 300 px wide really makes the article look bad. Remember, there's a lot of folks out there, world-wide, with older equipment. Normally when I come across pre-sized thumbs, I remove the sizing per the MOS, but since this is up for review, I've left it alone. I'm not trying to make someone else do the work, I'd be happy to come back and do it, but I don't want to dive in when discussion is going on. Akradecki 15:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC Two weeks since FAR, still no citations. DrKiernan 11:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concern is citations (1c). Marskell 07:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updates:
    1. Copyedited the lead section (not sure if it is the briliant one).
    2. Re-structured the History section while renaming sections per WP:MSH.
    3. Trimmed Cultural influences section and trashed unnecessary trivia into Airships in culture.
Will do citing later. — Indon (reply) — 09:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep (once issues are resolved). — Deckiller 13:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per 1c. I'll revise my vote once this issue has been addressed. LuciferMorgan 10:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: - due to lack of time, sources and knowledge about the subject, I can't fulfil the (1.c) requirement for this article. And the original editors do not wish to retain its FA status (sigh). I found also in the Zeppelin during World War I section that it contains incorrect statements, for instance, according to many sources that the first Zeppelin air raid was on May 13th, not January 19th (I coudln't find the Jan 19th source). There is also a note of incosistent figure. Thus, I believe removing its FA status to bring it back to FAC with correct factual data is a better way for this article. — Indon (reply) — 12:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article lists "speeds up to about 80 km/h (100 mph)". At least one figure has to be incorrect since they are not equivalent. If 80 km/h is correct, then 50 mph should be in parentheses. If 100mph is correct, then 161 km/h should be used.---cas4j —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.73.53.5 (talk • contribs)
  • Remove Reluctantly. Inline citations lacking. It is such a nice article on an interesting subject. Hope sometime in future one of us may find time and resource to make it FA again. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Went for a quick look, and saw this in the text—Yikes !
    • Fifty-one raids had been undertaken (***inconsistent with figures given above, which total 54***), in which 5,806 bombs were dropped, ...
  • SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 18:33, 4 March 2007.

Battle of Alesia

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Messages left at Sj, MilHist, and France. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for nomination: Not a single citation in the whole article. This would not be acceptable under current FA guidelines - PocklingtonDan 15:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Lacks inline citations. Inconsistently formated references section. The lead is problematic; the second sentence dives into a contention, and the lead clarifys twice, in parentheses, that Gaul is roughly modern France. + Ceoil 23:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. From a brief skim, it doesn't seem too bad, but needs someone willing (and able) to go through and reference. Trebor 17:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. References are given, only not inline. I think with someone taking the effort (and having the ability) to link the given references to the relevant text positions, I think the problem is solved. On this issue alone I think degrading the article is a bit too strict. Arnoutf 22:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concern is lack of citations (1c). Marskell 08:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 11:34, 10 March 2007.

Husein Gradaščević

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Message left at Life Forever. Todor→Bozhinov 21:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Messages left at Milhist and Biography. LuciferMorgan 22:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, this article needs some considerable improvements to retain its FA status. It is very badly referenced: there are absolutely no footnotes (for an article of that size I would say it needs at least 50, if not more) and only three main references (all in Bosnian... something in English would be nice). Also, the article is packed with red links, which means there is little context provided. Many of the images are quite irrelevant and contribute little to the article (views of Sarajevo and Istanbul?), and there are some formatting and sectioning issues (e.g. no use of cite templates, some undesired short lists within the prose, "Biography" is quite unnecessary as a heading — subsections should be sections). Finally, a more concise lead section would be appreciated, perhaps two and not three paragraphs of that size. Todor→Bozhinov 21:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns include referencing (1c), images (3), sectioning and formatting issues (2). Marskell 09:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 18:33, 4 March 2007.

Military history of the Soviet Union

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Talk messages left at Ryan Anderson, MilHist, Soviet Union, Russia, and Russian History. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for nominating: With a grand total of seven (7) cites, this clearly fails current FA guidelines. - PocklingtonDan 15:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concern is lack of citations (1c). Marskell 08:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 08:44, 21 March 2007.

Poison gas in World War I

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Message left at MilHist. LuciferMorgan 02:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC) Message left at User talk:Gsl. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe this article meets the current standards for featured articles. Some of the problems:

  • Insufficient citations
  • Sloppy references
  • Tables are not standardised

On the upside the photographs are spot on. - Francis Tyers · 15:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Doesnt currently meet the FA standard.

  • Increase size of lead to at least two large paras
  • The effects sections is very short and should also be expanded
  • Citations must be improved
  • not sure about the table of Gases used, could this be turned into prose.

A bit of work to do. Hossen27 05:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Status — refs need a lot of work; not only are more inline cites in order, but they are just hyperlinks. No formal details or format for those refs, either.
  • The prose — needs a runthrough. I found some redundancies on a quick scan, such as "in order" to. Most cases of "over (insert number here)" should be changed to "more than (insert number here)". Just minor stuff. — Deckiller 23:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are number and quality of references (1c), formatting issues (2), and prose (1a). Marskell 07:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

Kept status

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

The article was kept 10:19, 30 March 2007.

Microsoft

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Message left at RN. LuciferMorgan 23:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC) Talk message corrected at Computing; left at Business and Economics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was promoted in 2005, since then it has been growing and growing.

  • A bad violation of criteria (4). It is 94KB making it quite unreadable.
  • The lead itself spans several pages, and I think it borders on violating (2a). It mentions some minor details that are nowhere else in this article (history of the capitalisation of the name, exact date of foundation) and fails to give a fair mention of the criticism section.
  • The History section, which is what first caught my attention, goes into a lot of detail. It became a problem 1 year ago already and someone had created a sub-page for it, but for this 1 full year this sub-page has served as a clone of the history section in the main article. The main article still maintains the full text of History of Microsoft (which in itself is a large 39KB article).
  • This is probably related to the length, but the table of contents is also oversized, pushing (2c)
  • I have not looked through this dispute myself, but it seems the neutrality is in dispute - there has been a weasel word tag in the criticism section for several weeks.

--Konstable 23:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments — this article needs to cut its history section by half; that should take care of most of the length issue. In turn, the lead will probably have to be shortened by a para. The prose is also a slight concern (several cases of "in order" to, some vague terms of size, vague modifiers, and other minor issues). Looks like some work is needed to cut and then polish this gem. — Deckiller 23:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor comment My script returns a value of 48 KB for the readable prose (which is what really counts), plus another 14KB for references. The remainder is presumably in the infobox, the image markup and captions, the lists under See also and elsewhere, and the accounting table. So it's not as large as it first seems. Dr pda 00:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tidied it a bit; could use a bit more. As Dr. pda says its about 47k prose size and perhaps could use a little trim; at the time it was mid-high on the size compared to other FAs - maybe that has changed :D. Anyway it's held up fairly well since I last edited in September; creating a history article is still a good idea but is such a big task as you need a lot left in the article to make it "complete". Also, the statement about it "growing and growing" is mostly incorrect - there is a bit but most of the additions were very thorough referencing for when it hit the front page. Original page size is about 55k before inline referencing requirements, and the added referencing was probably 30k on its own; so really there is not too much growth in my opinion (using prose size it is 39k vs. 47k). RN 06:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • History section — because there is a subarticle, is it necessary to have detailed subsections? a 5-6 paragraph overview with maybe two subheadings might be a good idea. As a matter of fact, chopping that huge history section in half - providing an overview like I said - will bring the article down to below 70 KB. From there, it's just a matter of trimming excess in the other sections, and I'm sure that can be get down to a reasonable 60 KB. — Deckiller 11:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as per my comments at Talk:Microsoft#History of Microsoft I cannot support this as a FA until the history section is cut dramatically to summary style. Of course I should just be adding a comment to concur with the comments above (most importantly the fact that the history article is a 100% duplication of the history section of this article), however I spent a lot of time cutting it down myself and was swiftly reverted. I have added my comments to the discussion, so the ball is out of my court now. Mark83 23:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK prose size down to 32k. If anyone has any new/other concerns let me know. (hint: the size wikipedia tells you in the editbox is mostly worthless - esp. on an article like this with 50% markup :D) RN 07:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC to utilize the additional two weeks to complete extensive work still needed. According to Dr pda's script, the prose size is now a reasonable 32 KB, but there are other issues.
    • Section headings should be reviewed for WP:MSH issues; there is a lot of repetition of "Microsoft" in the section headings, and use of the word "the".
    • In the section "1975–1985: The founding of Microsoft" (which according to WP:MSH should be reduced to "1975–1985: Founding")—the first section of the article—choppy prose is found right out of the starting gate. MITS is used as an acronym, but not defined on its first occurrence. Awkward prose as well ("which was set to be used" and "entitled"). This review of one section only suggests an independent copyedit may be in order.
    • Skipping down to another section, one finds: "Microsoft has often been described as having a developer-centric business culture. " Passive language - described by whom? Sounds weasly. This suggests there may be a lack of citations in the article, which should be reviewed?
    • Odd use of bolding is found in Corporate structure. Redundant prose found there as well ("There are several other aspects to the corporate structure of Microsoft. For worldwide matters there is the Executive Team, made up of sixteen company officers across the globe, which is charged with various duties including making sure employees understand Microsoft's culture of business.") Some of these issues could be just things I happened across, but they do suggest that complete copyedit may be in order; perhaps Deckiller will have a look at the article.
    • I just did a lot of cleanup, but Footnotes still need extensive work. Publisher, publication date, and author (when available) are not given for most sources, so on quick glance, a reader can't tell if reliable sources are used. All footnotes should indicate at least a publisher. For example, clicking on Midnight Madness Hypes Xbox 360 Launch. Retrieved on 2006-07-03 reveals an author, publication date, and publisher: all should be listed. All footnotes need to be checked.
    • Is this a reliable source (for example)? Square Manhole Covers and Crazy Questions. Retrieved on 2006-07-01. Is this blog a reliable source? ^ Microsoft "Your potential. Our passion". Retrieved on 2006-05-18. Footnotes need extensive attention.
    • A consistent date format should be used for retrieval dates. Some use Month day, year, while others use year-mm-dd.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC per Sandy's reasoning; a lot of work has been done, and the article is quite good, but there are still some issues. Prose is better, but I still see a few random redundancies and other glitches. — Deckiller 01:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • hmmm, well that's a double-edged sword. Back when I did this and had some time I had to fight to get the footnotes where they are and people thought it was too extensive. Now even publishers and such are needed on each one and stuff i guess; but now I don't have that much free time. Should have just did the article a couple of years later :\. Thanks for the review Sandy et al. :D. RN 18:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are size and focus (4), TOC (2c), lead (2a). Marskell 11:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 19:41, 24 March 2007.

Poetry

[edit]
Note on closing—already listed at WP:FFA as re-promoted; if demoted, does not get added to tally, rather moved.

Review commentary

[edit]
Messages left at A Musing and Poetry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC) Also at Logologist. Sam 22:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was rather surprised to find this as a featured article. For once, this is an article with a large number of cites, but this article has a few problems. It fails the following FA criteria"

  • 1(a) - The prose is awful in some place. The prose is choppy, there are numerous single sentence paragraphs and the entire article lacks coherency.
Many choppy bits eliminated and some prose polished. Further and more specific critiques on this score would be appreciated. Sam 21:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1(b) - The article is skewed towards Western poetry and marginalizes Asian poetry. Poetry among the native cultures of North and South America, Africa and Australia apparently don't figure into this definition of poetry as they are not mentioned.
I, at least, have worked quite hard to incorporate a fair bit of discussion of poetry of China, Japan, India and the Arabic and Persian speaking world, and have continued to add to this, though obviously it is difficult to simultaneously write about both tonal and atonal poetry given their fundamental linguistic differences. As to native cultures of the Americas, Africa and Australia, I'd love to get some sources (ditto for Tamil and Southeast Asian), there is very little out there in English on these poetries, and what there is is not overwhelmingly useful. Please note discussions you think have issues. (FYI: this has to be continually policed on this issue - all the editors who add their favorite poet/poem inevitably add Western ones). Sam 21:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1(c) - There are quotes and other items that lack citation. Apparently these may have been added while it has been a FA.
Quotes are now taken care of, and other citations are continuing to go in. I've marked some places I think need some; please mark additional ones. Sam 21:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1(d) - See 1(b).
  • 2(c) - An overwhelming table of contents.
I disagree with this one -- it strikes me as appropriate given the breadth of the topic; what would you pull out?Sam

It appears this article needs a serious overhaul. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some comments above - input from anyone on the identified issues would be welcomed! Sam 21:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I have only just realized the turbulent history this article has had. Here is the first time it was demoted on FARC First demotion, here's the second FAC Second promotion. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 21:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: The first Featured Article and the second are essentially entirely different articles; while the first was short, brilliant, and even poetic, it was anything but comprenhensive or NPOV and was fully Euro-centric; only small bits of it survived, and many of them were deleted in the Feature Article process. Sam 22:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That took me an hour; in the interim, it was delisted when it was not actually delisted. I requested Yomangani to reconstruct the peer review archive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is time for a check up on this article; I've been quite busy of late and don't have much time, but would like to see the quality maintained here. Another editor, User:Logologist has been quite active in editing of late, and I'll notify them of this process. This is a very heavily edited article; the entire section on "Genre" is of recent vintage and needs some work, but has developed fairly rapidly. The layout has also been significantly changed of late. I've spent a lot of time on this over the last year, and if someone has history questions, I may be able to answer them. However, if folks have critiques, I would really appreciate making them as clear and actionable as possible: it is fundamentally difficult to work from a "the writing is bad" comment without a more specific critique or examples, and while there are certainly places where I think work is needed, others may disagree and focus on different areas. Thanks! Sam 22:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sam, wondering why you indicated notification of WikiProject Poetry twice (above)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, thought your notice of Poetry was posted on the article, not the Wikiproject. Fixed. Sam 15:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b), citations (1c), TOC (2a). Marskell 10:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why this has been moved to FARC. There were two editors who were responsive to comments at the beginning of the review process, but no follow up from the people who raised questions and no response to my requests for more input (the last of which has now gone 16 days without response). While I'd be happy to work on this one more, and would have even been eager to get an active critique and review, it seemed to me the critics lost interest in this one. No one suggested it should be moved on to FARC; if there is interest in giving this more of a review, I'd suggest restarting the review process with critics interested in engaging in improving the article. Sam 21:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has almost been two weeks; I'm obviously a keep. Sam 16:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Late note: Unless there is definite consensus in the review section, things get moved down. It's the "least harm" option. Marskell 08:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest to those who frequent these reviews that it would be better policy to only move on through the process where there is interest from someone in pursuing it; it's not very helpful to have a process open but nothing happening! Sam 13:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Sorry to see this review has gone neglected; no literary folk round these parts? Pls see WP:DASH. En-dashes are not used on any of the dates (they have hyphens), and spaces should not surround the em-dashes; fixing these sorts of MOS errors is tedious and time-consuming, there is a lot of it to do, but there is time. References and External links are very long; are all of those references used in the article, and can External links be pruned per WP:EL, WP:NOT? There are numerous bluelinks in footnotes which should be expanded to include publisher, author and date when available, and access date on websites (see WP:CITE/ES). The article is over-wikilinked (see WP:MOS-L) and WP:CONTEXT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The references were built out as part of the commentary during the original Featured Article process, in response to a comment there. I would just as soon leave them unless there is a strong consensus against them. On the external links, my vote would be to completely eliminate them - maintaining those external links by deleting the numerous linkspams that are added is a tedious and continuous process, and while they've been kept winnowed to useful ones, it would be far easier to just keep deleting the section as a whole. I will plug away on the other comments as time permits. Sam 13:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pls let me know if you want help formatting refs; my time is limited, but I can plug away at some of them if needed. Also, spaces around em-dashes isn't the norm on most articles, but it is a matter of preference, so take your choice (the en-dashes should be fixed, though). If references were reviewed, that's fine; I was just inquiring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to lodge a Remove here on things that can be fixed; please hold until issues can be addressed, since no reviewers here bothered to give feedback to Sam, who was inquiring all along and appears willing to maintain the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry Sam that no one got back to you. I think this is very comprehensive and that the prose is good (at a top-level read). Sandy, is the ref formatting alright? Marskell 08:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's all over the map, inconsistent and incomplete, following no particular style. But since no one else has lodged any comments, I can't see entering a Remove based on sloppy formatting of footnotes and incorrect dashes. In case anyone ever decides to work on them, here are some examples only of the problems:
  • Some footnotes have page numbers, many don't.
  • I completed the first reference, to Heath, as an example of missing biblio information.
  • Dylan Thomas, Quite Early One Morning, needs publisher, location, date, and an ISBN would be nice. There's an ISBN finder on my userpage infobox that can be used to locate full info on book sources.
  • "Many scholars, particularly those researching the Homeric tradition and the oral epics of the Balkans, suggest that ... " but no samples of these "many scholars" are given.
  • Current note 6, Ahl and Goody, no info about the books, publisher, location, date. Pls see WP:CITE/ES or {{cite book}} for examples of reference formatting. Ditto for 7, 8, 9, and 10, although the ISBN is given on 9, and could be used to find the rest of the info on the ISBN finder.
  • Skippping further down, we find another reference to Kant, but this time it does give the rest of the info which wasn't given in the previous Kant footnote. It would be more efficient to list all the references in the References section (with such a lengthy Reference section, why do footnotes contain books that aren't listed in References), and then just refer to them in the Notes with author, page no., not repeating info in Notes that is already in Refs. I stopped there, but almost none of the footnotes follow any sort of bibiliographic style, and most are missing information.
  • For an example of the inconsisteny in the refs, search on Pinsky.
  • Websources aren't fully formatted, including last access date, for example, the following reference gives no biblio info about the websource or last access dates — See the Text of the play in French as well as an English translation, Phaedra, available at Project Gutenberg.
  • Almost none of the books listed in the lengthy References section have full biblio info on the book. There are very few publishers, and almost no ISBNs.
Also, the dashes are still wrong; I mentioned above that, per WP:DASH, dates use an ndash. They still have emdashes.
It would take someone a couple of hours to finish this work, using the ISBN finder on my user page. The missing page numbers don't allow a reader to locate the sourced info. All in all, the referencing just looks sloppy and unprofessional, which isn't what we expect of featured articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and thanks for the ISBN finder; I'll fix up the dashes quickly, and will plug away at references when I'm near my books; to the degree some of these come from my bookshelves, many of the editions cited will be pre-ISBN, though there will likely be later editions that do have ISBNs. While many of the references (e.g., Pinsky, Dylan Thomas) are from me, there are many others that have been added since and a few that came from the original Filocht version; we'll see what we can do about that. Sam 14:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does appear that it's a problem resulting from piecemeal editing, where each editor added refs with a different style, some more complete than others. ISBNs aren't required, but they are helpful when there are questions about which version or edition, and they do help highlight "our best work". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A small note: I think the repeated "dicussed below" in the refs is unneeded. Do you mean "discussed below" from the point it links from inline or discussed below in the ref section itself? I'd suggest just removing these, as they don't add much. Marskell 08:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and will remove those. I had the same thought in reading this through. (FYI, I've changed my signature some at the request of User:Sam to avoid confusion, but it's still me). A Musing (formerly Sam) 13:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like to see more consistency in ref style, but there's nothing that rises to the level of a Remove - nice work ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Transposed from my talk Marskell 19:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was kept 08:44, 23 March 2007.

B movie

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Messages left at Filmmaking, Films, Jayzel68, DCGeist, Quadzilla99, and Mikker. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B movie was promoted FA on January 9. There were complaints on the article talk page[4]—and the talk page of WP:FAR[5] —that the article had grown dramatically after it garnered support for featured article status. On the article talk page, and at WP:FAR talk, editors who had previously supported the article's candidacy indicated they would no longer support.

Consensus was developed on the talk page at WP:FAR that the article would have a month to address the issues; alarmingly, it appears that there have been no changes.[6] The article's current size is 84KB readable prose, making it likely the longest FA on record.

Serious concerns about Fair Use images have also been raised, and should be viewed in light of recent communication from the Wikimedia Foundation Board. At one point, I recall someone mentioning it had 17 Fair Use images; I haven't counted.

The article size significantly passes guidelines at WP:LENGTH. Reliability of sources should also be evaluated, as IMDb shows up in the references. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • We need to move the entire history section to a subpage entitled History of B movies or History of the B movie. Then, we need to consolidate the history section by half. I also agree that, consequently, there should only be one fair use image per section (and since a couple sections may be merged after consolidation, that may mean only 5-6 FU for the page). Alternatively, we could review the sources first before doing the consolidation, so that we can get that out of the way and focus on the main issue. As for the prose, it's quite good, and it should only be given a brushup without encorachment on the writing style (a skill I'm trying to hone). — Deckiller 17:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the article being completely broken up into four pieces, or will the original (parent) article remain? In other words, if the original article is completely carved up, which article retains featured status, or did you plan to re-submit all four? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I see B movie remaining the main article, its retention of feature status subject, of course, to the quality of its contraction and this review. The four new articles should serve their purpose—allowing B movie to go more to summary style—in something close to their current state. I wouldn't anticipate an effort (on my part, at least) to try to raise them to FA status any time soon.—DCGeist 18:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a great start. Summary style will definitely be easier now. — Deckiller 18:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is the B movie a purely United States phenomenon? I wouldn't have thought so until reading this article. If it is, I'd suggest a very different approach to images in this article. Most, but not all, trailers of movies released before 1964 are in the public domain, as they were published without a copyright notice and did not have their copyright renewed. Since they were typically published before the movie, they did not enjoy derivative work protection and needed to be copyrighted independently. It's true that we haven't been great at tracking this kind of media down, because it is difficult to disprove that the copyright was never renewed, but see commons:Category:North by Northwest (1959 film) for one example. Unless I am missing something, such screenshots would be better than film posters for showing the reader this style of film. Frankly, I'm not clear on what the purpose of the film posters is, since this isn't an article on pop poster art.
If I am missing something, and we need the posters, some of them need reducing in size slightly. I've tagged two, there may be more. We need to delete Image:Emergo.jpg if we can't find proper copyright information about it. Right now we're republishing a photographer's work completely uncredited under some apparantly made-up claim that it was part of a press kit. It's a great image, but we probably can't use it. Jkelly 18:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Excellent suggestion. I'll start looking into the trailer screenshot posssibilities. As for the posters, the B movie phenomenon is as much a matter of commerce and marketing as it is of cinematic aesthetics--in fact, one of the points the posters attempt to make in relation to the text is the ways that B movies are marketed and treated by the industry generally demonstrate much more conformity than the actual films themselves. Posters also tend to be an effective way of indicating the target audiences for the films in question.
As for the question about it being a purely U.S. phenomenon. No, it's not, at least in the industrial sense--there have been systematic distinctions between high- and low-cost production lines in other major film industries during different periods, such as Japan's and France's. One essential point to begin with: As a term, B movie for many decades appears to have been almost universally used to describe the products of the American film industry or foreign films in comparison to Hollywood products--this is true, at least, of the British, French, and Japanese crticism and historiography with which I'm familiar. (I'm happy to expand on the issue a bit later).—DCGeist 19:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up You're obviously right about the need to properly credit Image:Emergo.jpg, though shouldn't we start by assuming good faith on the part of the uploader, Philbertgray, rather than charging him with "some apparantly made-up claim"? I've followed up your message to him with a more personal one--let's see if he can provide the sourcing for it.—DCGeist 18:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For one, Blood Simple is not mentioned in the article (fortunately), for another this film (the image of it) is like a fly in the milk here. A mention in the article that the film although low-budget went beyond B-movie standards would be by far more precise. Can't a more representative B-movie image be given in its place? People that haven't seen the film might get a very wrong impression from the image's description. Hoverfish Talk 00:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well I'm not really sure what the above editor's views on Blood Simple are (Why is it fortunate that it isn't mentioned in the text?), my one concern, now that size is on it's way to being addressed, is/are the captions as they seem to violate criteria 3 of WP:WIAFA. There it's states that images should have "succinct captions". However as Geist is the only one working on the article, perhaps the main focus should first be on trimming the size. Also, and more significantly, as I've voted on or observed many of Geist's FAC's most people do not seem to be bothered by the length of the captions.[7][8][9] Even though that is an official policy the Wikipedia, since most every voter on his FAC's like them it would seem to be a case of WP:Ignore all rules, however if the majority here feel they should be shortened then they'll have to be. Quadzilla99 01:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further Comment My previous comments still stand, however in order to be thorough I looked throught the entire article. A few sentences that could use adjustment:
"Then it was off to the nabes and the hinterland, the subsequent-run market where the double feature prevailed." I don't really want to learn slang to read an article, if these terms are essential lingo please link them to Wiktionary or explain them. If they are essential and are linked I might learn something interesting. If not just delete them.
Comment I removed the above lingo. Quadzilla99 07:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Down in Poverty Row, low budgets led to less palliative fare." Same as above, although this is not slang. Actually maybe it's intellectual slang.
"With television airing many classic Westerns as well as producing its own original Western series, the cinematic market for B oaters in particular was drying up." Same as above wikify and show that it's essential or remove it. My apologies if this appeared before in the article and was wikilinked.
"Unpretentious pictures with simple, familiar plots and reliable shock effects—that is, B pictures in both production values and aesthetic spirit if not by the older, more precise industrial definition—were ideally suited for auto-based film viewing, with all its attendant distractions." Run-on sentence.
"Motorpsycho (1965) had it all: Director Russ Meyer's unsurpassed eye for the finer points of female anatomy. The biker theme ("MURDERcycles") that would prove its popularity in historic fashion just a few years down the road. And that money-in-the-bank word in the title: psycho." Sounds like original research or a personal summary, please cite. Even if all this is something that is so obvious to anyone who knows film that people who flunked out of film school after one semester know it, it sounds like it needs sources.
"Does it have to be a bit schlocky to be a B? Writer-director-star-producer-composer-etc. Shane Carruth made the schlock-free sci-fi Primer (2004) for $7,000. It lasts just 77 minutes—the first time around..." That caption is a little too coy for it's own good.
"In a similar way, the popularity of Internet sites such as YouTube have opened up entirely new avenues for the presentation of low-budget motion pictures, which may, like television, become largely institutionalized as a parallel production and exhibition model with the cinema, or may lead to a redefinition of the concept of cinema itself." Sounds strongly like original research, remember even if something is true you need a source. A statement like that begs for one, also may violate WP:CRYSTAL as it's speculative.

Although that may look bad I looked through the entire article and those are the only sentences I objected to.

A good idea of how to whittle this thing down might be to take a previous version and cut and paste it to a sandbox and see what it needs. In another tab you could have the current version and you could compare the two. Such as something from around December 30 when it was around 60kb. Trying to remove individual sentences would be tedious, while taking a larval version of the current product and looking to see what are glaring omissions might be easier. You could work on it in the sandbox and release it when it's fully developed.

The last thing I want to add is just a suggestion for improving the article and not anything of real importance. This article would really be great if some time in the distant future when the current issues subside, a lot of the names in the article could have their own article. When you mention and describe people like Bryan Foy, Sol Wurtzel, and Sam Briskin among others it would be very interesting to read their backgounds and would help to put things in better perspective. Quadzilla99 06:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment there are image issues too, the article is not an article on B movie poster art; please add information on who the image copyright belongs to, fair use images are not supposed to be used for decoration, please remove fair use posters that do are not discussed in the text.--Peta 03:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Each image and its caption illustrates, complements, and expands on issues discussed in the primary text. Please follow the FAR rules and actually read the article in order to avoid pontificating again so ignorantly. Also, in the future, please make an effort to write in English or whatever your native language is, rather than the above doggerel. Last and not least, you want to "remove fair use posters that do are not discussed in the text"? Fine. Whatever "do are not" means, you just go ahead and "do are" it yourself. This is Wikipedia. You can "do are" whatever you please. But don't expect anyone to give a crap about your orders.—DCGeist 09:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, completely needless DCG. Comment on the material, not the person. And, per Jesus Christ: let he (or she) who is without typos, cast the first criticism. Marskell 21:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Complete overreaction due to real-world trauma. Took a couple days off, but one comment too late. Sorry for the over-the-top incivility. But hey, I've never made a typo in my lief.—DCGeist 03:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't have a problem with the length myself, technical limitations have been mooted, attention spans seem to be growing (look how many millions of people have sat through 3 and 4 hour movies in the past 5 years), and, really, who's forcing anyone to read through the article in one sitting? If you want to take a break and come back later, do it. It's being broken up though, so that's fine, I suppose. Regarding the images, I read that a fair ratio for FAs was 1 image for every 250 words, though I can't find any documentation, but this article meets that easily. They add significantly to the article by illustrating the various types of B movies and demonstrating some of the character and marketing of each. Besides which, Wikipedia is never going to get sued for the use 17 fair use images, which will inevitably be used in articles for those films too, in one article before the use of tens of thousands of them across the entire project (which I can't image it will get sued for either). The captions I like, I think they maintain the balancing act of encyclopedic and humourous writing very well, they're informative and add charm. I can't condone cutting them. On a personal note, the comments directed at DCGeist, specifically starting on the articles talk page, are unwarranted. Of course an article is going to change during it's nomination period, that's expected. And it should be taken for granted that any reviewer may not agree with all of those changes and should keep an eye on it, or, at the very least, give it a quick go over before the final tally is counted. I don't say this to stir up an old discussion but to point out that he's been harangued and nickel and dimed a bit here. Anyway, at full length it's much better than the other feature articles I've read but I'll hold off on voting till the splitting is finished, of course. Doctor Sunshine talk 01:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Nickeled and dimed"? Perhaps you feel there should be absolutely no standards for FAs whatsoever. I suppose we can just name every article a featured article and save a lot of time and effort. --Jayzel 16:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's now how I feel. Doctor Sunshine talk 22:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should realign your feelings with the FAC criteria that are being discussed here. + Ceoil 23:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one who's brought up "feelings". I've stated my opinion. Have I not made myself clear? Doctor Sunshine talk 02:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status? Has work stalled? Prose size still 68KB; overall 104KB. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status update An additional substantive edit has been made since Sandy's query, reflected in figures below.
  • Overall size: Cut from 127 KB to 103 KB—19% cut
  • Prose size: Cut from 84 KB to 67 KB—20% cut
  • Fair-use images: Cut from 17 to 11—35% cut. Specific image identified as problematic by Jkelly among those eliminated. Remaining: lede image; one image per each decade/section; one image for "Associated terms" section.
  • Image captions: Trimmed. Still longer than common on Wikipedia, but average length substantially shorter than before.
  • IMDb.com citations: Cut from five to two (in two cases, superior sources were identified; in one case, the relevant text was cut). The two remaining citations are both for business data (production cost and rental income). Superior sources are still being sought (the two films in question are The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and Halloween) zero (in four cases, superior sources were identified; in one case, the relevant text was cut). Note that a third remaining reference to IMDb.com in the notes points out an error on that site.
  • Literary style: Comments on literary style tended to be very favorable, but Quadzilla99 found issue with a few sentences. Qz99 linked one of these for clarity and edited another; I edited two more.
Comment The major issue obviously remains length. Jayzel, who was the first to raise serious concerns about the article's length, sought a reduction to approximately 70 KB of prose. While that target has been met, Sandy made the case that something in the range of 40 KB of prose should be the target (see here). I've cut as deeply as I can without the loss of any vital information. In my view, each element that remains contributes to the whole story—in its specific significance, in exemplifying broader industrial and aesthetic trends, and in carrying forward the parallel themes of continuity and transformation in the B movie. In terms of how length bears on its FA status, the article's prose size is now 17% shorter than that of Ketuanan Melayu, which passed FAC on September 3, 2006, and was the Main Page's featured article on November 4 (for pertinent data, see here).
On the other hand, I recognize the article remains quite long and am not opposed to further cuts on principle. (And, as has been noted, unlike Ketuanan Melayu, B movie became much longer toward the end of its FAC process.) However, I'd like to see a consensus develop about what, if any, particular elements should be dropped at this point. Early on, for instance, it was suggested that the entire Associated terms section be cut, substituting links to new articles on those terms via See also. Subsequent commentators, however, found much of the information useful within the context of the main article. (I've trimmed the C movie subsection a bit and the Z movie subsection a bit more, creating a separate article for that as well.) In an ideal scenario, I'd organize a panel consisting of an undergrad film student, a movie-loving layperson, and a professional cinema historian. If this fantasy trio agreed that anything was inessential, it could then easily be cut. In lieu of that, it would be helpful to hear from as many voices as possible. In other words, this is a Request for comment.—DCGeist 01:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before I reread the article and offer my thoughts, I would like to address the photo captions. I still think they are unnecessarily POV. They read more like a critic's guide than an encyclopedia. The most POV statements are highlighted in bold:

Vincent Price headlines a cast of golden oldies

Pals of the Saddle (1938) lasts just 55 minutes, perfectly average for a Three Mesquiteers adventure.

Motorpsycho (1965) had it all: Director Russ Meyer's unsurpassed eye for the finer points of female anatomy. The biker theme ("MURDERcycles") that would soon prove its popularity in historic fashion. And that money-in-the-bank title word: psycho.

Piranha (1978), directed by Joe Dante and written by John Sayles for Corman's New World Pictures, is a triple threat: a thrilling creature feature; an outrageous parody of Jaws; and an environmentalist cautionary tale.

In the tradition of Mann and Alton, brothers Joel and Ethan Coen brought high style back to the B noir in 1984.

Does it have to be a bit schlocky to be a B? Writer-director-star-producer-composer-etc. Shane Carruth made the schlock-free sci-fi Primer (2004) for $7,000.

Plan 9 from Outer Space (1959) has become the most famous Z movie of all time—and not for being unexpectedly good. --Jayzel 19:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Captions edited.—DCGeist 04:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just printed out the article and will be reviewing it tomight and tomorrow. Will have my thoughts up Saturday night. Regards, --Jayzel 03:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Superior sources are still being sought (the two films in question are The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and Halloween). Note that a third reference to IMDb.com in the notes points out an error on that site. Try Dmoon1, who got the first 3 Halloween films all to FA, to see if he has a superior source for the Halloween sentence you've referred to DCGeist. He might be able to help :). LuciferMorgan 01:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Superior sources identified and cited for both Halloween and Texas Chain Saw Massacre business data.—DCGeist 06:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice work so far. I know it's hard when everyone is making suggestions and criticisms and no one is actually helping you with the article. Keep it up and try to visualize the final product and the end of this whole process. One or two more things, in the caption for the Primer photo it says, "It lasts just 77 minutes—the first time around..." I'm not sure what this means, is it some kind of reference to the movie? Also is there a certain numeric goal in terms of size you're going for? Perhaps it's time to discuss this as I feel it's close to being of acceptable length. I've noticed that there hasn't been a number that anyone has referred to as a cut-off point. I realize a number is a rather crude way to judge an article but numbers have been frequently mentioned here. I'd say another 10 more or so kbs less would be acceptable. That would put it at around 85-90 kbs. While it would be on the longer range of acceptable it would be reasonable to me. Quadzilla99 00:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Thanks. Caption (with, yes, reference to movie) edited. I can't say I have a numeric goal in mind. Since my status update above, I've further tightened the language throughout and trimmed a couple elements whose thematic import was adequately conveyed elsewhere, knocking off a few more KB. The pruning process of the past two weeks has improved the article, and I'm personally happy with where it is now. As noted, I await the suggestions of Jayzel and whoever else may have recommendations for specific cuts. Their input will be determinative as to the article's ultimate size.—DCGeist 14:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC. The article still has 67 KB prose; it received Support votes at FAC when it was well below that and within WP:LENGTH guidelines. The editor who grew the article to this size should be the best person to decide how to reduce it back to the size that received support at FAC; I don't think other editors should necessarily need to dictate where or how the summaries should be done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Sandy, your exclusive emphasis on size and FA guidelines completely ignores the more important issue: content. As I have done my best to make clear, I believe the content of the article as it stands now best serves Wikipedia's readers. There are those, like Doctor Sunshine, who appear to agree. However, as I have repeatedly expressed, I'm not adamant about my view--those who believe the article can better serve Wikipedia's readers by losing some of its current content are asked to suggest what should be cut. Or do you believe I should ignore what Jayzel and anyone else might have to recommend on the matter?
"Just do it" your edit summary reads. Sounds so easy. Very well, then. If what matters most to you is size, you just do it. Cut it down to the size that pleases you, however you see fit. Be bold, as they say, and satisfy your own demands.—DCGeist 16:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up Given your FARC nomination and latest edit summary, let's take a look at the two editors who, as you pointed out when nominating B movie for FAR, "had previously supported the article's candidacy, [but] indicated they would no longer support" due to length. One, Jayzel, stated early on that a prose size cut to 70 KB would be acceptable. That target has been met, but is clearly not acceptable to you. The other, Quadzilla99, has stated that a cut of 10 KB from the current length (67 KB prose, according to your assessment) would be acceptable. Would that be acceptable to you, Sandy? In my effort to reduce the article to a generally acceptable size, I solicited suggestions for cuts. Jayzel has indicated forthcoming comment on the article's content. Are you willing to wait for Jayzel's input and my response to it before voting on the FARC, Sandy?—DCGeist 17:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the delay. I've read it and while it is probably possible to trim another 5-10% off the article if you completely removed the graphs on Z movie etc and removed detailed descriptions of various films I have no problem supporting the article keeping it's FA status as it currently stands. One thing I did notice that I wanted to mention was the use of A movie and B movie and B's and 'B'. It gets confusing at times. I think you should probably italicize these throughout the article and shouldn't the plural of B be Bs and not B's? Did that make sense? :) --Jayzel 00:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify, when I refer to detailed descriptions of films I am referring to production costs, distributor, length in minutes, director, and plot points. Some of the examples given in the article are pertinent, but many are extraneous and unneeded. Regards, --Jayzel 01:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Great. On the two main points: (1) There's not a single book I've seen published in the last twenty years that italicizes "A movie" or "B movie" or "B" etc. However, I did notice myself, in my last run-through, a few spots in particular where the use of "A" for "A movie" could well be confusing. I'll go through again and clean those up (and look for where "B" might be confusing as well). (2) I'm with you on pluralizing: "Bs" to me is more consistent, logical style then "B's." I went with the latter because of my impression that that's what most people favored. Since you've spoken out in support of the non-apostrophe style, I'll change it to that within the next day unless someone presents an argument against it.
As for the more general point, I too had been wondering if all the financial figures were helpful historically, or if they might make the article a little too stat-y. You've suggested the latter, and I'm happy to cut a few of those out to make it more reader-friendly unless someone has a strong objection. Best, Dan.—DCGeist 09:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up A number of edits have now been made, pursuant to Jayzel's comments above:
  • Clarity of A/B usage: My impression is that confusion is most likely when a sentence begins with "A" in the film-terminology sense; I've eliminated all such usages.
  • Plural style: Done. All "B's" changed to "Bs."
  • Film details: I eliminated approximately fifteen data points of the sort described by Jayzel, hopefully providing better flow.
  • Z movie subsection: Heavily pruned. Now down to two compact grafs.
—DCGeist 22:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concern are focus (4) and images (3). Marskell 14:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I know a lot of work has gone into this one, but I didn't see definite consensus to close it, so I'm moving it down. Note that length itself is not a criteria concern; for short ones we might worry about comprehensiveness, and for long ones about focus. Marskell 14:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marskell, can you clarify the statement above? WP:WIAFA, number 4, specifically references Wikipedia:Summary style, which in turn specifically refers to the 30KB limit on readable prose (and other issues of WP:LENGTH), so I'm not sure why you state it is not a criteria concern. As long as the article remains above 50KB readable prose, I will be a Strong Remove per WIAFA, number 4. Also, can someone ping Jkelly or Peta for another look at Fair Use—I have stinky internet access right now (which makes me really appreciate our size guidelines). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Keep: While article length has been cut by almost 25% since Jayzel first brought it to the attention of the FAR community, it remains substantially longer than general guidelines suggest. However, after pruning it is now far from "the longest FA on record"; the FAR process and related editing appears to have brought the article to a place meeting the needs of those expressing an interest in the subject matter.

Unaccountably, 1c has just been raised for the first time in this entire process--the article is, in fact, (a) rigorously cited throughout and (b) based on superior sourcing that corrects many errors and misleading generalizations in other encyclopedic histories. The criteria for citation are very clear: Quotations and statements "challenged or likely to be challenged." All those have been cited, as well as information that would be difficult for an interested reader to verify, even after looking over the sources already provided (to be precise, the article fully details 61 different print-published sources—the basis for 113 of its 128 endnotes).

Image count has been reduced by more than a third from when FAR began--all movies represented in images are discussed in order to illustrate, complement, and expand on issues discussed in the primary text. I believe all specific comments on content and focus have been addressed and that the article has landed at the necessary level of detail. The article's length and multivalent coverage need to be contextualized by the ambiguities of the term and the fact that this is the only serious survey of the B movie from its origins in the 1920s to the present day, either online or off.—DCGeist 19:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Impossible to respond productively to this redundant nonspecific statement of opinion. Wikipedians new to the process wondering whether to honor or deprecate this basis for objection are asked to be mindful of the fact that the article went through 19 days of review without a single question being raised about citation density; editors are also requested to critically examine both (a) the article and (b) the objector's history of contributions to the FAR/FARC process. Any specific requests for additional citation according to the criteria will be responded to swiftly and happily.—DCGeist 23:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep — I don't see any major issues, to be honest. Focus has been fixes significantly, and I believe all questaionable issues have been attributed/cited. If I'm not mistaken, images still need sources, which should be a quick linking. Nice work as usual! — Deckiller 00:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Good occasion for a rundown of some image info. Of the 11 remaining images: 2 were uploaded by other users (Primer, Plan 9); 1 I scanned for the article from my own collection of cinematic material (100 Proof); 2 come from my large hard-drive holdings of film noir–related ephemera—some personally scanned or screen-captured, some personally downloaded, some sent to me by friends or associates aware of my interest in the field...generative histories all long-forgotten (Raw Deal, Blood Simple); 6 I downloaded for the express purpose of inclusion in the article. Since our rondelet with Deathrocker (speaking directly to Deckiller here), I have provided sources for all 11 in the form of certain or presumptive copyright holders, per Wikipedia:Image_use_policy: "Source: The copyright holder of the image or URL of the web page the image came from" (emphasis added).
Following up on the suggestion Jkelly made during FAR to employ P.D. screenshots from trailers—"trailers of movies released before 1964 are in the public domain, as they were published without a copyright notice and did not have their copyright renewed. Since they were typically published before the movie, they did not enjoy derivative work protection and needed to be copyrighted independently"—I still think it's a worthwhile idea. I haven't been able to pursue it yet, because my li'l iBook's DVD player is broken, but here are the prospects in that area:
  • Not applicable for the two illustrated movies from the 1920s/1930s: very few B movies from this period had trailers; virtually none survive
  • Not preferable in P.D. terms for the five illustrated movies from the 1960s (1965)/1970s/1980s/1990s/2000s: trailers copyrighted
  • lede image (The Raven): poster image strongly preferred, to emphasize importance of marketing to B movie phenomenon and to establish representative B-marketing style; poster also helps explicate the notion of the so-called B actor, showing three of the most famous of that ilk (the three never appear together in a single shot in the movie itself)
  • 1940s image (Raw Deal): poster image provisionally preferred, to emphasize divide articulated in caption: "Such movies were routinely marketed as pure sensationalism, but many also possessed great visual beauty"; if a really strong noir-styled image appears in a trailer (assuming a trailer is available), on the order of the lede image in the film noir article (comparable images do appear in the full-length Raw Deal), that might be just as edifying
  • 1950s image (Rocketship X-M): P.D. screenshot (if available) preferred; the movie itself is crucial, but a screenshot would probably be just as edifying as the poster image
  • Z movie image (Plan 9): P.D. screenshot (if available) preferred; again, illustrating movie itself crucial, screenshot just as edifying as poster in this case
I've requested DVDs of the above two films from my local library system (library doesn't have Raw Deal; Amazon-available edition has no indication that trailer is included). It looks like they'll get to me starting in about a month--around the time I can temporarily part with my laptop for servicing. That's clearly past the end of this FARC process, but I'll stay on mission.—DCGeist 08:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the scope of the topic the size is appropriate. Unless all of the longer FAs are going to be reassessed, which they should not be (I dream of a day when all articles are not judged by the number of their KB but by the content of their subsections), I can't see any reason to take it to FARC. The number of fair use pictures is appropriate. I think what Marskell may have been referring to with his focus comment was the many comparisons with A-level budgets and serials and related or overlapping terms. These comparisons are necessary, however, in defining a term that's always been a bit ambiguous and has transformed over the years and does frequently overlap other terms to varying degrees. The article's concise and comprehensive and I commend DCGeist on his work and his cuts, it's still a great read. Doctor Sunshine talk 01:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Regarding criterion 4, focus, I agree that the article is very long and might benefit from being split, but I do not see that as sufficient a reason to remove it from FA status. In terms of 1c, citations, I personally think the article is a bit over-cited. I am not a fan of individual page citations -- they're of little use if someone is working from a different edition of the book that may have different page numbers. I also find inline citations to be distracting if they're frequently used in the middle of a paragraph -- I would prefer that a source simply be mentioned once at the end of the paragraph or section. But neither does that mean that I want someone to go in and prune references out of the article -- I'm simply concerned that the expected "citation density" for an FA is getting out of hand. As for criterion 3, images, again I did not see anything that would make me seriously question FA status. This, though a bit long, is an excellent article. --Elonka 01:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I had a long comment written, but then my browser crashed (Grrrr). To make things short, it's long, but tightly and very well-written and not overly-comprehensive. The pics, if need be later, can be removed and should not effect the article's FA status. Regards, --Jayzel 02:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Editors are also requested to critically examine both (a) the article and (b) the objector's history of contributions to the FAR/FARC process." Can you clarify what you meant by statement b? I haven't disputed that some great work thus far has been done to the article, but I don't understand what you mean by statement b? Clarify here please? Thanks. LuciferMorgan 01:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I confess I don't know enough to understand this issue with cite tags, but, as I wrote above, "Any specific requests for additional citation according to the criteria will be responded to swiftly and happily." Please feel fee to copy and paste here any uncited quotations and any uncited statements challenged or likely to be challenged, per the citation criteria. In addition, please copy and paste here any uncited statements of information that strike you as particularly obscure. (Do try to stick as close to the criteria as possible however, mindful that just as you are the sole editor to find the article currently undercited, an equal number of editors [Elonka] find the article overcited.) I will be happy, as I said, to provide citations.—DCGeist 09:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Referring to a user's edit history is to me, in almost all cases, an argumentum ad hominem fallacy and should be avoided or ignored. Their statement is either good or bad on it's own merits, the user's history is irrelevant to the correctness of it. As for the article status I'm having a hard time deciding one way or the other, it's still slightly too long for me but a lot of good work has been done so I'm probably going to abstain from iving a position. Quadzilla99 04:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply Of course, when the basis for objection is phrased as specific, testable statements, it is easy to determine whether they are relevant and productive on their own merits. However, when the basis for objection is expressed merely as general statements of opinion, there is little basis for judging the credibility and value of such statements beyond the editor's history of opining. Remember, "whole chunks of prose still remain uncited" in no way addresses the citation criteria covered by 1c. We are thus led to ask, Has the editor established credibility to simply declare an article undercited without specific reference to the actual criteria or not? We determine such credibility or lack thereof by examining the editor's history of similar opinions. As soon as the basis for objection achieves specificity based on a careful reading of the article and the judicious application of Wikipedia's well-established citation policy, then the objector's history becomes irrelevant--as, we agree, it always would be in an ideal FAR/FARC process.—DCGeist 09:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with you as per WP:CITE that technically only things which are likely to be objected to have to be cited (inline citaitons are not even mentioned as required there). That should have been your point. Being a fan of logic, it's logically irrelevant to the correctness of a statement the r's particular history or views on the subject. So it really shouldn't have been raised if a person states an opinion, just label it as such and state that it represents no guideline or ask for a specific guideline that represents their view. Quadzilla99 09:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your logical analysis is indubitably correct. In sum, I believe Lucifer's expressions of his basis for objection have so far been unproductive; my suggestion, as you have analyzed, was equally unproductive. I hope my reply to Lucifer above helps turn things in a more productive direction. As an aside, in re the implications of the word "technically," it should be evident to anyone reading the article that it cites many, many statements above and beyond the quotation/challenge criteria (as Elonka opined, too many).—DCGeist 09:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • I can understand what your saying DCGeist; instead of making a general comment, you wish for me to pick out specific statements. Thanks for turning things into a more productive direction, which is much appreciated. If you wish, you can put a sandbox somewhere and I'll add where I personally feel cites should be added - this is up to you though really DCGeist, because this seems to be heading for a keep anyway and I seem to be in the minority as you've pointed out. If you didn't even respond to what I said, I think this'll still pass considering the votes. Should you go for a sandbox, and if I end up adding tags to things you feel do not need citation though, just ignore them really as the article seems as if it's gonna pass anyway (as I keep saying *sorry!*) - I don't really want another debate on the 1. c. criterion with another editor to be honest, as I've had a lot lately, and really those debates haven't been productive. Anyway, thanks once again. LuciferMorgan 10:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC) technically[reply]
I tend to cite for one or two sentences. There are two sorts of cases, often overlapping, where I'll cite for much or all of a paragraph: (a) where the expression of the paragraph synthesizes material from multiple cited sources and/or (b) where a series of sentences calling for citation are all unquestionably verifiable via a cite at the end of the series. Mind you, what I don't believe in is the ad hoc guideline that every paragraph requires a citation; if the material is of the sort commonly known to virtually all concerned professionals and easily verifiable by any interested layman given appropriate examples and/or reference to any mainstream consideration of the topic, as applicable, a paragraph may not require a citation. Admittedly, this is rare--at present, in this article of 51 post-lede paragraphs, only one contains no citation.
P.S. The cite request for blind bidding you entered may clarify our difference in philosophies. It seems clear to me that the quotation/challenge requirement doesn't apply here. By my broader standards, I still don't believe it needs a citation, as the historical practice is common knowledge among those in the field and discussed in many reference works surveying the era; nor is the term's meaning particularly complex or obscure. On the other hand, giving a reference for readers to find out more about this outdated practice seems fine to me. I'll look through my sources to see if any is particularly edifying.—DCGeist 21:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's fair enough, we're all entitled to our own beliefs / opinions - I've asked for a citation as I've never heard of the practice, and thought it needed citation. To be honest, looking at the article, Sandy's size concern is one that more editors are likely to raise, so whether you wish to concentrate on that is up to you - if you feel it isn't an issue, you of course have the right to feel that too. LuciferMorgan 02:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up Reference (with new source) added per request.—DCGeist 02:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A month of review, size still not even remotely within guidelines, I'm still a Remove. To address some of the statements above:
    • Unless all of the longer FAs are going to be reassessed, which they should not be ... I am only aware of three ultra-long FAs (out of a total today of 1289 featured articles); Ketuanan Melayu at 81KB of readable prose, Campaign history of the Roman military at 74KB of readable prose, and B movie at 65KB of prose. I opposed each of them because they significantly surpass WP:LENGTH guidelines, as specifically addressed in requirement #4 of WP:WIAFA.
    • I also fought back the ELAC (Extra Long Article Committee—now defunct) because they were going after articles that were one third to one fourth the size of these articles; they were advocating breaking up articles with 20 to 30KB of readable prose, and less than 50KB overall size. These three articles significantly surpass those limits; I hope we don't see a resurgence of the Extra Long Article police if we continue passing FAs that surpass guidelines by such extreme amounts.
    • I also disagree that WP:LENGTH is not an WP:WIAFA concern because it is only a guideline; most of WP:WIAFA is based on only guidelines, so there is no reason for this one to be any less important than the others. The only policy requirements at WP:WIAFA are 1c and 1d. 1a, 1b, and 1e are not even guidelines, all of 2 is guideline-based, as is 4 (size), so it should not be singled out as any less important than any other requirement.
    • I am often the victim (when I travel) of a miserably-slow dialup connection, so I'm aware of the hardship we place on our readers with ultra-long articles (according to the statistics put foward by the Extra Long article police, that amounts to 50% of our readership, although I didn't personally verify their sources). It is rude to put up articles that can't be easily accessed by 50% of our readership (assuming the ELAC stats were correct). It reminds me of the architect I hired and came to hate; he refused to design a smaller house for me because "he doesn't build small houses". Well, gee, how easy is it to build a monster with no limitations, never have to make choices, never have to optimize your work, especially on someone else's dime (dialup)? Much easier than building something livable and reasonable, which forces the architect to actually design (gasp).

Just as I am on record as opposing the other two aforementioned articles, I will continue to oppose articles that are ULTRA long, because they are a disservice to our readers, go against guidelines, most often do reflect a lack of focus, and may regenerate the interest of the extra long article police. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; not a journal, not a book. Twenty-six printed pages is not an encylopedic entry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response Different perspectives on significance of size and efforts to deal with it are well-detailed above. Many limitations have been imposed, choices made, optimization sought, and a design applied that those interested in the topic find viable; all readers remain welcome to make constructive suggestions for optimizing the article—Sandy's first specific proposal for reducing the article's length, if it ever comes, will be greeted with especial appreciation. There is a particular question here about the claim (also made in edit summary) that the article runs to twenty-six printed pages. When I print out B movie as I would any other Wikipedia article, the main text—including images—plus See also comes to almost precisely nine pages. With notes, biblio, and external links, the total is thirteen, half Sandy's assessment.—DCGeist 19:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So does mine, when I allow my printer software to automatically reduce it to less than 100% font size, which I can't read :-) When printing at 100% (normal) font size, it's 26 pages. Again, it's not my business to tell you where to cut the article you grew; the article received all of its support votes at FAC when it was within size guidelines; you grew it from there. Clearly, a number of reviewers thought the article was fine when it was within guidelines. At any rate, there is no need to argue this here; your article has support to be one of the 3/1289 (.2%) of the longest FAs on Wiki. I don't have a problem accepting consensus, but I will stay on record as being against the outrageous trend of 26-page "encyclopedia" entries, lest we see more of them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I just realized it was a software/font size issue. My setup tells me it's scaling at 100%, but in comparison with other printouts it's automatically reducing--still within my range of readability (for a few more years...)—DCGeist 19:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep; I'm aware of this issue because of a run-in I recently had with the TSA while trying to get through airport security with a magnifying glass (another reason I'm behind on reading articles I took with me on my last trip). My printer was automatically reducing; I can't read that even with my eyeglasses on. I 'spose the 20-somethings still reign on Wiki :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the suggestion. In a few months, perhaps. I'd like to do some more work on the series articles, and before that, I'm taking a break from thinking about B movies for while and going to enjoy a few.—DCGeist 07:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Peter, those who are actually interested in the topic seem to agree that it does maintain focus and that its length is appropriate to the multivalent nature of the subject matter. By all means, if you believe there is a pardox here and that the article can not somehow be both (a) its current length and (b) properly focused, please back up that contention by pointing out where it loses focus and explaining how. Then we can see if anyone else agrees. If any such argument is made and agreement on it reached, I'm happy to make more cuts.—DCGeist 00:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easily said, but not properly done. The article as it stands now is superior in comprehensiveness, accuracy, source quality, emphasis, and--yes--focus to where it stood at the point you wish to revert to. We do our best work by improving on the superior state of the article. As always, any specific suggestions for improving the quality of the present article, including further judicious trims, will be greeted happily.—DCGeist 00:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No you wont, DC. You'll just cherry pick your way through those complaints as well or simply belittle anyone who doesn't agree that "superior" (a very popular adjective in this debate, I might add) means "huge". You're forgetting that encyclopedic articles are supposed to be written primarily with the general readership in mind, not overly patient fellow aficionados.
Peter Isotalo 09:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty close to a personal attack, Peter. Aside from that: (a) What's your evidence that I "cherry pick"? If you look above, I respond very specifically to all specific suggestions. No, I don't edit in response to every single one, but I do to most, and when I don't, I explain exactly why and invite further discussion. Since we entered FARC, there has been one specific suggestion--from LuciferMorgan. We hardly started out seeing eye to eye when the disagreement was general, but in fact, I not only went to the trouble of creating a sandbox version of the article for him to work on, I edited directly pursuant to his suggestion. (b) How did my encouragement of "specific suggestions" get turned into your attack on my supposed reaction to "complaints"? (c) Now that you've vented about me, predicted my readiness to "belittle," and analyzed what I've "forgotten," how about finally describing where you believe the article loses focus--as you initially claimed it must--and/or making some specific suggestions for cuts. Thanks.—DCGeist 16:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bait, squirm and split hairs to your heart's content, DC. Cherry picking the mere mention of cherry picking pretty much sums the weight of your arguments up.
Now, length is not an issue that can be picked apart. Period. It can be discussed and perhaps negotiated, but not ignored almost completely, as you've done in this case. No one can claim to be both focused and overly comprehensive at the same time. I might be inclined to change my mind if I was offered championship-level rhetorics combined with Pulitzer Prize-class prose, and above all, an extremely broad topic which would be relevant to just about anyone. Like history, physics or food. What we're talking about here is a mere sub-sub-sub-topic of American pop culture. That alone is reason enough to not bloat the main article to pretentious proportions and then staunchly defend it all with equally pretentious argumentation.
Peter Isotalo 22:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blistering rhetoric, my dear boy! I've cut the article almost 25% since FAR began, while you... Well, we're still waiting for one constructive suggestion from you. One. Just one. Here, I've got a novel idea for you: try reading the article. Oh, not the whole awful, bloated thing. Just a teensy, weensy little bit. Then simply state what you'd like to see cut. The thing is so thoroughly inflated and pretentious, that shouldn't be hard at all. Cherry pick at will. Like my friend Sandy likes to say, Go for it!!—DCGeist 05:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to divert the focus to the nitty-gritty details when there's 98k of material consisting almost entirely of the history of low budget films in the US is not reasonable. There are just too many examples, quotes, side-tracks, mini-anecdotes, etc to know where to start. When I've worked on my own major projects, Swedish language and medieval cuisine, each with a history that spans about a millennium, I've made sure to keep them around 50k, or at the very least under 60. And you're telling me that twice that amount about a subject which only covers a tiny portion of one aspect of 20th century human culture should be considered a concise summary? There's a serious lack of proportionality involved in such an assumption.
Peter Isotalo 13:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You accusing Peter of personal attack? That's amusing. If that is your threshhold for personal attack, how would you characterize this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're amused, I'm amused. But, um, linking to the Talk page of a third party in a dispute concerning a different article now two months past? How are we helping the B movie FARC here, Sandy? Peter's diatribe against me came pretty much out of nowhere (though it was presaged by the not-exactly-on-topic comment about editors and cake). I described it as "pretty close to a personal attack." And then, in the end, I tried to steer the discussion back to what he might have to contribute to the article's improvement. Despite your interesting proposal above, working on B movie doesn't have to become World War II. I have faith we can all evolve.—DCGeist 18:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you're working on evolving; it was just a pot-kettle reminder not to begin accusing and wikilawyering on FAR as you have on FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, you should recognize that I didn't "begin" anything with Peter. I responded to this purely ad hominem comment: "No you wont, DC. You'll just cherry pick your way through those complaints as well or simply belittle anyone who doesn't agree that 'superior" (a very popular adjective in this debate, I might add) means 'huge'." PS: In your analogy, are you the pot or the kettle or both?—DCGeist 22:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confident you can figure out simple pot-kettle analogies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which brings up the WP:NOT issue of books being written on Wikipedia. Wiki is not a free webspace provider. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even in a perfect world where everyone was equal, I'd still own the film rights and be working on the sequel. Everyday I write the book.—DCGeist 16:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm not quite getting is that the sub-articles have been created, but the page has hardly been compressed at all. I'm looking at paras in the subs that, excepting the smallest of tweaks, remain identical to those in the main. Marskell 08:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of it. Some of the paragraphs in the orginal (i.e., just-before-FAR) version were already as compressed as seemed useful; others have been trimmed more or less deeply--compare the coverage of 1970s TV movies or the examples and detailing of 1980s inflation of B move styles. The series articles were also created not only to allow compression in the main article (which, as long as it was, did aim for encyclopedic summary from the beginning), but also, longer-range, to allow for more comprehensive coverage of each particular period. I don't belive its fair to say the page has "hardly been compressed at all"--in fact, a considerable amount of prose has been cut, as can be verified by a simple KB comparison.—DCGeist 18:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Cake and eat it too was appropriate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, that's your fifth comment in the last two days--not a single one of which has had anything to do with improving the article. See below for an example from Marskell of how to make a constructive suggestion complete with example. You've been able to be helpful in the past (as with your pointing out the IMDb.com references, which have been replaced), and your opinion about the article overall was reiterated at length last week. I really don't understand what's prompted this string of snipes in the last 50-some hours.—DCGeist 18:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is over-use of examples. Three or four pictures will be cited for a point, where only one would do. And the focus is compromised when examples are described at too great length. For instance:
"House of Usher typifies the continuing ambiguities of B picture classification. It was clearly an A film by the standards of both director and studio, with the longest shooting schedule and biggest budget Corman had ever enjoyed. But it is generally seen as a B movie—the schedule was still a mere fifteen days, the budget just $200,000, one-tenth the industry average.[68] B movie aficionado John Reid reports once asking a neighborhood theater manager to define "B picture." The response: "Any movie that runs less than 80 minutes."[69] House of Usher's running time is close, 85 minutes. And despite its high status in studio terms, it was not screened alone, but in tandem with a crime melodrama asking the eternal question Why Must I Die?[70]" -->
"House of Usher typifies the continuing ambiguities of B picture classification. It was clearly an A film by the standards of both director and studio, with the longest shooting schedule and biggest budget Corman had ever enjoyed. But it is generally seen as a B movie—the schedule was still a mere fifteen days, the budget just $200,000, one-tenth the industry average, and its 85 minute running was only slightly more than the expectation for B movies.[68]" B movie aficionado John Reid reports once asking a neighborhood theater manager to define "B picture." The response: "Any movie that runs less than 80 minutes."[69] House of Usher's running time is close, 85 minutes. And despite its high status in studio terms, it was not screened alone, but in tandem with a crime melodrama asking the eternal question Why Must I Die?[70] Marskell 09:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great. That's very helpful. I can do that, and see where else that kind of cut makes sense.—DCGeist 18:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see you did it. Looks good.—DCGeist 22:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DCG, I've just now responded on your talk. Let's work out some way to workshop this, keeping info intact but reducing over-specific info. Marskell 22:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Responding on your talk.—DCGeist 22:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep. One of the best articles written on Wikipedia. I was really disappointed that it was even brought to FAR, and more so to see it get FARC'd. In any event, I think it is close enough to established guidelines for FAs to pass without further pruning. Regarding the reference to WP:NOT above: Let's not forget that the first section of that policy says there are no practical limits to the amount of content we include in an article. This is one of the ugliest FARCs I have read. It's a shame, since it's about such a brilliant article. I wouldn't blame DCGeist if he never wrote another word on Wikipedia after this is over. Jeffpw 23:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff, you cite one part of NOT on this issue, but elide the remainder: "There is a feasible limit for individual article sizes that depends on page download size for our dial-up and microbrowser readers and readability considerations for everybody (seeWikipedia:Article size)." So, on to the Article size guideline:
  • "> 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided up.
  • > 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)."
So it's not as simple as saying "this is a great article, no need to worry about size." Our policies and guidelines strongly suggest a length cap that we need to be sensitive to. Further, given that the last few posts with DCG have been amiable, I find your tone a little unhelpful—no one's talking about never writing another word on Wikipedia.
I'm going to post some suggestions to this talk, as the review itself is so massive. Marskell 07:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff also misquotes the first part of WP:NOT. It doesn't say "there are no practical limits to the amount of content we include in an article"; it says "there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page," followed by the portion Marskell quotes, "There is a feasible limit for individual article sizes ... " SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response With possibly one exception, all of the external links were introduced by other users. When I was doing primary work on the article a couple months back, I pruned out eight links that were clearly inappropriate/not up to standard. Would you mind going through those that remain and flagging or simply cutting those that you perceive aren't up to snuff? PS: If you're up for it and would prefer to flag, you could do it here: User:DCGeist/B movie cite sandbox.—DCGeist 17:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the heat of debating minutiae and criteria interpretation I almost forgot a rather problematic aspect of the article. Has anyone voting to keep actually considered that the article is extremely narrow in scope? It's still just basically a chronology of low-budget films in the United States (and a lot of sidetracks about movie production); there's more information about US studio budgeting issues than any aspect of low-budget films outside of North America. One could probably use large chunks of the article to make a pretty decent expansion of the history section of cinema of the United States without having the focus shifting all that much towards B-movies. Has no one actually considered the problematic aspects of this obvious lack of width? Or are we just all assuming that low budget films either don't exist or just don't matter outside of North America? To me it seems as if this would actually be a rather glaring lack of comprehensiveness, e.i.criterium 1b (comprehensiveness) and to some extent even 1d (neutrality). Peter Isotalo 09:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Indeed, low-budget commerical cinema is by no means a purely U.S. phenomenon. However, the concept of B movie essentially is. As a term, B movie for many decades appears to have been almost universally used to describe the products of the American film industry or, later, foreign films in comparison to Hollywood products--this is true, at least, of the U.S., British, French, and Japanese criticism and historiography with which I'm familiar. The aesthetic and commercial influence of the American B movie (viz. film noir, splatter) is unparalleled by the lower-end products of any other national industry; the sole exception is the Italian film industry from the late 1950s through the mid-1980s. In addition, in no other major film industry was relatively low-budget filmmaking so long as integral to the business structure or essential to the profits of the industrial mainstream as in the U.S. The B movie phenomenon (really two major subphenomena--the cut-rate second feature and the legitimate-studio exploitation film) is thus properly considered as a U.S. phenomenon. See, for example, Spanish Wikipedia's completely independent article Clase B (cine).[10]. While its coverage is more restricted temporally than ours, note that it clearly identifies the B movie as a Hollywood phenomenon: "El cine Clase B (también llamado Serie B), apareció en los tiempos del sistema de estudios de Hollywood, entre los años 1930 y 1960." The analogous French Wikipedia stub, Série B, also treats it as a Hollywood phenomenon.[11]. The analogous German article, B-Movie, while opening with a brief, generalized defintion, devotes over 90% of its coverage to Hollywood.[12]. The Italian Wikipedia is the one major exception that gives coverage of the national industry in its B-movie article. Reference to other Wikipedia articles, of course, proves nothing in itself--this survey, however, does accord with my understanding of the field. I would certainly be happy to add a couple paragraphs in our article concerning the Italian film industry if the consensus calls for it.
In response to your specific question, Sandy, while spaghetti Westerns are now often referred to as "B movies", the categorization is not terribly sound historically. Many of the best-known spaghetti Westerns--in particular, the work of Sergio Leone--were by no means low-budget or perceived as low-quality within the context of the Italian film industry. The use of "B movie" (or "B-movie," as they prefer) in the Italian context tends to embrace more unambiguously "exploitation"-themed movies and what we might call "trash films."
It would certainly be desirable to have an article on, say, Low-budget commercial cinema that would cover the field globally, with proper contextualization of what it means in each country and with a summary of the present article's material largely representing the U.S. portion of that new article. Considerations of relatively low-budget cinema would also ideally appear in the articles covering each individual nation's cinema.—DCGeist 17:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"If the consensus calls for it..." Ugh... Why even bother? The article is going to be the property of the primary author until someone pries his clammy, desperate fingers from it. The normal standards of FAs don't obviously don't apply as soon as it's about some pop culture topic perceived as an utterly unique Hollywood monopoloy. Let's just forget about this sordid affair, button down and wait for those 200k tanks on "world history" come rolling over the FAC hills. Just don't try telling them that their articles don't have enough encyclopedic focus...
Peter Isotalo 20:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Clammy, desperate fingers," eh? It's been so long since we held hands, and yet you still remember. I'm...touched.—DCGeist 20:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, absolutely claw his "clammy, desperate fingers" from the article, and just revert back to this. Much simpler, less waste of reviewers time. Ceoil 21:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously. The article is being WP:OWNed. It's considered perfectly acceptable to triple the size of the article during the course of an FAC, but not to respect editors who are concerned about article focus. When Spaghetti Westerns are mentioned, they're not considered part of the cultural canon because of Sergio Leone, but Blood Simple and Primer are no problem at all. What's really aggravating is the idea that all information about non-American low budget films has to be quarantined under the cover of the amazingly convoluted "low-budget commercial cinema" while . Or at least until the Consensus Committee has had it's say...
This all smacks of more or less overt systemic bias.
Peter Isotalo 09:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quel quarantine, mon frere? "Considerations of relatively low-budget cinema would also ideally appear in the articles covering each individual nation's cinema." And, anyway, we know you wouldn't want all this info you care so deeply about relegated to an article covering what you so piquantly described as "a mere sub-sub-sub-topic of American pop culture." Get to work, friend—perhaps you'd like to start with Cinema of Sweden. Show us what you got!—DCGeist 00:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one arguing in favor of keep the article narrow in scope while at the same time boasting how absolutely superior the article is in terms of comprehensiveness. And if I complained about systemic bias, I was obviously wrong. The silly hint about Swedish film makes it rather obvious; we seem to have already crossed over to mild nationalism.
Peter Isotalo 00:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I've been wondering what you have against cara Italia.—DCGeist 01:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that it still could use a little more trimming, I'm going to remain neutral in respect to the work done so far. Basically I feel very ambivalent and can't register a vote either way. I will step in to say that the accusations of WP:OWN are out of place. Most people have voted keep thus far, therefore the current consensus is that the length is acceptable. Please keep that in mind when making accusations. Quadzilla99 17:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: I think there's some mutual baiting going on above and I don't know if we're well served keeping this going longer. I'm going to close this as keep, because as of now there is no explicit length criterion at WP:WIAFA and enough people have said keep in this review. Perhaps there should be a length criterion? Should the strong suggestions of guidelines be written into the FA criteria? Maybe. I think we need to start a thread on this on one of the FA pages. Marskell 08:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was kept 08:29, 15 March 2007.

Abyssinia, Henry

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Messages left at users Hotstreets and Tregoweth talk pages and Television. Gnangarra 14:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page has a real problem with citing unreliable sources. Finest-kind.net and mash4077.co.uk are fan sites. IMDb and Tv.com are user contributed web sites. None of these are considered reliable sources. If you take those away then you only have a few reliable sources, which is not enough for a FA. --Maitch 13:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note All the sources are the same as when it was promoted to FA, and most reviewers referred to the article as well sourced. The person who questioned the sources had that addressed, and ask if there were any further issues but never responded. Can you clarify how many sources are required for an FA? Gnangarra 13:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Things change. I mainly work on pages related to The Simpsons and I was not allowed to use fan pages or IMDb for the recent promotion of The Simpsons. Right now it is not about how many sources the article needs, but instead about finding replacements for the unreliable sources. --Maitch 13:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. So this is a POINT nomination? Well, the thing to do would of been to leave a message at the respected talk pages prior to requesting a FAR. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to prove a point. Somebody asked me for advise for how to reference an episode article, because they had trouble getting to GA with the use of fan sites. I referred them to this page, but now I realised that this page actually had worse references than the other episode articles. I'm not trying to get the FA status taken away. I'm trying to improve the article. This is FA review right? --Maitch 15:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (comment before edit conflict)my thoughts on the sources, the section on the show itself is covered by a WP:RS the use of IMDB and TV.com are in sections on Reaction and impact and Aftermath both of sections are dealing with the public response to the show and as such it makes these reliable sources within the context of the article sections. (no changes to my comment after readn above) Gnangarra 13:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can not seriously call IMDb's trivia page a reliable source. --Maitch 13:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be exact I have a problem with ref 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 12. --Maitch 13:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • on the WP:RS page is:This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.(my emphasis) occasional exception links to WP:IAR If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them.. While you may not have had the reasons to argue such a case on the Simpson, with this article those source are used within the correct context of the article. Gnangarra 14:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't agree that they are used in the right context and the fact that you have to go the "ignore all rules" defense means I'm right. --Maitch 14:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I will suggest you question your reason for this FAR, this process is about reviewing an FA article to maintain current standards. There is no right or wrong here, you have questioned the sources used I have responded that they are use correctly within the context of the article and accepted policies. Gnangarra 14:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted that invoking IAR is a weak defense here, especially since the rules on reliable sources in no way hinder your ability to improve this article. It's already a fine article, but it doesn't really pass the bar as "featured" with the current referencing situation. -- mattb @ 2007-02-08T00:39Z

We ask for citations from reliable sources to ensure that the claims in an article are verifiable (noting in passing that verifiablility is the relevant policy here: WP:RS and [{WP:CITE]] are just guidelines for deciding whether a source is reliable or not, in the context of determining whether there is support for material in an article, and for the format of a citation).

In the absence of concerns as to the accuracy of the article (are there any?) and given that the claims in the article are verifiable by reference to the cited sources, the questions are: what sources exist that can be used to verify this article? And are the sources used the best ones that exist?

Or are we saying that it is impossible for an article of this type to be featured because there are few newspaper reports, books and printed journal articles, etc, about it? Compare, if you like, spoo, which relies on usenet posts (acknowledged by their author as being authentic) and other internet sources (considered authoritative in their field), and Bulbasaur (which relies on many similar sources to this article).

I'm sorry that Maitch had problems with his FAC of The Simpsons, but this look FAR looks a little WP:POINTy to me. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sorry now. It made the article better. --Maitch 19:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am glad that you are glad. If better sources can be found for this article, great. If not, I don't see that as a substantial cause for concern. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Wikipedia should really rely on reliable sources - especially at FA level. It is policy, so it is a valid concern no matter what kind of motive people think I might have. --Maitch 20:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad to see that some better sources are emerging (see below). But I repeat: verifiability is the policy, and WP:RS gives a guideline to what sources are considered "reliable" to achieve verifiability. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a quote from WP:V: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist." This is not the case for this article. --Maitch 21:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - which sources in this article do you consider to be self-published (e.g. self-published books, personal websites, and blogs)?
And here are a couple of other quotes from WP:V: "Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed" and "Sources should be appropriate to the claims made" - which claims in the article are you challenging? and which claims do you think need more appropriate sources?
Or, in the absence of such sources, are you suggesting that Wikipedia should have no article on this topic?
Look, I am sure we can go back and forth like this for ages, but perhaps we should await developments, like the ones mentioned below. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMDb and fan sites are self-published, I've already stated which refs I have a problem with, yes. --Maitch 21:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've already manage to eliminate the anglefire page and one of the TV.com refs, both of which seemed only to be used out of fear of "primary sources". But the information they were citing would be primary source acceptable. Also, it has been pointed out that the web cite at ref 14 has a further reading list. I noticed one of them is called "The First Five Years of M*A*S*H" or something similar, which season three does fall into. It would definitely be worth it for some one to check that one out, possibly the others as well. Jay32183 20:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Complete Book of M*A*S*H is available at Amazon. The one you mentioned had only three Ghits. Total. The ISBNs are listed here. And it has a chapter on season three. And it's not available in Kansas City, Missouri and I can't drive and will not be driving anytime soon. Nor am I likely to be driven to Sedalia, Harrisonville, High Ridge, Independence, Maryville, St Louis, or Springfield anytime soon. There are two copies in Leawood (zipcode 66201), though. But I don't know that the buses in downtown Kansas City will actually go there.
For some bizarre reason, WorldCat can't show me any locations for ISBN 0020446705, the ISBN for the 1983 edition of M*A*S*H: The Exclusive, Inside Story of Tv's Most Popular Show, the one listed under "Further Reading" at ref#14, but ISBN 0672526565 (for the 1980 edition) is very available. At the Kansas City, Missouri Public Library. And yet I can't seem to find it in their catalog.--Rmky87 16:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does your local library have interlibrary loans? Andrew Levine 06:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, yes.--Rmky87 00:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(deindenting)I went to the library today, and the search engine there (I had to widen it to "ALL") told that The Complete Book of M*A*S*H is available somewhere in Cass County and M*A*S*H: The Exclusive, Inside Story of TV's Most Popular Show is available in Atchison and I should receive word of their coming via email sometime soon.--Rmky87 21:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concern is quality and sufficiency of sources (1c). Marskell 18:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We only close early if there's unanimity, so I've moved this. Marskell 18:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was kept 14:55, 12 March 2007.

Restoration literature

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Original author et al aware. Messages left at UK notice board and Books. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks inline citations. -- mattb @ 2007-02-06T06:04Z

For a lot of the Eng. Lit. period articles and related, I think Harvard has been used. Could that be done here? Marskell 09:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think inline citations are better since they tell you what reference is citing which sentences, but I guess I can't dissuade others from using Harvard. LuciferMorgan 09:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Harvard does the same thing (Smith, pp. 1-3). Marskell 09:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has parenthetical references, and footnotes are not an FA requirement. Additionally, even inline citations in general are not required. You're barking up an imaginary tree. See the talk page to the article, as well, for some of how references to outside works were handled in the article. It is an omnibus article. Geogre 11:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So it has parenthetical references eh? If so, where are the page numbers? All it has is a list of books when I checked. LuciferMorgan 14:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See the thread where you lambast "the FAR fanatics"? He he.
The page has parenthetical references for the primary material, but none for any of the secondary sources listed as references. I wouldn't expect many are needed for an overview of a non-current topic, but there are places. "...that king's presence and personality permeated literary society to such an extent that, almost uniquely, literature reflects the court." Would a (see, for instance, Smith pp. 1-3) hurt here? Marskell 11:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings from Bishonen, your Guide to the World of Spirits, now channelling Geogre, who can't currently log on to Wikipedia. He has asked me to post this reply to Marskell:
Marskell has a valid question. However, Restoration literature,like Augustan literature and the other omnibus articles I wrote, was, I hoped, an example of what a good encyclopedia article should be. It had a thesis and presented it honestly, with multiple discussions to back up that thesis. In other words, like a good article, it set forward a proposition and proved that proposition through the discussion that followed. Additionally, an author who leads on a massive article like that one and who has read all of the references (and, of course, between you and me, a great many more) is, by nature of such reading alone, if none other, an "expert" in terms of composition of the article. He or she should take a position. In other words, finding a single source to back up that statement would be difficult. I cannot cite myself and any work I may have done along these lines, nor would, but, at the same time, it's one of those statements that distills what "everybody" notes, one way or another, from Christopher Hill to E. P. Thompson to Paul Fussell. It's a statement that I think is a bit pithier than what most folks make but says what they say. Bishonen, speaking in the voice of Geogre (scary!), 14:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
This whole section of Wikipedia is becoming worrying, first rate pages such as this are being seized on and held to account for not being written in precisely the way someone who probably knows nothing about the subject would have written them. We are not all going to write our pages in the same way, with the same layout or reference in the same way. Restoration literature has a complete list of references and there are "inline citations" in the article, but they're parenthetical reference. It is pointed out quite correctly on the talk page WP:REF only requires that articles be referenced and footnotes are not mandatory unless a source is quoted. We should be judging articles on their quality not the number of footnotes they contain - This article is first rate. Giano 11:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I see I have already missed my chance to be first off the block.
Let me say for starters that this is one of the most complete, best written - in short, most excellent - articles on the whole of Wikipedia. If an article like this is not featured, we may as well give up and reconcile ourselves to creating the best encyclopedia on Pokemon and internet slang that the slashdot has ever written. At least this review will introduce it to a wider audience.
We recently had this very same complaint ("lacks inline citations") about the similarly excellent Palladian architecture (Wikipedia:Featured article review/Palladian architecture), and it seems a bit pointless to plough the same ground a second time. But I suppose we must...
No, this article has no dinky footnotes (shock horror! call the police!) but it does have inline citations where appropriate by way of parenthetical references. That is sufficient. Pace Giano, "footnotes are not even necessary where a source is quoted" (Smith 1999, p.1, emphasis added). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree totally with ALoan, Giano, and Geogre's statements, but unfortunately the norm for FAR these days is to require extensive in-line citations in order to retain FA status. -- mattb @ 2007-02-06T13:48Z
Oh, gee, late to the party. Is there anyone left to notify? Mattb, without having looked at this article, I'll point out that disagreement over inline citations shouldn't be confused with sourcing an article to "oral history and tradition from groundskeepers"; the latter isn't about a lack of inline citations, rather a lack of reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest this is removed from FAR unless there are any concrete objections to it keeping its FA status other than the lack of inline citations. From mattb's comments on the talk page this review looks decidedly pointy. Yomanganitalk 14:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Untrue, I'm merely trying to help hold FAs to the standards that I perceive to be norm now. I obviously don't agree with this norm, but I can accept it if there's no support for changing it. Please don't assume that this is a result of my being upset about my own FARs (a ridiculous suggestion; I was the one who nominated them). Am I wrong in saying that inline citations are a requirement for FAs now? If so, by all means remove this FAR. -- mattb @ 2007-02-06T14:32Z
      • Mattb, since your userpage says "he would have probably been better off as a history or English literature major", please give us specific examples of statements you want cited (note, I haven't yet read the article, but since you're the expert, your help would be appreciated). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion 1. c. is concrete last time I checked WP:WIAFA. I 110% disagree with Yomangani on that point, and would heavily protest its FAR removal.
The Palladian architecture FAR was a pathetic farce, and one of the most unfunny jokes on Wikipedia. It's by no means excellent, nor is this. I'm frankly disgusted of the kind of joke that specific FAR was, and this one will seem to be. I hope Marskell isn't bullied this time into closing this one; by the way, and when people ask this time for specific statements that need citations I'm perfectly willing to give them - even though I'll be falsely accused of WP:POINT. 1. c. isn't met here, it's in black and white. Don't think I'll be bullied into keeping quiet like last time.
Oh, and before anyone goes on about Harvard citations, blah blah blah, there isn't any whatsoever in the article. The "References" section has just a list of books - no page numbers, no nothing, and even Harvard citations list page numbers. Finally, before anyone suggests I read WP:CIVIL (like is their two-faced, hypocritical trend), I recommend them look further into themselves before hypocritically accusing me. This is all I have to say on the subject - this isn't round two of the bullshit debate on inline citations, this is a review of whether this article meets criterion 1. c. This doesn't. LuciferMorgan 14:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this is a lovely party you guys have going on here. I was going to contribute some two-faced bullshit or other, blah blah blah, but never mind, the to-do list is too long anyway. Bishonen | talk 15:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Lucifer, I don't recommend adding fact tags; it's Mattb's nomination, and his userpage says he's proficient in the topic—let him do it. The problem with the Palladian FAR was that the nominator himself didn't back up the request for citations; let Mattb back it up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, and the last time with the Palladian FAR a bunch of people were bullied around, and Marskell ended up wrongly closing the FAR. It seems the same suspects from that FAR are now trying to get this one closed also, and if I have to point out specific statements that need citation to avoid that happening, I will. This article fails 1. c., and I don't see why this FAR should be closed when a ton of other articles have had to strive their backsides off to meet 1. c. LuciferMorgan 14:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WP:DICK has been mentioned; it would have been less of an issue if the original nominator had backed up the request for citations. Mattb wants citations, Mattb knows the topic; Mattb, please provide examples where citations are needed. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well long as this one doesn't end up being wrongly closed; I'll keep an eye on the page. I hope Mattb doesn't end up getting pushed around - it's something I disagree with and don't tolerate. LuciferMorgan 14:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lucifer, I see no-one abusing you, hypocritically or otherwise. I see you arriving on this page full of hostility. Please tone it down and try and argue your point with some logic. Regarding your allegations Marskell was not bullied, The Palladian architecture FAR was not a pathetic farce, it was merely an argument that you lost. You say Palladian architecture and Restoration literature are " by no means excellent, nor is this" while I'm not going to comment on the quality of Palladian Arch in my view this is excellent. I don't come down hear to the basement of Wikipedia very often, but when I do all I seem to see is you shouting. Please try to improve your debating skills. Giano 18:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be untrue for me to claim significant proficiency in this area (my user page doesn't indicate WHY I would've been better off as an English lit major, and this isn't about me). However, per your reasonable request, here are a few that might be cited:

  • Lead: "In general, the term is used to denote roughly homogeneous styles of literature that centre on a celebration of or reaction to the restored court of Charles II." -- Says whom? I agree with this statement, but the unacquainted might not.
    • "Thus, the "Restoration" in drama may last until 1700, while in poetry it may last only until 1666 and the annus mirabilis; and in prose it might end in 1688, with the increasing tensions over succession and the corresponding rise in journalism and periodicals, or not until 1700, when those periodicals grew more stabilised." -- Need some citations for these very particular statements.
  • Under "The restoration and its initial reaction": "When Charles II came to the throne in 1660, the sense of novelty in all forms of literature was tempered by a sense of suddenly participating in European literature in a way that England had not before."
    • "Charles II was a man who prided himself on his wit and his worldliness." -- Should be easy to cite
    • "He was well known as a philanderer as well." -- Known by whom?
  • "The Restoration is an unusual historical period, as its literature is bounded by a specific political event: the restoration of the Stuart monarchy." -- A very important point; deserves a citation
  • "His Gondibert was of epic length, and it was admired by Hobbes." -- Provide a citation sourcing Hobbes' admiration

I can continue if you wish, but I don't want to clutter up this page unless you really want me to find every statement that should be cited. Other than this citation issue, it's a most excellent, thorough, and well written article. A bit of citation work and I'm sure this can retain its FA status. Let's not villify me, I'm only trying to uphold the same standard that is being retroactively applied to many FAs. -- mattb @ 2007-02-06T15:03Z

  • No villification intended, Matt - just pointing out that talk is cheap; reasoned action on difficult cases is harder. If you bring an article to FAR for lack of citation only, you should be prepared to back up the citation needs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. If I really need to help point out every statement that might be cited, I'll gladly do so. However, I do think the other authors can extrapolate a bit in figuring out which factual statements should be verified in-line. -- mattb @ 2007-02-06T15:16Z
      • Well, I hate English almost as much as I hate architecture (should be evident from my tortured prose); I'm happy to put cite tags on medical, engineering, math, political or bio articles for example, but not here. I suggest you see how those requests go, and then add more as work progresses.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, the traffic in Dubai makes for a bad day. And I just knew I'd log back in and find a fucking mess on this review.
  • I very much hope matt didn't post this as an exercise in point, but I will AGF and not remove the review. Remember, it's four weeks—at the worst nothing happens to the content, at best it improves (there's no perfect article, after all).
  • And this is an excellent article.
  • "...written in precisely the way someone who probably knows nothing about the subject would have written them." Giano (and anybody and everybody), please shelve statements of this sort. It's insulting, obviously, and you'll only ever be able to say "probably" because this is the internet and you could be posting to the Pope or a trained dog. Further, that Wikipedia is maximized for readers over editors, and a general audience over specialists, is a long-standing principle; the people who know "nothing about the subject" matter as much as the people who know a great deal (an ideal review would have both types commenting). It's excellent that this was written by someone with expertise in the topic, but it's still fair for someone to ask "can you unpack and/or source this cause I don't get it". To that end:
  • I do think a group of a well-placed "see, for instance" notes would be good for an article covering this much ground at this level of generality. If everybody has said something, point to a spot that has said it well or at length. But perhaps discussing where to do that should wait until we get past the existential questioning of FAR that has (inevitably) come up.
  • Oh, and Marskell, we've also gone over this; I think Palladian architecture getting closed was a joke, and no matter how many times you repeat your reasons for closing that one, I still think they happen to be rubbish. Many people didn't even comment because of people throwing their weight around on that FAR, and it was pathetic. Let's get one thing straight; this article currently fails criterion 1. c., and has time to improve it. If it doesn't end up meeting 1. c., it should get closed. I happen to think all the other closes you've ever made were correct, but that one definitely wasn't. And I clearly, 110% remember picking out specific statements that needed citation, only Giano point blank refused to cite them.
These are my opinions, and I apologize in advance to Marskell for my opinions regarding the Palladian FAR. LuciferMorgan 00:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for Giano saying for me arriving on this page full of hostility, perhaps he should remember the bullshit crap he pulled last time with Palladian architecture (but he does remember, only conveniently forgets) - oh, but silly me, I forgot, every time he gets in trouble he actually gets his admin friends to help him out of bother. Silly of me to forget that oversight. In fact, I'm surprised they haven't popped over already to fight his corner - this FAR is early though, so I expect an appearance. Improve my debating skills? That's a laugh - as for FAR being "the basement of Wikipedia", you and your circle throwing your weight around are the basement of Wikipedia. I've been told via different sources about you, your antics and your Wikipedia friends bailing you out of trouble all the time, and I won't let you push me around like you did last time. LuciferMorgan 00:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • LuciferMorgan, so far I have seen you violate NPA and AGF to a degree I have rarely seen except with trolls. You state you "will not tolerate" mattb being "bullied" or "pushed around" - wth is your issue? Disagreement is not "bullying" or "pushing around." Further, your incredibly rude comment to Giano about "bullshit crap" is precisely that - trolling. Finally, you insult every admin who has ever viewed Giano in a positive light by your blanket assessment of "Giano's admin friends" - do you, in fact, have anything to do besides attempt to pee on people's toes here and start a fight? This is FAR, please confine your comments to addressing any concerns you have with the article, and attempt to restrain yourself from attempting to start a fight with your fellow editors. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would hope that nobody is intending to start an altercation here; it would be very unfortunate if anyone were to engage in any sort of inflammatory behavior in the course of this review. I strongly suggest that everyone here keep the fact that we're all working together to create a great encyclopedia in mind, and act in a courteous and dignified manner. Kirill Lokshin 04:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at Lucifer's eloquent comments perhaps it would be a good idea if he was prevented from editing this page for a while. I shall not be responding to Lucifer's baiting here or anywhere else on this occasion. I have made my valid point on this review, so there is nothing more for me to say on the subject. Giano 07:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have nothing else to say on the subject either. Time and time again, the point I made above has been proved right. And if you felt sufficient cause for my blocking, you'd only inform your friend Bishonen to block me, who happens to also unblock you whenever another admin blocks you. I'm not falling for your bait either. LuciferMorgan 07:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LuciferMorgan has apologised to Bishonen for the remark immediately above here. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ALoan, I find your implication quite misleading. LM has apologized to me, yes. Not AFAIK to Giano, the person he's principally attacking above. Bishonen | talk 14:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I take your point and have amended my comment above (although I think the main thrust of that comment was to expand the range of his ire, from Giano and Marskell to include you). It would be nice for LuciferMorgan to actually retract the comment that he made about you here, like Paul August requested some time ago.
In case there is any doubt, I agree with Yomangani, KillerChihuahua and Kirill Lokshin that many of LM's comments above ("pathetic farce", "bullshit crap", "rubbish") fall far below the standard of debate that I would expect to see here. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Section break 1
[edit]

I didn't open this FAR to ignite a powder keg. Can we get back to talking about the citation problem in this article rather than engaging in this arm waving contest? If I understand correctly, an objection to adding citations to this article is that there are several subsidary articles linked that contain additional references. While that's fine, there are still many statements in this article that should be cited in their own rite. As has been mentioned, there's no way to dodge the fact that FAs require in-line citations now. -- mattb @ 2007-02-07T17:38Z

The article is referenced at the end...does every FA on wiki have to look like a college term paper? I don't accuse anyone of bad faith, and I almost universally use cited refs for all my work, but there is no policy demanding I do so, nor is there a policy saying that FA's must use footnotes or inline citations to my knowledge. I would like to see the policy that demands that FA's have inline cites.--MONGO 21:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "FAs require inline citations now" is true, but misses half the point; FAs require inline citations where appropriate, which is sufficiently vague as to admit a huge range of interpretations. This wording has been fairly consistent over time (the word "appropriate" was added two years ago today, incidentally). If you asked me to evaluate this article in terms of the requirements actually laid out in the featured article requirements, I would say it more or less meets them in its current state. At the same time, however, the standards on inline citation which are practically applied at FAC and FARC have become stricter, especially in the last 6-7 months. This article probably does not meet them simply due to its low density of specific citation.
  • Whether this increased strictness results in better featured articles, and whether it makes sense in light of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, are two questions which don't have conclusive answers. The fact that the standards have historically evolved by creeping upward in the individual FAC rooms, rather than through a broad discussion at the criteria page and explicit amendment of the criteria, means there is no obvious consensus behind any particular interpretation. That "FAs require in-line citations" is evident, but the vagueness of that criterion means it is not obvious whether this article falls afoul of it. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just concerned that an excellently written article that is referenced will either require the author(s) to have to retrieve all the sources and comb through them to find precise references if fact tags are peppered everywhere. I don't dispute that the cited refs are now "expected", only that since this isn't a scientific treatise with tons of facts and figures, it doesn't seem to me that not having cited refs is sufficent grounds for removing this from the FA ranks.--MONGO 22:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[after two conflicts] Indeed, WP:WIAFA says "Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations ...; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations." It previously required "extensive use of inline citations"[13] - there is discussion in the early talk page archives (here and here). Some of Filiocht's comments from two years ago are pithily relevant ("Is this an encyclopaedia or a set of academic papers? If the former, then inline references are inappropriate, if the latter, lets change the name." ... "Over-referencing gets in the way of most people who use an encyclopaedia"). It is also a perennial topic at WT:FAC (such as this from April 2005).
Nothing, as far as I am aware, tells you when it is "appropriate" to add inline citations. WP:V simply requires that "any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source" but does not say how that should be done. WP:IC does not help very much. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could we workshop (perhaps off this page) specific places where inline citations are appropriate? Or is this article perfect? Marskell 22:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To add, as the last was terse: editors above aren't arguing for an academic paper or for an encyclopedia article, exactly. They're arguing for something equivalent to a section introduction in the Norton Anthology. Fair enough--but even the Norton Anthology has explanatory notes. There are specific spots in this article that could use them. Marskell 22:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marskell asked earlier about a workpage, but no one responded; shall we clear the popcorn from the lobby on the talk page and use it? I don't want to type up my requests, comments, finds and questions about specific citations needed on this page, as it has already become quite long. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to participate in this if the article editors are. So far I'm not buying any of the arguments that this article is exempt from the need for citations, however. -- mattb @ 2007-02-11T00:57Z
I've come up with a list of concerns/questions, and will type them up when work gets underway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone would argue that it is exempt from the requirements, but it is certainly possible to argue that it meets them. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait for Geogre to say more. Marskell 14:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to say that I was very impressed with the quality of this article. As a literary scholar, I am often dismayed by the quality of the literature articles on wikipedia. When I began writing my own articles (I usually end up writing pages all by my lonesome), I was shocked by the citation requirements. In academic writing, one does not cite EVERY claim - certain claims are so well known or accepted that there is no need to cite them. I understand that wikipedia needs to establish its legitimacy in the world, though, and one way to do that is to prove that its articles are verifiable down to the last detail. So, I pushed up my sleeves, piled up my books and put in a staggeringly high number of references. Like many of the commentators above, I believe that this article should be retained as an FA because of its quality, but if wikepedia is going to succeed, it is going to have prove itself. It is still at that stage. Perhaps someday it won't have to anymore. One can only hope. In the meantime, whoever wrote the article (I take it, it is primarily one person), should indeed dust off his Christopher Hill and add in the references (tiresome as it may be). Awadewit 11:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone would say that having to add a lot of citations and references is a pleasant thing, but that's simply the benchmark for featuring an article nowadays. It's a good thing in some ways, even if it does make writing a bit more annoying. -- mattb @ 2007-02-19T14:39Z
  • Move to FARC — the article still lacks inline citations; no work has been done on the article (despite the fact that there's been plenty of bickering here, which frankly, I couldn't care less about). There are also some very minor prose issues, such as vauge terms of size and perhaps some misplaced formality. Those parentheticals should be turned into notes, and two copy-editors should take this opportunity to give it a quick tune-up if needed. It's a very nice article, and a lot has gone into it, but it still needs to be modernized. I understand a lot of people prefer parenthetical references, and I was taught in high school that they were superior, but the overwhelming majority of articles do not use that system. If there is not going to be consensus to parentheticals, then at least give this article a quick fixing as aforementioned. Either way, let's face the fact that the citation system is not a big deal, and shouldn't have resulted in all this bickering. — Deckiller 11:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC per Deckiller's reasoning. LuciferMorgan 03:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concern is citations (1c). Marskell 10:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove FA status. Sadly no work has been done to address the concerns. -- mattb @ 2007-02-24T17:20Z
  • Unfotunate Remove — 1c. — Deckiller 13:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nothing wrong with this page whatsoever. Giano 13:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The concerns were rejected, but the article is a Featured Article. Geogre 14:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per criterion 1c, which is part of the featured article criteria the last time I checked. Standards have evolved and improved since this was nominated. As for the concerns being rejected, yes they were - nobody did the work and the concerns are still there. LuciferMorgan 23:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A first rate article. Paul August ☎ 03:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This isn't an appropriate use of FAR as far as I'm concerned. To me me this is like chopping down entire forests because a few deviant (and rather insignificant) trees fail to please everyone. / Peter Isotalo 10:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this is exaggeration. Honestly consider whether this article in its current state would pass through FAC again. Without some kind of inline references to verify many of the factual statements, it would not receive support to pass. It's not our practice to allow old articles to be grandfathered in to their FA status. -- mattb @ 2007-02-26T13:32Z
How can you possibly know that? I would certainly vote for it, as would, I suspect, many others. Giano 13:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I'm not sure this is the right question to ask. It assumes that the interpretation of standards applied at FAC is 100% correct, which might not be the case. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - Yes, it is a first rate article, I like it when reading it, but unfortunately this article does not satisfy WP:WIAFA (1.c) to retain FA status, as has been concerned in the FAR review above. To be more specific, and just for examples, I like to know at least one pointer to the source of the Historical context and content section. It's a compeling story, but is it verifiable? In the Top-down history section, it sounds an observation asserted by the editor to me by reading the following sentences: "Therefore, a top-down view of the literary history of the Restoration has more validity than that of most literary epochs. "The Restoration" as a critical concept covers the duration of the effect of Charles and Charles's manner. This effect extended beyond his death, in some instances, and not as long as his life, in others.", if there are no inline citations. — Indon (reply) — 11:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for explaining what I've been unable to say; inline citations improve verifiability, and FAs need to show Wikipedia's top quality in all aspects, including verifiability. — Deckiller 11:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And they also alienate non-academics and needlessly distract the reader from the text when applied gratuitously, which now almost has the status of hard policy thanks to all those general "not enough inlines"-objections in FAC:s and FAR:s. Usually by people who wouldn't be caught dead actually looking up any of those sources. How often does anyone really object on account of excessive use of footnotes? And don't tell us we don't have those kinds of articles all over the place. Those are prime examples of highly inappropriate use of footnotes. Peter Isotalo 12:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Peter, I don't ask editors to litter the article with footnotes for every statements. Am I "inappropriate" by asking only one pointer to the source of the History section? — Indon (reply) — 12:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm sure you've noticed that this review has turned into a lot more than a discussion about a pointer to just one fact statement. (Or was that a rather logical summary which isn't the kind of thing you really need to cite?) What drives me absolutely bonkers about these debacles, is that if one attempts to object to an FAC on account of obvious abuse of footnotes, like in Vancouver, one generally gets pummeled by finger-waggers who stress that it already has a zillion footnotes and is therefore immaculate and free of any blame. If I were to submit the same article for FAR on account of the citation mess I'm sure I'd get a dozen people huffing and puffing about point-making and be considered a destructive crank. And still... Articles like Scotland in the High Middle Ages or Jaguar, even if informative and well-written, are not just meticulous in referencing, but overly pedantic, and not in the least considerate of readers who aren't savvy bibliomaniacs. Restoration literature actually attempts to present the subject as a summary, a ready-to-read treat of an article, not the reading assignment from Hell. But instead of being praised for this fairly unique feat, it gets dragged into FAR and treated like a deviant curiosity by editors like Morgan and Marskell. / Peter Isotalo 09:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, at FAR above the discussion was dragged far away, that's why I didn't make any comments there. So I hope you are not going to drag this FARC into that way. I never refered this debacle to Vancouver or any other articles you mentioned, and I believe not anybody else either. I don't WP:POINT and never will. Please read a thoughtful remarks by Deckiller below. — Indon (reply) — 10:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I didn't say or mean to say that the examples of pedantically referenced examples had to be dragged into this decision nor that you tried to disrupt to make a point. I did, however, wished to draw attention to a glaring inconsistency in the general reasoning applied here. Saying that this article isn't top notch and well-referenced and needs to be stricken from the list of the best articles on Wikipedia is disproportionate from the aims of the project, and the idea that almost anyone can demand pedantic citations of just about anything with only the motivation "yeah, well, I didn't know that" and a specification of a fact statement needs to be re-assessed. Questioning something based more or less entirely on ignorance is useful at times, but in a lot of instances it's really just a matter of not having done one's homework properly. / Peter Isotalo 20:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • I am wondering whether you really have read a thoughtful Deckiller's comment below. All my wish for you is to read that carefully, because nothing more I can say to your complaints. People are working with the article, so everybody here is just waiting for the final result. — Indon (reply) — 10:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I look up sources on some articles actually, and I echo what Deckiller and Indon feel. LuciferMorgan 15:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Some articles..."? I would think that a committed FA reviewer would take a self-assigned task a bit more seriously. Perhaps you should start focusing on articles that you actually have time to give fair reviews. If the authors took all that time researching and writing the article, what makes you think you have the right to demote them en masse with only a minimum of effort?
Peter Isotalo 09:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Re the two related threads above: not to bias the closure with many days left, but my opinion is that it should be removed if nothing happens to it and then immediately returned to FAC. This article fails the interpretation of 1c that has been imposed on apx. the last 200 FAR/C closures, and to keep it would mean a re-interpretation of the criteria through this process. If that is to happen, it should happen at FAC, the main FA page, not here. Marskell 14:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. If the criteria that we have been using for FAR needs to be revised, it should be tested on FAC per your comments. -- mattb @ 2007-02-26T15:09Z
Comment This is not a support for keeping, but it's a strong oppose to the opposers. I love that passive voice! It "has been applied" for 200 articles. By whom? Anyone ever heard of the appeal to tradition? You might want to look in logical fallacies for it. Facts are fact, and 1c doesn't say what you folks think it does. However, FARC doesn't have the power to resubmit a FAC. Some people think 1c means "footnotes," and some people read it and see that it doesn't mean "footnotes." Seems like consensus would need to be determined in order to remove this article. There isn't a consensus on "1c means footnotes," so this can't be removed from FA status. Work on convincing people or going through the policy process, but don't try to proclaim by fiat. Utgard Loki 18:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you're talking about, TBH. No one opposing has mentioned "footnotes". Marskell 21:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody here has tried to claim that 1c requires footnotes. That's just a straw man that has been brought up several times. If you scroll up and read a bit, you'll see that parenthetical references (ala Harvard) are fine as well. The issue is that this article lacks inline citations for many of its assertions, not that it lacks footnotes. Please save your trivializing our concerns as a narrow interpretation until you've read what we're actually asking for. -- mattb @ 2007-02-26T19:23Z
How would you characterize that interpretation of 1(c)? It would be useful, if we intend to implement that interpretation universally, to actually put it into the criteria and see if there is consensus for it as a general proposition. If there is, it would then be trivial to bring this article back to FARC and remove it. This would seem preferable to your suggested course of action. Contrary to your statement, IMO, a keep result here would not be redefining the criteria. On the contrary, a remove result would redefine the criteria since it would imply that the "appropriate" level of citation is subject to some particular external standard, above the discussion among the participants in the FAC/FARC. A keep result would simply affirm the existing notion that the appropriate level is subject to discussion. (Of course, this assumes that the sentiment here is indeed that the citation level is appropriate. I myself have not had the chance to take a very detailed read of the article.) Christopher Parham (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that would be ideal and very much appreciated Indon. As we (should) all know "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." This page is, in large part, only descriptive and the primary works are cited in-line. But the analysis needs citing—forget FA, the content policies say so. The history section has been noted thrice, and there are other spots: "If "Restoration literature" is the literature that reflects and reflects upon the court of Charles II, Restoration drama arguably ends... " and subsequent, for instance. Marskell 17:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If those arguing against 1c feel I and others are wrong, I welcome them to resubmit this to FAC and see how it fares... LuciferMorgan 18:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You will be releived to know Lucifer, that there seems little chance of that happening [14]. I think the chances of you being able to turn your attentions to pages of this calibre again are very slim indeed. Giano 22:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is that relevant to this discussion? Loudly lamenting won't help anybody. May I suggest you folks try my approach: don't worry about the FA process any more. I no longer aim to write FAs because of the level of citation required, but that doesn't mean I can't still write good articles. Don't think you're the only folks who have had FA badges removed from their hard work because the standards now include inline references. -- mattb @ 2007-02-26T23:45Z
  • Keep inline citations are not a compulsory requirement for FA's, the article is one of wikipedias best. While we're here - who judged consensus from the FAR? Reading the above, it hardly seems that there was a significant majority in favour of moving this to FARC. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't make that decision, but if I had to venture a guess, it would be because the author of the article basically stated his intention to do nothing to address the concerns. -- mattb @ 2007-02-27T00:05Z
    • And I would respond to Mattb with, "So?" Is that what FAR is about? I have to be contrite? I have to please everyone who has anything to say? I wasn't aware that that was part of things. I disagree with the concerns. I regard them as wholly invalid. Those things that could be improved I probably will improve, but on the timetable that my work and volunteering allows. Is the big, scary FAR going to make me bend a knee and wheedle? Nah. So, if all it takes is any unhappy person to de-list a featured article, I have some serious unhappiness with the FA's of the last "200." I would happily object to useless footnotes, to clutter, to ungrammatical sentences passing by the "copyeditors" who live at FAC, etc.
    • Now, where things can be improved, I will improve them, but these do not include if/then causality statements that are simple matters of logic and not of citation. It's stunning to see people afraid of a conclusion, and I can only rejoice that I do not have to deal with such timorousness. On the other hand, the people who are unhappy with this article are straining and struggling to come up with something/anything with which they can batter it. Why? Is it my "ego" or theirs? Why should they care? Do they know of any errors in the article (there is one)? Do they know of any conclusions not widely reported in the secondary literature? Do they have any reason to suspect that there are false claims being made? Do we need to put a footnote up to prove that Ohm's Law is V/I/R? Do we need a footnote to say that the Restoration is the reaction to Charles II's restoration to the British throne? These are the same level of absurdity.
    • I do not object to having review by people who do not know the field, of course. I do object to being ordered about and told how I should write, how I should speak, and what I may say by people so unaware of the area that they do not even understand what is meant by top-down history, much less have the capacity to assess whether or not that is a controversial subject. Why have I announced that I'm not interested in making wholesale changes in dressing on the article to keep them happy? Guess.
    • When one does not know the score entirely, it's good to confer. Look at this article's translation history. Has it been translated into other wiki's? How have they responded to it? Are we the only ones blessed and enlightened enough to know that this isn't an FA because there are no footnotes? Are those other wiki's cursed with ignorance for honoring it? Again, could the hubris perhaps, just perhaps, reside nearer to your home than all that? Regardless of how you answer these questions for yourselves, my answer is unambiguous. You don't like it. So? You don't like my response. So? No one has to like things. We just have to act properly and dispassionately. Geogre 02:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Look, I'm really not out on a personal vendetta against you, I'm just trying to uphold what I (and others) perceive to be the standard for featured articles, namely, sufficient inline citations to allow any lay person to easily verify the information in the article. I do apologize for any undue duress I've caused you by asking that this article be held to the same standard we've been holding other articles to, and it's not as if I think these standards are perfect.
      • However, if I may respectfully say so, your response reeks of arrogance. Yes, you do have to please reviewers in the FA process. You often have to bend over backwards to their every whim to get articles to pass (unless of course you have enough friends to snowball the vote, but let's ignore that nicety). I don't find it to be particularly equanimous, but it's the same ordeal everyone has to put up with. Myself and others did try to point out areas in this article that we feel merit inline citations, and I think (despite some of the shouting and distractions) that we tried to be reasonable about it. You disagree that our concerns need to be addressed, and I fully respect that. However, I don't think that the article as it currently stands meets up to FA standards for citations and by extension verifiability, and thus my vote to remove. I have nothing against you or this finely written article, but neither you or your article are above being held to the same standards all other FAs are being held to. Look at Enzyme, Germany, El Greco, California Gold Rush, Bacteria, and practically any other recently featured article. Is all the work put into inline references in these articles for naught? If the level of citation in Restoration literature is sufficient, why do all new FAs meet a much higher (only in the sense of detail of citations, not article quality per se) standard? If the standards or our interpretation of them need to change, then maybe this issue should be discussed in the appropriate place, but I disagree that the view of inline references we are promoting here is out of line with the community's FA standards. -- mattb @ 2007-02-27T05:22Z
  • Keep of course. "A featured article exemplifies our very best work..." - enough said. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — I am extremely offended, surprised, and worried by the lack of professionalism being displayed with some of our better article writers, some of whom I looked up to for inspiration when I started becoming interested in the FA process in January 2006. FAR reviewers have been called "moronic" and "lunatic", yet we have not name-called any of you; all we have done is provided peer review for the articles that you have worked on, among numerous others. Getting the work reviewed and compared with current standards is part of being a Wikipedia editor, and it should not detract from the article writing. Heck, if I had been like that, I would've stopped contributing in August 2005; I quickly learned that FA status does provide an incentive to get your name known, contribute to the project's creditbility as a whole, and get the right to brag on the userpage (which is in some way the driving force behind humanity), but that's where it stops. Do not hold back on this project if you are purposely holding back; it only pointlessly hurts the project, the community, and yourself. It only serves as a speedy defense mechanism for the ego. Heck, when I have time later in the year, I plan on putting several FAs I've worked on through the review process to give them the modernized treatment they deserve to prevent such arguments like these from happening at an inconvienent time.
The key is to suspend egos and work on the articles (note the absence of the word "my" or "your"). Approach all articles because they belong to the project and the community as a whole, not the individual. Please consider these words and realize that we are not intending to destroy "your" work; we are intending to bring up one of Wikipedia's articles to generally accepted standards (that is, standards outside just one group of established editors). If you want to write articles on personal standards alone, then you have picked the wrong project and medium, although I truly hope an awakening occurs in several editors that this project as a whole is worth more than the article ownership.
Wikipedia parallels business in many ways, and in business, one cannot dwell in the past. One has to move along with the currents and accept change as it comes; only then will someone realize the full benefits. Not a single edit was made to this article during this review (except one by Marskell). How will you know how much the article will be improved if you have not actually bothered to work on it? This review has not been used to improve the article; instead, it's turned into a political slugfest, and all of us should be ashamed with ourselves for letting it not only get this far, but nobody stepping up to the plate and at least making this article better even the slightest while on review. However, heads are in nostalgia or stubbornland, and efforts to take advantage of this review even in the slightest have not been seen. Several FARCers have offered a compromise; add more inlines, but not necessarily footnotes. It's a very reasonable request and something that should be taken with honor, knowing that people care enough about this work to want to see it be attributed properly!
You see, people get it wrong when they say that the "FARC lunatics" want to destroy Wikipedia's featured content. I've been on both sides of the fence; I know both perspectives. The reviewers have become able to put their egos aside when working on an article from a community accepted standard; this allows them to feel even better once the work is done, knowing that they have satisfied the whole, which may actually be better than satisfying the personal wishes. In essense, the reviewers in general know both sides (the writer and the reviewer), and so they might have reached such a level that they sound too harsh or rude, although it is not their intention (they just misjudge others reaching that level of ego suspension).
Wikipedia helps people realize that life is about making compromises and going with the accepted principles, or starting a large motion to change those. It is indeed a reflection of real life (or what used to be called real life; the internet is indeed real life now), and it is not just a distant outpost now. Perhaps Wikipedia has become too much of a wide community for some to handle, which is understandable and regrettable. I don't want to sound like a "conform of be cast out" kind of person, but in a sense, that is a true statement; we must learn to conform while injecting our ideas to forward the norm. Good norms change over time; they don't stay the same, as we've seen with Wikipedia referencing. So it is pointless to hold articles back when you may have to face the fact that if you've done that work, you might as well place it; then, the decision becomes to stay or not. Please think this through. — Deckiller 01:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you find unfounded accusations of egotism consistent with a professional atmosphere? I remark on this only because I think you are contributing significantly to the unnecessary personalization of this discussion.
To address the content of your statement, I think it takes for granted a number of things that are not widely agreed upon. For instance, you take as given that the standard employed at FAR, which would reject this article, is in fact "community accepted." I see little evidence of this. Certainly it is accepted by FAR and FAC regulars, but that is not the community -- to adopt your language, it is rather a particular group of established editors. Further, you assume that the recommendations made here would improve the article, and that therefore not working on them is offensive and unhelpful. I am even more suspicious of this assumption; many people are rejecting the suggested changes on the grounds that they contribute little or nothing to the quality of the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that adding citations - whether they be footnotes or parentheticals, it doesn't matter - does not add "little" to the quality of the article; it is necessary for Wikipedia:Attribution. I am echoing concerns that statements need to be cited, but the current inline format is not the problem; the problem is that more are needed to ensure attribution, such as quotes and other similar statements to avoid what may seem is original research. People are rejecting this simple request, without giving any reasons other than "footnotes are bad" (which is not even what we're asking for!) and "this is a good article". Heck, one of Marsekll's first comments was that this article uses Harvard referening and should expand on that referencing; Harvard referencing = parenthetical references. If I had the books, I'd add parentheticals myself during the review process to at least provide some sort of moderization. Elonka stated the time issue below; Featured Articles must represent the best we have, obviously, but that also means adhering to policy (if Ignore All Rules was so great, then why not even bother to reference at all? Brittannica doesn't!). It's not double the time, Elonka, it's taking half an hour to go through the books and find pages to make the material much more attributable. All we asked for this review was a polishing, and this has been blown out of proportion (myself included, methinks), resulting in many of us voting remove due to lack of work.— Deckiller 10:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Attribution: Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be accompanied by a clear and precise citation, normally written as a footnote, a Harvard reference, or an embedded link; other methods, including a direct description of the source in the article text, are also acceptable. Can we please put our opinions aside and try to work on making what needs to be attributable...attrubutable? I'm tempted to go to the library today myself. — Deckiller 10:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a high quality article, and I think that if Wikipedia had more articles of exactly this level of quality, that would be A Good Thing. The level of referencing is appropriate for this type of academic, non-controversial topic. Where pop culture or a very controversial subject is involved, I think that a higher standard of referencing is a good idea, especially where living people are involved. But just because some articles require detailed referencing, doesn't mean that we should force that standard on all articles. Our workforce is not comprised of professional paid editors -- we're working with volunteer labor here, and there's a limit to how much time that volunteer hobbyists can put into a particular project. To further raise the minimum standards for a "great" article, to the point of ejecting perfectly good articles for minor reasons, is a bad idea. Do we have that much competition here for featured articles, that we can afford to be this picky? Do our best editors and writers have that much free time, that rather than allowing them to go on to work on new articles, we are going to require that they double the time they need to spend on already-good articles? I think that their time would be much better spent elevating the status of other mediocre articles, rather than trying to polish up an already good article to some sort of Olympian standard. As for whether this might weaken the definition of what a "Featureable" article is, well, would it really be a problem if every article on Wikipedia were "only" at the level of Restoration Literature? I personally think that that would be a very fine problem to have. --Elonka 02:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Excellent article. An impressive feat to contain such different periods and movements in one short article.

On the question whether a consensus keep for this article would disrupt the "rules", I don't think that matters, since "Ignore All Rules" is one of the wisest policies on Wikipedia, especially where good-faith editors disagree. I have much respect for the people who regularly assess at FAR and FAC and am not polarised in that regard. qp10qp 06:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have not yet read this article thoroughly, and so have no intelligent opinion on whether to keep or remove it. (I do hope those advocating removal above have all put in the prerequisite thorough reading....) In general, the referencing standards in articles ought to conform to the referencing standards of the academic discipline to which the article's topic belongs; as far as I understand, this article meets that standard. While a few notes might be helpful here, it's unfortunate that aggressive referencing inflation has taken a rare example of a well-written and well-organized overview article and turned it into the nth battle of the FA culture wars. It's very easy to demand more references, and very easy to think highly of those who do it as defenders of high quality and high standards, and much more difficult to think about whether your demands are reasonable, or well-informed, or applicable in context. Making this an adversarial situation in the first place - 'do what I say or I'll de-star your article!' - is lame, trying to pick fights is lame, and yes, stubbornly refusing to consider the possibility of a note or two because other people are being lame, is still lame. Opabinia regalis 06:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep having had a chance to read the article, it's quite nicely written and has no outstanding substantive issues that would merit delisting. (Yes, including the much-argued 'arguably'. IMO that sentence and the two that follow are flowery and overdramatic, but 'too many rhetorical flourishes' is not a reason for delisting an article. Currently, the most visible remaining issue is a phrase that appears in quotation marks without attribution, but is simple enough that it may not be a quotation, and at any rate is substantiated in the linked article.) Opabinia regalis 06:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ho-hum.
  • Re Mcginnly's query, they get moved down unless there's unanimity, which there wasn't.
  • Re "interpreting criteria", "community standards" etc.: I interpret WIAFA article in light of the content policies. For instance, quotations must attributed, and this article has a few that are not. This is not some radical innovation of people at FAR—it's a long-standing community consensus. If we could get past rhetoric, I think the referencing demands would appear quite reasonable. Marskell 07:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just read it and it is excellent. No inline citations and I don't see how that matters. I use inline cites only because articles (well, almost all my work is a bunch of stubs) I write are filled with measurements and other numerical issues...but I see many advantages to not having inline citations:
    • The article looks better without a bunch of little numbers all over the place.
    • When one opens the editing window, they aren't confronted with a mass of crazy looking cite web formats that make it harder for newer editors to edit anyway.
    • The article looks like one that one would expect to find in an encyclopedia instead of one that is a undergrad college term paper.
  • Lastly...there is no policy that demands we use inline citations...only that an article be referenced...and this one is.--MONGO 10:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Random section break
[edit]
  • Keep as soon as possible. This long since stopped being a discussion about whether this article is of superior standard (it is: a few missing citations do not detract from its overall excellence), or whether it needs a few citations (it does: a few, not littering with them). It is now, predictably, a forum for the advocates of inline citation to butt heads with those who oppose it. There are points well made on either side but it's all too heated and in all the discussion there are only a few lines concerned with the article itself. The lovely "where appropriate" has hung us out to dry, but this isn't the place to have the discussion of how to deal with it. Keep the article, let's have the discussion, and when we are all agreed (don't hold your breath) let's look at it again. Yomanganitalk 10:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot on - this whole debate is about how many parenthetical citations are "appropriate", although the application of that test to this article has been rather lost in the argument. It is perhaps worth noting again that the "where appropriate" language in WP:WIAFA was deliberately chosen instead of "extensive" inline citations. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — we are taking matters into our own hands and improving this article, although like I said above, the footnote system is not necessary (but I am only one person). Gzkn and Marskell have started work on the references and have added citation needed tags, and I plan on initiating a copy-edit tonight. — Deckiller 10:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who is this "we"? Has this debate really polarised into "us" and "them"? You know this is a wiki, right? So any editor can edit pretty much any article? You will be aware that this article is widely regarded as excellent, so I trust you will take all reasonable care in making your "improvements". -- ALoan (Talk) 11:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"We" as in the group of (as of right now) three editors working on the article... The Wiki comment is not really necessary, because "we" refers to that group, and groups of people collaborate all the time (like with WikiProjects and collaborations of the week). But perhaps it is turning into "us" and them"; rather, the ones willing to give the article a tuneup versus the ones who are resistant to even editing the article. The article will be attributed and checked like any other. — Deckiller 11:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, it does, now. Last time I checked, Gkzn and Marskell are working on it. I will strike my vote into keep as soon as they finish the work. I am waiting for their updates. — Indon (reply) — 10:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gzkn appears to be doing the heavy lifting, so we'll wait and see. There's some minor redundancies and typographical stuff being cleaned up. Don't worry, the Sturm und Drang shall pass and it will almost certainly be kept now that it's been engaged. Marskell 12:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been participating since I'm traveling, have limited internet access, and it didn't look like deficiencies would be addressed; since someone is working on it, I will find a high-speed connection and type up my notes later this week. From memory, there are problems with attributing opinions on the definition of the Restoration period (not all sources agree with the time frames put forward in this article, so the definitions should be attributed with inline citations—how are uninvolved editors going to find cites for the definitions used in the article? the sources I have differ, and by the way, why isn't some of that information discussed in the main Restoration article?), weasle words around the unsourced opinions, and some prose reorganization is needed—for example, I recall the "United Company" is named several paragraphs after it is first mentioned, and the patent holders are discussed in several different places that could be better tied together. I made some other notes which I'll type up if work is underway. Considering the article has unattributed and uncited opinion that is not backed by other sources, it's unfortunate that there was such intransigence in correcting the deficiencies; I'm relieved someone is willing to help. Unless citations can be provided for unattributed statements and definitions in the article, I'll be a Remove, since sources disagree on information put forward in this article. If the weasle word "arguably" is used for a basic definition, we need to know whose argument it is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry Sandy and Lucifer - there won't be concensus to demote it anyway. Giano 15:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question for Lucifer: is '110%' pure rhetoric, or do you really intend to try to hold this article to stricter-than-usual standards simply because you're peeved at the people involved? Opabinia regalis 06:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC) You're right, that was a terrible idea; pretend I never said it. 'Tis past the fossil's bedtime. Opabinia regalis 07:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one answer that! Marskell 06:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What a shame we had to go through an FAR and an FARC, with lots of arguing, before those who had some concerns about the article addressed them by actually editing it instead of expecting the people who were happy with it to change it. qp10qp 17:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The articles typically only start moving once the original nominator and/or main contributor does; a new editor to the page making large changes can create a different set of problems. With some FAs, such as Emsworth's, it's become understood that anyone who can help should just dig in. Marskell 18:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in the usual course, either the original nominator and/or main contributor will accept that some or all of the comments are well grounded and make changes, or someone else will take it upon themselves to deal with the comments, and, who ever make them, the changes will either adequately address the objections (so the article retains its featured status) or they don't (and it won't); or no (or few) changes will be made and the article will lose its featured status - and, either way, there will be broad consensus for whatever the result happens to be.
In this case, it has been clear from the start that the original nominator and/or main contributor and a whole host of other people don't agree with the comments. The "appropriate" level for inline citations has been debated for 2 years, and is not likely to be resolved any time soon (although the blight of reflexive footnotes seems to have taken full hold at FAC). In the absence of a consensus to make changes to deal with the comments, nor any likelihood that people who disagree with them will do anything about them, surely it behoves the ones reqesting the changes to make them themselves.
I said it above, but perhaps it bears repeating: this is a wiki, and any editor can be bold and edit pretty much any article, while giving due consideration to the content that is already present and its creators, of course. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Behooves them indeed; but if you don't have the sources, you have to wait for others. I can pick at prose redundancies all I like, but the Arabian desert doesn't have a Robarts library. And you can tell me that WIAFA has been widely debated again and again, but it's not that mystifying or debatable because the content policies are sitting there for all to see. Quotations and statements "challenged or likely to be challenged". You know how it works; you extensively footnote your own FAs. Marskell 19:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be far better - if you just left decent pages alone, and concentrated your efforts on the many thousands of stubs where you attentions would be welcome! Giano 18:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is some repetitive phrasing. I'm not sure who is required to welcome improvement in that regard. As for our stubs, I'd take a shotgun to half of them if I could. Marskell 18:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the prose could stand for some more work to make it more encyclopedic weed out any minor redundancies. Marskell and myself have given it quick passes, but it still needs work. — Deckiller 19:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think in all the years I have known Wikipedia, I have never read such a vain arrogant comment - when you have written work yourself of that quality, then,and only then, may you even think of making such remarks - and even after that unlikely occasion I would strongly advise against it. Giano 20:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could we try for just a moment to stop the mud slinging, please? -- mattb @ 2007-02-27T20:28Z
Touche. Marskell 20:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You people down here have thought up this way to amuse yourselves, don't be so surprised when others do not think it so clever, or an admirable way of passing your lives. Giano 20:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, we're all breathing easy here. I spend time on Wiki; I don't pass my life on it (I save that for vodka and what not). OK? There's no need for anger. The page does have some repetitious phrasing (much was edited out today). There isn't a long page on Wiki that doesn't, and there isn't an editor who doesn't introduce repeat phrases (unless Garcia Marquez is editing, but he wasn't last I checked) because the brain works that way. So, again, no worries. Marskell 20:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you say so Marskell. Have you and your compatriots down here ever considered turning your attentions to the original works of Shakespeare, Tolstoy or Dostoevsky - I'm sure they too could benefeit from your opinions on their prose - However did they all earn a living without your opinions? Of course though we do have Sandy's "notes" to look forward to, they should be revealing. Giano 20:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Giano. Marskell 21:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The last statement by Christopher Parham above isn't a fact, but an opinion, although an opinion he has every right to have. It's an opinion I heavily disagree with though, and I don't feel everything that demands a citation is satisfactorily supported. Even after the work that's happened, the article still fails 1c in my opinion. LuciferMorgan 20:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He said, she said, mummy he called me a name... It is an excellent article, but there are a lot of excellent articles that could not (and can not) pass through FAC for lack of sufficient inline citation. "Featured Article" means something more than simply "well written and composed" (which this article is). This article cites its primary sources, but still makes plenty of assertions (and conclusions presumably from the secondary sources? I don't know) that should be cited. However, this is being slowly improved, so perhaps I'll be willing to change my vote soon. -- mattb @ 2007-03-01T23:36Z
  • Keep. Current standards, as written—not some people's de facto—leave much room for interpretation of issues related to citation.
  • The recent discourse on inline citation (at Talk:FAC etc.) makes the reasonable point that citations are used to respond to putative challenges to facts. A "challenge" is defined not as adding a [citation needed] tag, but as being able to say "I believe this may not be accurate because...". I have seen no challenge, in this sense, during this FAR or on the article's talk page. Nor can I provide a challenge.
  • A lot of policies are made based on hand-waving arguments about what people might do, probably do, would do, could do, etc.—Opabinia regalis' user page—the argument being that empirical data is nice. What data do we have that indicates that an article—especially an "omnibus" article, as the main author calls it—is found to be better by "the average reader" if it has many inline citations? Is the citation being done for readers, or more to cover up that hole in the wiki-editor's soul that will always exist because inaccuracy is only another edit away? We are blind; page 312 is far away. If I don't believe that a broad topic is represented properly here, I go read a book. I don't go searching, in this context especially, for page 312. I'll change my not-vote when the messenger comes charging in, out of breath, exclaiming, "Here's where it's wrong!" –Outriggr § 06:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC) "Struck" (grayed out) text at 00:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC). My intent was not to question inline citation policy, but to offer an interpretation in the case of a broad-topic article. Probably came off as too general :). –Outriggr §[reply]
    • That is not at all what inline citations are for. Inline citations are to say where a particular fact came from so that:
      1. Credit may be given where credit is due
      2. Claims of plagarism can be avoided
      3. Everyone knows the work is not original research
      4. Any user may verify the information
      5. Edit wars over personal interpretation are prevented
    • Knowing that, a statent does not actually have to be challenged to require an inline citation. Basically, if you got something out of a book you must say you got it out of that book. There's nothing to interpret, it is very cut-and-dry. Jay32183 18:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Our policy states: "Although everything in Wikipedia must be attributable, in practice not all material is attributed." That is, everything in this article ought to be citable to a book (or academic paper, newspaper, or reliable website) but not everything must be cited. I may get from a book that Winston Churchill was English, but I don't need to cite it on Wikipedia; it would actually be unhealthy to do so, as the next editor down the shoot may waste time citing the fact that Voltaire was French.
So, you see, it's not cut-and-dry. We don't need to cite "Charles II was well known as a philanderer." (If he were alive we would.) At the same time, we should look for obscure or challengeable points, and I've also personally argued for citing general introductory ideas, such as periodization (though I don't think that's make it or break it). I thought the bit about the first newspapers was relatively obscure, and threw a weblink in (I would like one more cite for the Athenian Mercury). Is there anything else that's specifically being challenged? Marskell 20:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is way too much uncited. Large amounts of uncited text is unacceptable no matter how it is ratioanlized. Nothing in the serious drama section is cited. That much text cannot possibly be common knowledge. If you had to get it out of a book then you must present that. Are you actually suggesting that the article was written off the top of some one's head and it would be reasonable to think that anyone should arleady know it? That is completely ridiculous. As a rule in all academic writing, the only statments that do not require inline citations (Harvard citations have been around a long time) are common knowledge and your own ideas. We aren't allowed to put our own ideas in the text, we can pnly present those of others that have been published. No article should be featured without citing anything that can't be deemed common knowledge, and not much can be. Jay32183 21:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jay, I don't intend to be rude here, but your comment suggests a certain degree of inexperience. Your claims about 'academic writing' are certainly untrue, and depend on the field and context in any case. The idea that a footnote is used to indicate 'where you got the information from' is... well, it works as a 'starter understanding' of citation in academic writing, but that understanding will inherently be incomplete. Rarely if ever will an article of this level of generality, written by someone who knows the field well, have a series of discretely identifiable books from which the information was straightforwardly imported. You have yet to provide any specific examples of statements you believe are worth challenging. Opabinia regalis 03:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's because generally people refuse to add citations when they present an attitude like this. If the response had been "I'll add citations, where would you like them?" I'd have made you a starter list. The fact that there are more sources than citations is a big clue that the article isn't cited properly. That means you're claiming things as sources without actually creditting any of the information to the source. Also, the more general the topic the more important citations are. General topics have lots of people writing about them and lots of different opinions. At that level it is near impossible for a non-expert to verify the content without citations. I'm also getting quite annoyed that I keep getting called inexperienced when I remind people that inline citations are not actually optional. Don't mistake my assertion of not enough inline citations for a request for a paricular number of citations. If an entire paragraph comes from one source then using one citation at the end of that paragraph is fine. But to have a section of text unattributed without an intuitive source (one where any reader will assume to be the place to check without looking at the list of references) I simply can't understand why people think it's acceptable for a general purpose encyclopedia. I will make a list or add fact tags (which ever you prefer if you'll be working on the article) if you admit to being willing to work on this, but recently I've been met with responces of any request for citations being shot down as inappropriate. Also, if you can't pinpoint a source then you may be putting more interpretation into the text than WP:NOR allows. If multiple sources agree then just pick one as appropriate (easiest to find, best known author, newest). Jay32183 04:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately for those who have worked on the article, I do not intend to edit it; as I mentioned in my keep comment wayyy above, I know nothing about the topic. (And as such, am not qualified to make 'I want citations here and here' demands, except for the most obvious of omissions, which I don't see here.) I was responding to your above post, itself a response to Outriggr, and the apparent misconceptions it contains about the appropriate use of citations. Sorry, but your comment if you can't pinpoint a source... only reinforces my impression of inexperience (in academic writing, not necessarily in wikipedia writing). Opabinia regalis 05:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 11:34, 10 March 2007.

Manuel I Komnenos

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Messages left at Bigdaddy1204, Military history and Biography. Todor→Bozhinov 11:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Message left at Greece. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks comprehensive, but there are some quite important issues to be dealt with. The intro is way too long and not concise at all: it includes non-summary stuff, even trivia, a quote and analysis, which should be in any case integrated into the body.

Significant portions of the body have absolutely no citations: "Arrival of the Crusaders", "Cyprus invaded", "Papal-Byzantine alliance", "Allure of Egypt", most of "Kilij Arslan II and the Seljuk Turks", as well as large parts of other sections. Where footnotes do exist, they are pretty scarce (they're only 19 and from just six sources).

Also, some of the images' relevance to the article is rather debatable (views of Egypt and Cyprus, rural church which itself possibly has nothing to do with the period, satellite view of the Balkans). Todor→Bozhinov 11:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be useful to compare this article with FAs on Epaminondas and Isaac Newton, which were used as inspiration when I was writing Manuel I Komnenos. I wouldn't say the intro is out of place myself, since it was carefully modelled on other featured articles, but then I do understand that others may see things differently. I am aware that things have changed quite markedly since I wrote the article - the criteria for footnotes etc have been tightened up considerably, for example. I suppose it may largely fall to me to provide more footnotes, since I was the one who wrote the sections in the first place. However, I have a lot of other commitments at the moment which are keeping me from my wikipedia work. I will try to do what I can, time permitting, but I'm afraid I can't promise much immediately. The debate over the images is not a new one, but I have always strongly felt that the images are not irrelevant, particularly in the case of the fortifications on Cyprus. My personal feeling is that these images add life to what would otherwise be a dull wall of text, but past experiences with wikipedia have left me with a bitter taste in my mouth, so to speak, and so I cannot but wonder whether that is what some editors want. That is NOT an attack on anyone here, i'm just trying to explain my feelings on the issue of the images. But that is a relatively minor point in any case. The intro and pictures are largely a matter of personal opinion and taste; however the citations are important. I would be very grateful to anyone who could help by adding citations themselves where they are able. Beyond that, I will try to help when I can, but as I have said I cannot promise much right now. Bigdaddy1204 13:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Manuel I Komnenos was a model article, when it was first nominated in FAC, and it still qualifies as one of our best articles. I think the major problem is the inadequate citing. The intro is not too long, taking into consideration the fact that articles like Third Servile War with longer leads recently qualified as FA (this article, in particular, had a huge support). In any case, we can have a detailed look in the lead and clean it, if necessary. The photos are IMO a secondary issue not strong enough to lead to the de-featuring of the article; but we can discuss this issue as well. I'm determined to keep this article as FA, and I'm willing to help with the sources and the citing, but the main editor of this article is Bigdaddy; he has done all the researsh and the writing, and I wouldn't like to look like somebody trying to shadow his work. If there is no problem from his part, I'll start working on the article within the next 2-3 days.--Yannismarou 16:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree citations are the biggest problem, and I also share the view the lead and the pictures aren't as important an issue to lead to defeaturing. I still think the lead should be more concise, though. People voting or commenting on the Third Servile War must have somehow missed the lead issue, it's full of details which should go to the body in my opinion. Todor→Bozhinov 11:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Bigdaddy has no objection, I will start working on the article from tomorrow.--Yannismarou 21:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please report on your progress here so we would know how your work is going and we could pass the review when the article's back up to the criteria :) Todor→Bozhinov 13:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your support, Yannismarou. I would be very happy for you to start working on the article; it would be a great help. If there is anything specific you'd like to know about the article, or what sources I used to describe a specific event, you are welcome to leave a message on my userpage and I will try to answer as soon as I can. Bigdaddy1204 17:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns include LEAD (2a), non-summary style and trivia (4), referencing (1c), and images (3). Marskell 09:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Tomorrow I'll be back from my wikibreak, and I will continue working on the article. I believe that untile the end of the week I'll be over, and the article will be again a proper FA.--Yannismarou 20:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update II: I think I did most of the citing and content work, and I also enriched the photos of the article adding more, and removing those irrelevant. I think the article has already reached a particularly high level, but I will keep my work, focusing now on prose issues and on the lead.--Yannismarou 18:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I commend Yannismarou for his excellent progress on improving Manuel I Komnenos. I am much impressed by the changes that have been made. I also entirely approve of the new images that have been introduced. Good work! Bigdaddy1204 23:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Excellent restoration work by Yannismarou. qp10qp 09:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was kept 01:32, 9 March 2007.

Infinite monkey theorem

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Messages left at Thesilverbail and Mathematics. LuciferMorgan 16:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This subject of this article is barely encyclopedic. It deserves little consideration in any article because it is about the history and future of Émile Borel's simple thought experiment (the moral of which is: "do the math") followed up with a one-sentence quip by Eddington. It is a legacy FA that seems to me to be overrated by the Math WikiProject at even "Mid" importance. At least the Monty Hall problem requires more than five seconds of thought by the middling college freshman and it gets a rating of "Low". To anyone who wants to learn something about Math, it amounts to little more than a quip along the somewhat more rude lines of: "use your head, dummy". The very idea of calling it a "theorem" is artificial to the point of being ludicrous. If Borel or Eddington were alive to see the time wasted on one-upmanship with ever more ridiculous and flawed restatements of their "theorem", they would go back and scratch their quips out of their original papers and ask the World to think more about Math and less about showmanship. --Farever 23:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you disapprove of the subject matter of the article, which is an inactionable objection to Featured status. What needs to be done to improve the article? — Brian 05:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of agree with the nominator that featured articles ought to be about more important topics than this. However that doesn't seem to be a current criterion -- we have a featured article about spoo, of all things. I think the FA process is a bit broken, but I'm not sure starting with this one case is really going to help.
Unfortunately I don't really see a fix for this problem in mathematics in general. Articles on important mathematical subjects -- say Stone–Čech compactification -- have too narrow an audience ever to be featured on Wikipedia's main page. The only thing that the general public is likely to be interested in seeing there, is this sort of fluff. --Trovatore 06:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this nomination is flawed. User:Farever does not even allege that this article falls short of the standard for featured articles. I think Farever should either follow the rules of the FAR process, go agitate for better standards, or withdraw his objection.
On a more whimsical note, would you be happier if the article were retitled "Infinite Wikipedians theorem"?  ;^> DavidCBryant 10:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment no need whatsoever to withdraw the review, as the article (at first glance) has the same problems we've seen in every math FAR so far - often the problems are less 1c and more 1a. This article - like Monty Hall problem prior to FAR - does not follow WP:LEAD and WP:MOS. The problem is introduced in the lead; it should be introduced in the text and the lead should be a summary of the entire article. I didn't read any further yet, as this is symptomatic of the issues we've seen in every math article that has come through FAR. Notes are not correctly formatted, and there are direct quotes which are not cited. Work to be done here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we want to cite sources, then who first postilated the I.M. "theorem"? Huh? Who is the author? Cite me a source. Did the author provide their version of a proof? Was the proof correct? Who later further developed and generalized the proof? There are no sources because they do not exist. Look at how the lead section has already again descended into a lecturing, pandering tone with phrases like "almost surely", "slings and arrows" and "graphically illustrates". That's not Math, that Show Biz. Have any one of you ever heard a qualified mathematician, even when intoxicated with ethanol to the point that he can no long legally operater a motor vehicle in his locale, ever use the phrase "almost surely" in reference to a theorem?!?--Farever 15:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See almost surely.
Does Farever care to reveal their identity? Why go through the trouble of creating a single-purpose account to rag on this article? Lunch 15:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected about the "almost surely" phrase. Of course, in the article, there is no discussion about the fact that, given the infinite time and even given that the monkeys will type on the keyboards as oppose to just break them or drool on them, that there is a zero probability that the monkeys will still fail to produce the stated literary work. There is no distinction made between zero-probabiliy events and prima facia impossible events. The driver of this vaunted mathematical lesson is some South American poet. The rest of the "citations" are news articles that amount to little more than "human interst stories". Please: the next round of citations that will appear to try to prop up this old nag of article will be dreged up from Cartoon Network. This is a math article about a fairly simply concept that is being bloated and swamped by non-math drek. Please demote this thing on the inferior quality and low number of its sources.--Farever 16:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't demote an article during FAR. We have a two-week review period during which issues are identified and (hopefully) worked on; if there is no progress at the end of FAR (featured article review), the article moves to FARC. This will become a very long review by the end of the month if editors rant at each other rather than identifying specific issues failing WP:WIAFA so they can be improved. In its current state, the article is not at FA status: I suggest that editors focus on content and WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge that I am getting ahead of myself, but I can see the writing on the wall. Thre is not enough math to talk about to merit a math FA. In the words of Gertrude Stein: There is no there there.--Farever 18:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't have to fit into a certain category topic (e.g.; math) in order to be featured; it has to meet WP:WIAFA standards. If you are saying it's not a notable topic and doesn't belong on Wiki at all, you should establish that via WP:NN standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at Category:Mathematical theorems and Category:Probability theory and then tell me that this article is best that Wikipedia can do. This article barely rises above the level of an Internet meme. It is notable enough for an article, primarily so that space is not wasted in serious FA-destined articles about math. Personally, I despise quotes in math or science articles because it suggests that the author does not yet understand the subject of the article. I accept that WIAFA is the criteria. Both this and the Monty Hall "math/logic" article (which just went through a FAR so I will have to hold off for a while) violate criteria #4 in that they do not focus on the subject nearly enough: they dwell on the fanfare and drek swirling around the "math" subject. That drek deserves no more than a sentence or two (which would take along with them most of the monkey footnotes). Otherwise, they should be exiled from the Math category and tossed over to the "Media" category where they would fit right in and have plenty of company.--199.33.32.40 20:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Three things.
  • Are you AWM? You're using AWM's address.
  • The singular form of "criteria" is "criterion".
  • The subject of this article isn't "math" – it's the "infinite monkey theorem".
If your real concern is with one of the categories in which this article has been placed, why not just remove that category tag and see what happens? As to the "drek" and "fanfare", what other kind of article that's even remotely associated with mathematics is ever likely to attract enough public attention to be considered for the "FA" designation? Wikipedia is not for profit, but it still has to sell itself in the market. Most of the "serious" math topics are so dull and boring (to the typical reader) that nobody would ever vote to make them featured articles, no matter how well they were written. This article isn't perfect, but it is entertaining. The first criterion for a featured article is that it should be "well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable." Can anyone offer substantive criticism of the article in any of those five areas? Is it poorly written? Are there inaccuracies? Are there any violations of NPOV? Let's focus on questions like that in this review process. DavidCBryant 21:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be most helpful if issues unrelated to FA status were hashed out on the article talk page - one such issue is categories. At minimum - without looking at the entire article - there are problems with 1c and 2 (WP:LEAD) already explained on this FAR. Hopefully editors can get busy correcting the deficiencies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. So far, Farever's criticisms amount to, "This is pop culture, not math." So what? It's a pop culture article. Let's concentrate on making it the best pop culture article it can be. Sandy and LM have outlined some problems, so that's a start. — Brian (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Needs more citations.

"It is most unlikely that Huxley would have referred to a typewriter."

Says who? Sounds like original research.

"The association of the debate with the infinite monkey theorem is probably..."

Probably? Sounds dubious with that word there. Who has speculated this?

"It is sometimes reported..."

It is sometimes reported? By who? What people have reported this?

These are just examples. Anyone working on the article can message me on my talk page if you wish for a more extensive analysis. LuciferMorgan 21:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please put this list on my talk page; however, I would appreciate it if you did a minute of work checking any of these points before you added it.
To take the first one, for example: the Huxley-Wilberforce debate took place in 1860 (and it is fairly well agreed how monkeys came into it); the first commercial typewriter was sold in 1870; for which Typewriter has a source. (The OED dates the word to 1868.) That this is a legend is contended by the first ten search results for Huxley Wilberforce debate typewriter - and I suspect by all of them; I did not wait to search for an exception.
It is not original research to state the consensus view of the obvious. WP:V says we need a source for those things which are "challenged or likely to be challenged"; this is neither. The other quibbles appear to be the same sort of straining at gnats. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the above. This article fails 1. c. as I stated IMO. Also, are you asking me to highlight further flaws in the article on your talk page? Just clarifying. LuciferMorgan 20:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"With the above"? With what, precisely? This is clarification? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I wanted was for LuciferMorgan to list the points which he feels likely to be challenged by a rational and literate reader; either on my talk page or on the article's talk page, as he prefers. The Huxley-Wilberfource nonsense above does not qualify; if none of his first few qualify any more than it does, I would move that this review nomination be dismissed as disruptive.
He has not done so. Is there support for an RfC on this disruptive nomination and bad-faith support? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I regret that Farever appears never to have heard of the ancient joke that is the subject of this article; it is well known, as the article attests, and some people have taken it seriously. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, similar problems to other Math article FARs, although the prose is superior to the others. The lead introduces the problem rather than summarizing the article; then the body of the article dives in to the middle. Telling readers what to "note" is redundant. More cite tags can be added if needed; preferably, though, the work will just be done without prodding from others. Footnotes are not in a recognizable citations style, publishers aren't identified on all, one appears to be a personal website, but is a dead link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the examples I highlighted "nonsense" PManderson does nobody any favours - what I could have done instead is wait for this article to appear at FARC, and then just vote "Remove" based on 1. c. Instead though, I've tried to highlight problems within the article for any interested editors to address. This article doesn't stand up to current FA standards, is rightly at FAR - this FAR review isn't "disruptive", but merely what it says, which is a review of whether the article adheres to current FA standards. Whether you address the deficiencies I've highlighted is your choice - I'm just pointing them out for the benefit of those who want to keep the article as an FA. LuciferMorgan 01:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LuciferMorgan's comments have been, and continue to be, an abuse of 1c. This review nomination should be summarily rejected; no reasonable grounds for it have been shown. This is the sort of thing which led WP:GA into contempt; it would be a shame to have WP:FA follow it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I add, however, that the "nonsense" is the claim that Huxley taunted Wilberforce about typewriters; which is as near to impossible as need be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following up Sandy's request. This is the reason for the cite template;

"...it is still very unlikely that any monkey would get as far as "slings and arrows" in Hamlet's most famous soliloquy."

Who says? The article should stick to the facts, and not speculate. Also, this statement draws a conclusion, and for that to happen it should have come from a source. LuciferMorgan 00:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so if a statement draws a conclusion, it has to come from a source? And the source has to be identified? What a thicket of citations that would be!
"One and one are two. (See Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead, Principia Mathematica, Cambridge University Press (1910 - 1913).) Two and two are four. (ibid.)"
Get real! DavidCBryant 17:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That particular part is established in the section titled Probabilities - it doesn't need to be cited in the lead. The problem in the lead is the "cuteness" with the piped link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Probabilities" has no cites backing its claims though. Anyway, I'm not highlighting anything else in the article - when its loses its FA star, I won't shed a tear. I've had enough hassle with this FAR nomination, even though I didn't nominate it. LuciferMorgan 03:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's because it's common knowledge, unlikely to be challenged by anyone qualified to edit the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's common knowledge, I wouldn't have asked for a citation. LuciferMorgan 01:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I don't hang around FAR much, and I broadly agree that this article needs an overhaul. But I'm just flabbergasted to see citations being demanded for a) the statement that a word could not have been used before it was coined, and b) a trivial probability calculation. We aren't far from "The Earth orbits the sun[1]". Opabinia regalis 03:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Common knowledge is a bad term, since obviously there are people who will be ignorant of the fact (i.e. the target audience of the article). The point is more that the statement is unchallengeable; that is, it is universally accepted within the field, so that anyone with sufficient background to assess the accuracy of the statement will understand it to be true. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I accept this correction. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It may be alien to people not used to mathematics, but a fact can be true, incontrovertible, and universally acknowledged without being a valid subject for publication in any form. It's impossible to provide a reference for this fact, unless you're after [15]. Tesseran 05:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns include LEAD (2a), referencing (1c), and general MoS issues (2). Note: importance of subject matter is not a Featured article criterion. Marskell 11:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 12:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove until additional citations are added. — Deckiller 10:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Keep — most problems fixed. — Deckiller 13:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. No case for removal made; Farever's complaint is not one, and I see consensus above that LM's complaints are groundless. Therefore this should be closed as unsupported. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Remove'2a is undisputed. 1c is disputed at certain points, but there are still citeneeded tags. (And I'd add several of my own if I weren't so late to the process.) Also, 1b: the article is not comprehensive. The slightest effort at verifying this article — in my case, just two queries to Google books — turns up a mountain of interesting material. Melchoir 06:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 1b is the first valid complaint I've seen; but it's not my article. I looked at the lead, and I dispute 2a; it's a two paragraph lead that summarizes the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As SandyGeorgia hinted a month ago, the lead currently summarizes only the statement and result of the mathematical problem. The material in "Origins" and "Infinite monkey experiments" isn't represented at all. I apologize for not getting involved in the FAR earlier, but there are enough 1c concerns alone to sustain a "remove" comment. I point out 1b because fixing one problem helps to fix the other, and a small amount of effort would go a long way.
        Well, if it's not your article, then you won't mind if I take the lead in fixing it. I could use the break from divergent series anyway… Melchoir 17:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've solved 2a, but there's still much to be done. Melchoir 18:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • -> Keep I believe that I (and Paul August and Michael Hardy) have rehabilitated the article. The most dramatic turnaround is the removal of any zero-one law being used to "prove" the theorem, since it doesn't. Lots of other shady but less-important statements had to be taken out, but many could be attributed with only minor revision. Applications have been added to reflect themes in the literature. There is now a comprehensive lead and a hierarchical section structure. Melchoir 08:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, per Septentrionalis. Will this madness never end? --KSmrqT 22:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "The infinite monkey theorem, or some version of the idea, appears in several novels, short stories, plays, a radio program, television programs in various genres, graphic novels, stand-up comedy routines, musical works, and the Internet." What novels?, what stories, what plays?, what radio programs?, what TV programs, what novels, This section needs more details, actually it needs to be detailed - What it appeared on and when, and it's a short stubby unreferenced paragraph. M3tal H3ad 07:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why does Pmanderson have to specifically mention me in his keep vote? Did I mention him in my remove? No I didn't - perhaps people voting can stick to reviewing and voting keep / fail for the article, and not other editors. LuciferMorgan 20:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Leaning toward keep after Melchoir's very good rewrite. I've done some copy editing and redundancy killing, and I've added a couple more pictures to spice things up. Further, it's my understanding that the cquote template is best used for pull-quotes (i.e., as a graphical flourish that duplicates text from the article), so I've replaced it with <blockquote> throughout. Still, I have a couple of concerns. First, the chronology of the real-life monkeys-with-typewriters experiment is confused. The lead says that the monkeys typed, then attacked and defecated. However, in the "real monkeys" section, we are told that they first attacked and defecated, then typed. Which was it? Also, where is the statement "it is not inconceivable that a monkey could intentionally describe a character's behavior" come from? It's the one instance where I wished there was a citation, but there was none. — Brian (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold (if possible). I've just returned from two weeks travel, won't be able to read the updated article until Thursday, and would like to be able to weigh in before this closes. If closing can't wait for me, I'll understand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excellent save, Melchoir; the article is now quite well referenced and an easy read. A couple of nitpicks, comments, and small points:
      • Strangest thing: the Main article in Popular culture doesn't show on the Printable version, so I was prepared to ask for references, but see it does show on the onscreen version. Does anyone know why that is happening?
      • There was a faulty ref in Ref #14, but either someone has fixed it, or it was another printable version issue.
      • I eliminated the (impossible to read) small text in a blockquote.
      • RNG was not defined: I added that.
      • Why is "quite sophisticated" in quotes in the Random number generation section?
      • The only significant problem I have is that External links could still use some pruning; not all of those sites seem necessary. If someone can deal with the External links, I'm a Keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep. Checked the edit history, found that Melchoir already deleted the External link farm once but it was restored by another editor. I deleted again; looks like it will need to be watched. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Quite sophisticated" is a quotation from the authors, but I couldn't think of an elegant way to indicate so. I thought it was a worthwhile point to make that they think it's serious business. If you'd like to clean it up, go ahead! Melchoir 02:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 20:51, 5 March 2007.

Order of the Thistle

[edit]
Messages left at Lord Emsworth, Numismatics and Scotland. LuciferMorgan 22:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last of the "Order" articles, needs inline citations, perhaps more references. Judgesurreal777 21:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, I knew this one was going to come up. I'd hoped to be able to cite it before it got this FAR. I had already sourced some statements, which I've added, and got some images which I'll add later. I'll do what I can, but as always am quite busy. I won't have a chance to check references before the weekend. Dr pda 00:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was due eventually. But no worries Dr. Your work is appreciated, and it can be as your time allows. Marskell 20:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've added the images and cited most of the article now. I've put {{fact}} tags for the statements which still need citations; the Precendence and privileges section is also currently uncited. Anyone's welcome to try to fix these. Dr pda 00:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I filled them, apart from one which stated that the offices of Dean of the Order and Dean of the Chapel Royal were split in 1969. I couldn't find a reference for that outside of our articles and mirrors, so I've commented it out. Yomanganitalk 01:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's been cited too now. Yomanganitalk 23:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've cited the Chapel and Precendence and privileges sections, and tagged the few remaining facts which need a reference. Dr pda 00:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've cited those (although I removed one which seemed to be obvious from the next sentence). Yomanganitalk 15:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anymore work needed here? Marskell 11:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article's fully cited now, and as a result the number of references has increased. These are the only two issues which had been raised, so I think we're done. Dr pda 01:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 20:51, 5 March 2007.

George IV of the United Kingdom

[edit]
Messages left at Lord Emsworth, British Royalty, Biography and Brighton. LuciferMorgan 09:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A disproportionately low number of references for an article of this size, not to mention the lone inline citation. -Pandacomics 19:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have Steven Parissien's biography, the DNB and Michael de-la-Noy's pocket biography. I'll read through these and add citations but it'll take me at least a week. DrKiernan 09:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could do with a general tidy-up along with the referencing, and perhaps a copyedit. For instance,
  • First two sentences of "Early life" don't remind you in which year he was born, requiring you to scroll up. Isn't there a location for his birth?
  • The Prince of Wales turned 21 in 1783, when he obtained a grant of £60,000 from Parliament and an annual income of £50,000 from his father. - makes it sound like he turned 21 because he obtained a grant.
  • George was a talented student, quickly learning to speak not only English but also French, German and Italian. - why not just "to speak English, French, German and Italian"?
  • Gets a bit oversectioned later on in the article, one paragraph is only 6 words long.
  • Table for "Issue" seems a bit superfluous.

All this is obviously secondary to referencing though. Trebor 18:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added some referencing, though it still needs a lot more esp. around his regency, reign, and legacy. Implemented some of Trebor's suggestions as well. Should facts be referenced in the lead even if they are cited later in the article?Mocko13 19:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, Mocko, you're doing great stuff again! Extraordinary facts or direct quotes in the lead should be referenced, but "basic" stuff that is just summarizing text that is cited elsewhere in the article need not be cited in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The regency and reign sections are now fully referenced. DrKiernan 08:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sources — coming along nicely.
  • The prose — it needs a bit of work still. Few examples:
    • "According to The private letters of Princess Lieven to Prince Metternich, 1820–1826 edited by Quennell (1937) the King merely pretended to have fought at Waterloo disguised as General Bock in order to annoy the Duke of Wellington." Redundant "in order" to.
    • "Following the passage of a number of preliminary resolutions, Pitt outlined a formal plan for the Regency, suggesting that the powers of the Prince of Wales be greatly limited (among other things, the Prince of Wales would be able neither to sell the King's property nor to grant a peerage to anyone other than a child of the King)." Instead of parenthesis, you might get away with a semicolon. However, I think a good idea is to include a semicolon beween Regency and suggesting (...Regency; he suggested that...), and then a seperate sentence starting at among. "A number of" can probably go.
    • "George IV spent the majority of his reign in seclusion at Windsor Castle,[46] but continued to interfere in politics." "the majority" should be changed to "most". A "he" is also needed between "but" and "continued".
    • The heading "Titles, styles, honours & arms" should read "Titles, styles, honours, and arms" (serial comma can be excluded if not used throughout article). However, I think this needs a more general name, because each subsection is named one of those four items.
    • "On George's death The Times commented unfavourably:" Missing a comma. Also, "unfavourably" is POV; leave the reader to decide that based on the quote.
    • Likeness, geological references, and fashion can just be turned into paragraphs. The "in culture" is fine as a subheading, but it needs the word "popular" in it.
    • Other minor issues; I'll give it a quickie ASAP. Sorry if my writing here is confusing and/or poor; I'm not feeling very well and my keyboard is acting weird. — Deckiller 22:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is coming along really nicely in my opinion. — Deckiller 00:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am happy to support the biographical part of the article. As far as I am concerned it is 100% verifiable. However, the legacy section is weaker. For example: "Because of the monarch's unpopularity, the monument was torn down in 1845" - no citation. DrKiernan 08:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty/Style guide - Can we decide here on what to call the section containing honours, titles, styles, arms, ancestors, issue, etc? I've suggested Trivia, User:Deckiller suggests Other information, User:DBD originally suggested Titles, styles, honours, and arms. Alternatives would be Miscellanea, Addenda, Additional information, Supplementary information, and Appendices. DrKiernan 11:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd use Titles, styles, honours, and arms. It is precise enough that it removes the temptation from passing editors to see it as the place to dump trivia along the lines of "In an episode of 24 one of the characters is named George Iv", is similar to the titles used on other British royalty articles, and is identical to those used on his close predecessors and successors. Yomanganitalk 14:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Status: How do people feel about closing this one? Marskell 11:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 11:27, 3 March 2007.

Ann Arbor, Michigan

[edit]
Messages left at Pentawing, Michigan, and Cities. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As part of a WikiProject Cities review, I have rated the article as A Class. It is a well written article, includes many beautiful pictures and reasonable amount of sources. However:

  1. Find a GFDL replacement for Image:Ann-Arbor-City-Seal.png.
  2. Implement Citation templates for all references.
  3. Remove wikilink tags from broken/red wikilinks.
  4. Review images for sizing, excessive text and placement. Advise rm px sizing and left placement to improve readability.
  5. Review external links and bring article in line with policy.
  6. Reduce usage of subsections in favor of comprehensive paragraphs.
  7. Apply WP:LEAD guideline.

Alan.ca 13:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alan. Please do not remove comments from pages. Also, every page goes through two weeks of review before being moved to FARC. Your specifics above are a great help, so let's see what we can do. Marskell 13:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reagarding points 2 and 3, cite templates are not required for FA status, nor is removal of redlinks. References need to be correctly formatted, but that need not be via usage of WP:CITET. There are also external jumps, and WP:EL—while important—is a guideline, not a policy. So, re-phrasing, the lead, inline citations, reference formatting, Fair Use images, stubby prose, external jumps, and External link farm need attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • In regards to issue 1, you will never find a GFDL replacement. It's the seal of the city, and either the city holds the copyright on it and all derivatives, or they release it to the public domain. The only part of the logo that isn't currently meeting the FUC is the lack of fair use rationale, which shouldn't be hard to write. Jay32183 21:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are GFDL seal images, see Image:Seal of Los Angeles, California.svg Alan.ca 23:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Drawing your own version of something doesn't actually remove the original copyright. The copyright is on the seal, not a particular representation of the seal. Jay32183 23:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not an expert in copyright, do you have a link of some kind that discusses topic. Alan.ca 02:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the rules for seals are similar to those of logos. Jay32183 19:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the logo article, but it doesn't mention anything about a seal. I can see how you might make the connection, but I think some research will need to be done before we can use this criteria. My understanding has been that a logo must bear a TM or R mark indicating it has been registered as such for it to remain protected. Alan.ca 13:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at other city seals. I'm not sure the template that is used, but is one psecifically for governmental seals like this. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the original nominator of this article for FA, here are my thoughts on improvements for the article:
Find a GFDL replacement for Image:Ann-Arbor-City-Seal.png.
Unless someone is willing to create an image and post it as GFDL, I have no problems with it. However, I would prefer someone who is skilled with graphics editing software to create a quality image.
Implement Citation templates for all references.
This might work out, though I am not familiar with all cite templates. If I recall correctly, such templates are not required for an article to achieve/retain FA status. At the same time, utilizing such templates can help the article achieve a more unified formatting when it comes to citations. If you believe in such, can you point out the citation templates list (or implement the changes)?
Remove wikilink tags from broken/red wikilinks.
Done (for now).
Review images for sizing, excessive text and placement. Advise rm px sizing and left placement to improve readability.
Is there another means of resizing images rather than px? It should be noted that the original images have different size attributes, and removing a uniform size for all images would create a distorted article format with regards to the images. The use of left placement is to stagger the images with respect to images' using right placement (this is particularly helpful for readers with low monitor resolutions, which would create excessive blank spaces if all images have the same image placements).
Review external links and bring article in line with policy.
Done, though one might want to do a double-check to make sure.
Reduce usage of subsections in favor of comprehensive paragraphs.
I believe the current state of the article's subsections is adequate and in no need of further editing. I think the use of subsections in this article actually improves the article's overall readability.
Apply WP:LEAD guideline.
I believe the lead is the best that I can possibly get at. This also applies to the general prose of the article, though having another Wikipedian copyedit the article for prose can help immensely.
PentawingTalk 05:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The GFDL replacement cannot be made. Ann Arbor owns the seal, not that drawing of the seal. I've already removed the px from all of the images. The word "thumb" is controlling their sizes based on user preferences. Jay32183 05:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jay, can you provide a reference clarifying this issue? Alan.ca 11:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I asked the people at WP:COPYRIGHT and this was the discussion: Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Question about seals. Jay32183 22:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My current concerns:

  1. I still have concerns about the images. I prefer default placement of thumbnails which is on the right side. However, if you want to alternate left and right, I have seen some preference for this layout. Unfortunately, when you use the 1 left, 1 right system, future editors often break the system by inserting an image that doesn't follow the pattern. Presently, there is no pattern to the image layout which detracts from the professionalism of the excellent content.
  2. "Ann Arbor's crime rate... " this section has a fact tag for citation needed. Please remove the statement or cite the reference.
  3. "Greenhills School, which is one the premier private schools in the state of Michigan", please remove or cite the source of the fact.
  4. As for the subsection issue, consider condensing the sections that have these subsections into well written, complete paragraphs. Watch out for one sentence paragraphs!
  5. External links section contains a blog link? Please remove the links that do not meet WP:EL.

Alan.ca 11:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the crime rate paragraph, and cited my sources. I also removed "premier" from the paragraph mentioning Greenhills School. -- Avenue 00:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I staggered all images (they use the right-left pattern). I also commented out the blog links in the external links section (though during the article's peer review there were some who insisted that such links be present in the section. Hence, I don't know how long those blog links stay commented out until someone else comes along). As for the subsection, can you be specific as to which sections you are thinking about? I should note that two other featured city articles (Canberra and Boston) use the same subsection formatting. PentawingTalk 03:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent article. I know what article I'm going to use as a template for the Woonsocket, Rhode Island FA push :). A few minor concerns:
    • "Located" — based on what I've seen, this can be considered redundant in many situations. For instance: "More contemporary-style houses are located farther from the downtown district." This is a subjective and perhaps overanalysis, so I'll leave it up to you guys for feedback.
    • Vague terms of size — "A number of Other art galleries exist in the city, notably in the downtown area and around the University of Michigan campus." The problem with "a number of" is that it can mean zero, one, negative eight million, fifty, twenty eight billion. "Several" at least implies more than zero or one, and in many cases, a vague term of size isn't needed. Other times, use shorter terms, like "several" or "many".
    • Redundant prepositions — "blocked off", etc.
    • Other issues — "over the course of", "...and contains a wide variety ofmany restaurants and performance venues".

I'll take care of these minor issues now; it's a very nice article! — Deckiller 23:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC. There are numerous references that are not completely specified in a thorough bibliographical format. There's no reason not to accurately complete them, and two weeks is long enough. All footnotes should include publisher as well as author and date of publication when available; a blue link to a website name (not always a correct site name) isn't adequate. Please take remaining time to correctly reference this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It sounds like only an hour of work; I think the article can be held another day until the reference format is fixed. — Deckiller 16:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Close FAR and retain featured status.I looked over and corrected the citation formatting. However, most of the sources are lifted from websites that do not publish their information in article format, such as those of the Visitor and Convention Bureau and government organizations such as the U.S. Census Bureau. Hence, it is impossible to ascertain the authors of the passages (usually in websites, unless it is a personal website or one that produces content in article format (e.g. a website associated with a newspaper or a forum), the author is normally not disclosed). The same applies to time and date, which in that case I am using the copyrighted date as stated on the websites unless there is an explicit modification date stated elsewhere. PentawingTalk 21:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this can avoid FARC. I wouldn't call prose compelling, but it is passable, and everything else looks OK. It's a pity that you removed the redlinks though, redlinks are good. Yomanganitalk 16:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why are redlinks good? Alan.ca 03:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redlinks versus no link inspires editors to create new pages. Many editors would also rather develop an article from scratch in a sandbox than expand an existing stub. Jay32183 03:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing work looks good now, but why is ref number fourteen bolded? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was kept 11:27, 3 March 2007.

Mariah Carey

[edit]
Messages left at Extraordinary Machine, Bio, and Musicians. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1.c The trivia section is not cited at all. Also, the quotes section should not exist at all as there is already a quote page for Mariah Carey in Wikiquote. Mr.Z-mantalk 18:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Passable — I don't see a need to move to FARC; remaining issues are minor. — Deckiller 21:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Agree with Deckiller. The about.com ref confirms a trivial endorsement claim that probably should be cut anyway. ThugLifeArmy.com is used to support speculation on an upcoming event, while mariahdaily.com backs up volunteer work Carey undertook. They are all used in peripheral contexts, article does not suffer from the claims been hidden within html. Ceoil 23:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The info cited to these sources does not appear outside of edit mode? Given your descriptions, I think you should cut the first two at least ("trivial" and "speculation"). Marskell 09:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have raised the suggestion on Extraordinary Machine's talk. Ceoil 21:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've removed them completely. Extraordinary Machine 19:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC; disagree with closing this FAR while so many unnecessary and unreliably-sourced claims remain commented out in the text. There's no reason for the number of HTML comments to remain in the text; they are reliably sourced, or they're not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; burying questionable sources is a band-aid. Can these be removed as much as possible? Marskell 19:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've removed them completely; I'll post them on the talk page soon. On an unrelated note, I think the music video screenshot Image:OSD.jpg and the DVD screenshot Image:Mariah Carey and children at Camp Mariah.jpg aren't "fair use" in the article because neither the music video nor the DVD are discussed (much less mentioned, in the case of the music video). I believe the screenshots should be removed, but I was wondering what everyone else thought. Extraordinary Machine 19:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you're the one who provided the initial rationales, EM. Change of heart? I would call them acceptable, but I'm not a fair use pro. Marskell 14:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm certainly no fair use pro either, but I think that without even the briefest discussion of the music video and/or DVD in the article, the images border on being used as decoration, which Wikipedia:Fair use criteria prohibits. (This is my fault, because I added them to the article in the first place.) When in doubt, I tend to err on the side of excluding unfree media from articles. Extraordinary Machine 18:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without discussing the music video or the DVD the images do not make a significant contribution and fail FUC#8. Jay32183 19:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had already addressed them. Please read my message above. Extraordinary Machine 18:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 07:23, 8 March 2007.

Sandy Koufax

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Messages left at Biography, Southern California, and Baseball. LuciferMorgan 22:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Additional messages at Gorrister and Baseball players. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not in good shape. It is very long and has a number of statements that lack a source and a number of statements that have not been verified. //Tecmobowl 16:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Size here is not a non-issue. >40kb may be OK for an article about "baseball" or a country, or a major world leader, but ... and I say this as a huge Koufax fan ... is too much for a single athlete. this article is long b/c of the interminable play-by-play descriptions that were conveniently lifted from one (or two) sources. BTW, the section on his early life is very poorly arranged, in choppy, mini-paragraphs that are more chatty than biographical.Sfahey 14:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Wayne Gretzky, among others Sfahey. Many sports articles are in the 35-40 kb range, Gretzky was 50+ I believe when it passed, showing that most editors that reviewed the article obviously disagreed with you. Your opinion is contrary to that, myself and Sandy feel other wise. Quadzilla99 16:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I was reacting to the "size is a COMPLETE non-issue" comment, which is certainly not true. It IS disproportionally long compared to any standard encyclopedia's relative length for various topics. For example, it is about as long as "Canada", which would likely be >10x its length in a print encyclopedia. It is also twice as long as "Joe DiMaggio" and quadruple gold medal winner "Fanny Blankers-Koen", the first two sports figures I looked to compare it to. I think the reason it became long is that it is chock-full of game play-by-play details from Jane Leavy's book. You are correct in that I was and would still be one of the minority voting against it for FA for these reasons ... but then again I thought 25kb was too long for "Pepsi-can stove"! Sfahey 03:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I've been adding references, I've also been trying to prune out some of the trivia and unnecessary details. There's really only one game that's described in play-by-play detail--Koufax's 1965 perfect game, which takes up seven paragraphs--and I'm planning to spin that off as a separate sub-article. I think the article will be quite a bit tighter when I'm done, though it will still be a relatively long article. BRMo 05:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. Now I remember that Leavy wove K's bio around that game's details, with each chapter featuring details of it plus flashbacks to his past.Sfahey 04:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We do not opine whether to keep or remove an article when it is at FAR (Featured article review). Please keep us posted on progress - articles typically remain at FAR for two weeks, and may have a longer review period if work is ongoing. If work stalls, after two weeks, it moves to FARC (Featured article removal candidate), at which time editors enter Keep or Remove. Pls keep us posted on progress as the two-week review period approaches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status report: I've made good progress on adding citations -- the article is now about 75 percent done. I've tagged a few statements that I haven't been able to verify; if someone doesn't supply a citation in a week or so, I plan to drop the statements. I've also addressed the concern about excessive play-by-play descriptions by creating a sub-article for Sandy Koufax's perfect game. I've done some editing to the section on Koufax's early life; I could probably tighten it up some more. (So far, I've been concentrating more on finding citations than on editing the text.) The length of the article has been criticized; spinning off the sub-article has shortened it a bit. However, my experience has been that editors often disagree regarding the optimal length of an article. My own opinion is that the article is neither too long nor too short, so I don't plan to make any major cuts in the article, except to tighten the writing where appropriate. In general, we've made a lot of progress on improving the article; I think it needs about another week's work to finish it. BRMo 03:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very nice! The unreferenced tag doesn't seem called for; are you leaving it on in hopes it will encourage others to fill in the few missing cites? Please add last access dates to all websources. I'll read the entire article when I have a free moment; I prefer to read a hardprint copy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I still need to add cites to the last section of the article--starting with "Hold out." I was planning to remove the unreferenced tag when those sections are finished (though I agree it could come off sooner). Once I've finished adding the missing cites, I'll add the access dates (unless another editor wants to help out with that task). BRMo 16:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concern is lack of citations (1c). Marskell 08:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations have now been added to the entire article. I added "fact" tags when I couldn't find a citation; in some cases other editors found a citation, but there are presently three tags remaining. My general practice is to leave them on for one week, then delete the sentence if no citation is found. I still need to add access dates as requested by SandyGeorgia. BRMo 16:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished adding the access dates for Web resources and deleted the sentences with "fact" tags after allowing time for editors to find a reference. I think the article now is in pretty good shape. BRMo 04:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep — refs look great so far. Only a few more are needed to cover the iffy spots. A copy-edit is also needed; I have give the top quarter of the article a look, but it's going to need another person to make sure nothing huge is missed. — Deckiller 10:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the copy edit of the first part of the article. It would be helpful if you could identify the statements you consider to be "iffy." BRMo 17:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome, and thank you for taking the time to maintain this article so this review results in modernization instead of demotion. If I get a chance tonight, I'll take a look through the article and see some things that I think need refs. Sandy and Marskell are very strong in the ref department; when they get a chance, I'm sure they'll help. — Deckiller 22:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Progress looks very good; a couple of quick questions. Does the baseball project have a suggested layout? It is strange to see Career statistics between refs and External links; I'm wondering if they wouldn't be better placed above See also, and if there is a ref for the Career stats? Also, saw some minor inconsistency in formatting of refs to baseball-reference.com. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved career statistics and added a ref as you've suggested. (I haven't worked much on the baseball project, so if another editor knows of a suggested layout, please chime in.) I also noticed the inconsistency in formatting refs to baseball-reference.com -- there's a template that is used in most player articles, so I'm hesitant to drop it, but the template doesn't work for citing some of the other pages from that site. I'd prefer to live with the inconsistency unless you think it needs to be made consistent. BRMo 04:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem; I won't have time to re-read the article, but it looked good last time I checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Copernicus
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/March_2007&oldid=765746216"