Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/May 2006 until merger with FAR

This is the archive of Featured Article Removal Candidates for May 2006 until its merger with Featured article review. For the list of previous archives, click here. For archives under the new review process see here.

Kept status JUNE

Edward VI of England

Article is still a featured article

It seems to me that this article, while good, isn't quite up to what we currently expect of featured articles.

• The article is short. There are plenty of extant sources on this period and I would expect a more detailed article.
• Even while lacking in information the writing seems confusing and repetitive. For example, Edward's death causes are referred to several times in different ways but never explored in any depth.
• There are several surviving artworks depicting Edward, there's no need to limit the article to one and use it twice.
• A map or two might be helpful to give the reader some idea of the campaigns in Scotland and Cornwall during Edward's reign.
• The article has no in-line citations or footnotes of any kind.
• More solid references would be helpful. The three currently listed references are:
  1. Britannica 1911
  2. A very brief biography on a history website
  3. A tripod page which is no longer online

I posted the above three days ago on the talk page and there has been no response. Additionally there's been a request for more information on the rebellions on the talk page since last year. Haukur 19:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. Many instances of awkward, convoluted prose, such as: "by the age of thirteen, he found himself translating books into the latter language"; and "Alternatively, given that Jane Seymour died days after Edward VI's birth, it is natural that Henry VIII would seek remarriage, which act does not, therefore, necessarily substantiate claims that Edward VI was a sickly child". And where are the inline citations? Tony 01:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delay. I'm trying to fix the valid items mentioned above. Might take a few days. What I don't think is valid is the size issue (the guy was king only for a handful of years) and the inline cites issue (this article went through FAC before that was a requirement and inline cites are specifically not required retroactively). -- mav 04:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  Impressive work so far! Haukur 19:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

  Support Delay; nice work, not sure I'll get a chance but will try to help a bit. I think broadening the sources would be a good idea, and also broadening the scope a bit to give his reign more context. Sam 19:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

  OK, I think I've addressed all the valid concerns and suggestions except for the idea to add maps since I couldn't find any; better citations added (including some inline ones), the noted odd prose changed or deleted, the repetitive mentions of his death have been consolidated, other images added, and two of the three bad references were replaced by better ones. I even expanded the lead section so it can act as a concise encyclopedia article in its own right. The only things I see that can be improved would be a modest expansion of the Warwick section and maybe a copyedit by somebody with good British English skills (I tried not to copyedit too much since I did not want to harm the British English specific spelling and grammar). So I now vote to keep. --mav 03:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  I'm a bit on the fence, still, since much is still unsourced (especially "death and aftermath"), and references to significant contemporary events (e.g., declaration of war by France) are pretty sparse and not linked (I looked - it may just be that that particular iteration of the Anglo-French wars lacks a page). Some of this is a problem with linked pages (the English Reformation page is not very good) rather than this page, but it shows a general lack of richness to the information. Still, this page has improved significantly, and meets F/A criteria as well as many historical articles. So, let's give it a weak keep for now. Sam 13:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  I agree. It's still not quite up to current standards at FAC but it's no worse than several other historical articles and not so embarrassingly bad that we need to defeature it. Haukur 14:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  By the way, Mav, thanks for all the work fixing this up. I've tried to provide a little bit of help, but it's really not my primary period or interest area, so I'm hesitant to add much without some background reading. Sam 15:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Reinforced remove—Thanks for your note on my talk page. I've looked at the lead again, which does not yet pass Criterion 2a: is the rest of the article any better? Here are examples from the lead.
  • "Having never reached majority, Edward's rule was mediated through a council of regency his father established; first led by his uncle, the merciful yet ineffective Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset (1547-49) and then by the zealous and very ambitious John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland." "That" would be nicer inserted before "his father". The second part of the sentence, after the semicolon, must be a stand-alone sentence; it doesn't make sense. Why not use an en dash (1547–49 looks much better, and many authorities insist on it). Remove "very".
• "Increasingly harsh Protestant reforms along with the loss of control of Scotland and an economic downturn all combined to create ". "All combined" is redundant—you've said it already in "along with"; just make it "downturn created ...". Some commas would make it an easier read (here, after "reforms" and "downturn". There's a comma missing from the next sentence, and then we have the ludicrous "thrown" (= "throne"?).

Sorry, this is not FA material. Can you find a different person to go through it properly? Tony 01:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I took a crack at the lead; right now, I see several "keeps", albeit not particularly strong ones, and just Tony suggesting removal. At some point we've got to get the lead right and get past it. I think the rest is indeed now FA quality, though it could be stronger. Sam 01:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it "could be stronger", it doesn't yet meet FA standards. Simple as that. Tony 03:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The standard is not perfection. I think the purpose of this exercise is to clarify ways to improve an article. The ways I identified as most needing improvement, such as referencing major historical events and trends during the reign, have been addressed. I'm not a significant contributor to the article, but I think the contributors do deserve to hear somewhat more detailed critiques. Sam 04:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Synapse

Article is still a Featured article.

Short article with three references, none inline. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Withdraw nomination and provide notice on the talk page as per instructions. (Yes, Taxman pointed out that the article needed references in 2004. At that time, references meant references, not inline cites, and references were added, to Taxman's satisfaction.) The Disco King 19:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Article does not cover subject in sufficient detail, is not one of Wikipedia's best. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That may be true (I can't say I know enough about synapses to comment), but the point is that this was promoted to featured status at some point, and before demoting it, it's common courtesy to give the page's main editors a chance to bring it up to current standards. The very first point under "Nomination procedure" at the top of this page says: "Before listing here: post comments detailing the article's deficiencies on its talk page, and leave time for them to be addressed before nominating the article here." Do this, give it a week or two, and if you still think it doesn't deserve to be an FA, try again. The Disco King 20:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, references are sufficient that I am substantially confident of the material on the talk page, though inline citations would be nice. Some points are directly cited on the talk page; anyone could add inline citations for those facts. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, most, if not all of the factual information is found in the references cited and represent years of neurophysiology research, adding inline refs for every fact in the article would make it hugely unweildy. Recently I expanded, corrected and reorganized the entire article, adding new diagrams and such and I think it definitely still meets the FA quality. Since this is such a big topic I think that it is appropriate to keep many of the sub areas as separate articles (ie. postsynaptic potential, neuromuscular junction, etc.) rather than having one gigantic article. I've been continuously checking the article to make sure everything is up-to-date, and any room for expansion is already covered in the associated articles. Nrets 00:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Nrets, if you disagree with inline citations, you should raise this for discussion. Suitable places would be Wikipedia talk:What is a featured article? and Wikipedia talk:Featured articles. Let me know if you do. You may find that there exist a variety of views on this within the community. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Guys, I have no grudges against any of you, and I know we're all working together to make Wikipedia a better resource. The institution of Featured Articles (FA) is there to showcase the Best of Wikipedia, and this article as it stands would have trouble getting accepted even as a Good Article, which is a much lower standard than FA. In particular, the main body of text is about 1/3 of the length of a typical recently accepted FA. If you wish to keep this article as is, I urge you to fight for the same standards to be applied to all the current GAs that are equally good - you will find a huge number of them! As for following things up with editors, I'm afraid I don't have the time to do that and it is highly unlikely that someone is going to suddenly lurch forwards and expand this article to three times its current length to meet current FA standards. I feel that demoting gives a challenge to editors in the field to make this article so much better. I love the article, but I hate the state it's in. Please demote. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

We could merge it with other related articles to expand it to three times its length. But, where does it say that the length of an article talks about its quality? If you want inline citations, I'll start adding them over the next few days. Nrets 18:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that detail is part of quality. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

What details are missing? Christopher Parham (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ditto to that, exactly what is missing from the article? As I said before, it would be rather pointless to expand it just for the hell of it, or to merge other related articles to it, in order to make it an unweildy mess. If you feel specific aspects relating to synaptic transmission are missing, please point them out and I would be happy to expand on them. I read over the article again and short of repeating info already in other articles I find it hard to improve. Please be specific in your criticisms. Nrets 01:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:WIAFA doesn't say anything specifically about length; articles should be "of appropriate length" to cover the topic at hand, and be "comprehensive." If you have specific issues with missing detail, by all means, bring it up. (Also, while we're talking about standards being equally applied, I feel that we should ahve the same standards for all FARC nominations: notice should be given on the talk page in advance, or the nom is invalid.) The Disco King 03:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Good Lord, are we there already? The form is not master of the content, and the format of citations is not part of current FA standards. There have to be references, but they can be handled multiple ways. Geogre 03:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Another good point. That being said, and maybe this is best brough up elsewhere, but maybe there can be a mechanism for bringing groups of shorter articles to FA status. In a way this fits better with the WP model of heavily interlinked, nimble articles, rather than long, long essays which woud resemble more what you would see in a printed encyclopedia. Nrets 14:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Invalid nomination as per Disco. Tony 11:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking abuot? The nomination is perfectly valid and noticed correctly. I fear you are a bit mixed up, Disco was just suggesting the nom be withdrawn, not actually doing it. (He can't, he isn't the nominator.) pschemp | talk 18:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony doesn't have the authority to withdraw the nom either, he's just stating what I stated - that this nomination is invalid. No notice was given on the talk page whatsoever, and the instructions explicitly state that NOTICE MUST BE GIVEN. Imagine a nominator ignored another procedure - say, the requirement for explaining which FA criteria the article fails. If instead of saying "This fails the featured article criteria," the nominator said "I don't like the topic of this article," that would be an invalid nomination. Similarly, by not giving notice on the talk page of the newly revised FA criteria, this nom is INVALID. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 18:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Demote. This article is in no way comprehensive enough to be a featured article. While it is true that references can be handled in more than one way, FA's are supposed to show the BEST of wikipedia, and the current format of this article is not it. This is a perfectly adequate good article, but is nowhere near the level of what a FA should be. pschemp | talk 18:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

What does it not cover to your satisfaction? Christopher Parham (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

And to add to what Disco just said, all you had to do was to post a decent notice on the talk page and a little later nominate it. There's no explicit definition of 'enough time', so there you go. It can't be demoted this time. Withdraw it and go through the proper procedure; it's hardly onerous. Tony 00:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony, if you don't care, I don't care. Editing should be instantaneous. No Wikipedia user should be forced to keep mental notes. As you say, it is procedure, not policy. Secondly, as a reply to an earlier comment, articles are not meant to be portals. There should be summary sections of articles that cover parts of the subject (see my recent edit). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

There are summary sections that link to everything else. You still haven't answered our original question which was the basis for your complaint. mainly, what specific details do you think this article is lacking in? If you let me know, I'll be happy to expand on them. Nrets 13:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delist - While the image at the top is informative and it seems to have some references, this article just isn't comprehensive. The one-paragraph (and even in one case, one-sentence) section(s) I find totally abhorrent. As a non-scientist, most of the article makes no sense whatsoever to me (hereby failing the brilliant prose criterion): even the first sentence is almost unintelligable. No inline references and the extreme shortness just go to seal the coffin for me. --Celestianpower ^háblame 12:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep it simple and keep it as a FA. I think for someone like me, with little scientific background, the article is definitely informative and to the point. I compared it to the equivalent article in Britannica Online and WP's is considerably better. Burleigh 01:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher

Article is still a Featured article.

• Filled with POV, especially Weasel words in the passive voice
• Woefully lacking citations. Opinion is still an opinion if it references another opinion.
• Poor punctuation, sentence fragments, style.
• Bloated with analysis. Was over 75Kb! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by J M Rice (talk • contribs) 19:08, May 22, 2006.

Rubbish, ok, maybe it is not written in the best English possible, however, to remove Margaret Thatcher would be absolutely disgraceful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.155.239.182 (talk • contribs) 02:05, May 27, 2006.

Whether or not it is "disgraceful" is not relevant here. What matters is how well the article is written, not who the person is. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep - as per previous consensus on this page, articles containing references but no inline cites shouldn't be demoted for that reason alone. I didn't see a lot of POV - or, to be more accurate, if there was bias, I couldn't tell if it was biased against Thatcher or in favour of Thatcher. It is on the lengthy side, and I would certainly support some cuts, but being too long is not by itself a reason for demotion. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 13:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 14:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

DNA repair

Article is still a Featured article.

One single reference; no inline references. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Remove, inadequately referenced. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Remove, inadequately referenced. Skinnyweed 19:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Provisional keep, I like this article and will provide some references and minor reorganization soon. Opabinia regalis 21:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Finished; extensively referenced now. That required more of a rewrite than I originally planned but I think it's more focused now. I did raise the question of the references for the pathways on the talk page, but it looks like the original creator/s have moved on. Opabinia regalis 06:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• • As the article now features inline citations, the nominator's criticism no longer applies; perhaps (s)he would like to have another look at the article and outline any other specific criticisms. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 14:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Rationale for FARC no longer applies.PDXblazers 00:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• See my comments on the article's talk. Thanks. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Josen 01:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Withdraw nomination as Opabinia regalis has reworked the article extensively, and it looks like we can turn it around. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Remove despite recent changes,

1. The reference system is not set up correctly (number in text do not match with those in the reference list)
2. The lead is overly technical,
3. Lots of discussion of telomeres - without explaining what they are
4. Many parts of the article that discuss primary research still have no references
5. The language and grammar are really bad in places.

--Peta 02:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Voting on a withdrawn nomination aside, further discussion and specific criticisms are invited on the article's talk page. You are right that the references are unwieldy; I've converted them with refconverter. There is, of course, elaboration on the nature of telomeres on the linked telomere page, but an appositive has also been added with a brief description. Opabinia regalis 05:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep- Their seems to be a lot of good work being done. Give it a chance. I will also try and work on some issues next week. --Blacksun 04:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Peta, can you give examples of what you're talking about? specifically:

1. do you still find the lead overly technical?
2. primary research - give examples so that references can be sought
3. poor language/grammar - pls give examples

--prometheus1 08:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

seeing as it appears that there are no more objections, can the "featured article removal" flag be removed from the article?

--prometheus1 15:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Kept status MAY

Mary I of England

Article is still a Featured article.

I am nominating this article because of its inadequate referencing. It lists a number of references, but gives no detailed referencing correlating particular claims to sources. mgekelly 05:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. Please give adequate time for your concerns to be addressed after raising them on the talk. One day is far from sufficient; many editors don't logon everyday. Johnleemk | Talk 05:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I imagined that 36 hours would be enough time to discern whether anyone was actively watching this page. What is usually considered sufficient? mgekelly 07:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Not all people actively watching an article visit it everyday; I imagine that would be quite tedious. A week would probably be good, but that's just my opinion; there's no set time. I'm considering fixing up this article, actually, since it seems like getting references wouldn't be too hard. Anyhow, if I'm not mistaken, our main concern at present is inline references, which while presently an FA criterion, should not unduly force us to defeature old articles. Only if it's clear that nobody at all is interested in helping fix up the article should we defeature them; in an extreme case, Taxman waited over a year to nominate FAs with no references at all. Any article with references is already much better off than a substantial portion of Wikipedia. Johnleemk | Talk 08:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. . .I guess. The thing is that there are a couple of claims in there that I am think are contentious, but obviously without references I can't follow them up. OTOH, in fact that there's probably no harm in having an FA with incorrect info - it just means that when it goes on the frontpage, someone'll come along and correct them. I guess this nomination is more an expression of my past annoyance at seeing better articles than this, most recently Karl Marx flunk the FA process. I'll remove the nom tags though, if someone hasn't already done so. mgekelly 08:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Invalid nomination as per Johnleemk. Tony 06:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC) As I've pointed out elsewhere in this room, the time factor has not been specified in the procedure above, apparently by consensus. Tony 11:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - The inline cite requirement is not applied to FAs that passed before that requirement took hold. This article lists its references, and that is enough. --mav 16:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Per all above. Hezzy 18:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per all above Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 14:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep bad reason to remove. --Pedro 19:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony Blair

Article is still a Featured article.

The vandalism here is too bad. This destroys the quality of such a featured article. I think it should be removed from Featured Article status. Cheung1303 09:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. "Not frequently vandalised" is not an FA criterion. The requirement that complaints forming the basis of an FARC first be discussed on the talk of the article has not been met either. Johnleemk | Talk 11:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. References are splattered across the article with no attempt to format them. Skinnyweed 16:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Remove it and remove it fast A Clown in the Dark 02:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Would you care to state your reasoning? --GW_Simulations_{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 18:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. It is sourced and there is no requirement for sources to be inline references. Also per Johnleemk, vandalism is not any criterion for removing a featured article; action is already being taken by semi-protecting the article. David | Talk 12:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Vandalism can be reverted. --GW_Simulations_{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 21:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. The article is OK; and I'd like to know why the notice—which was posted rather recently on 14 May—complains only of references not 'properly' cited, when this issue is not mentioned in the nomination text here. Hello? IMV, that makes it an invalid nomination. Tony 01:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Vandalism is different from WP:WIAFA 2(e). The other remove votes brought up a topic not first discussed on the talk page of the article. By the way, I have converted the inline external links to footnotes; if somebody has the time, they should be given WP:CITE/WP:CITE/ES information ({{Cite web}} may be useful). Thanks, AndyZ _t 19:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Can we close this now? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Invalid nom. -Aknorals 10:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Err... whut? Speedy keep. James F. (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; article is semi-protected anyway. smurrayinchester ^(Talk) 21:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Franks

Article is still a Featured article.

Among the last 16 FA's without references. There has been an outstanding request for over a year, and that's not something that is likely to be able to be done well in a short time. - Taxman ^Talk 16:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. It has 2 references, "further reading", and it is an important article with many commonly known facts that don't really require references, like for instance the information about charlemagne. Sander 17:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No offense, but if you take that argument to WP:NOR or WP:V, you will find the opposite will be upheld. To stay featured, articles need references, and I have yet to be shown a fact that can't be referenced to a high quality source that needs to be in Wikipedia. I also adjusted your vote to say keep, because that's standard and easier to see what your position is. I hope you don't mind. - Taxman ^Talk 17:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, and there's no evidence the further reading were actually consulted by anyone or used to add or confirm material in the article. If they were they should go in a references section. - Taxman ^Talk 03:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Neutrality^talk 03:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: There is a rule in citation that anything that can be found in several ("several" gets defined different ways by different people, but I tell students that finding the same fact in three locations is sufficient) sources is common knowledge for a person in the field and requires no citation. Where citations are vital are when there is an interpretation of a fact or a fact that is generally inaccessible. If the facts are the sorts of things found in all sources on the Franks, then it is enough to have a bibliography (in the form of a "further reading"). There isn't a great deal of ground breaking or controversial information in the article, so footnoting just to show that you can isn't necessary, IMO. Geogre 02:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The biggest problem isn't no footnotes, it's no references at all. If you have some high quality references that back up the material, and can confidently say nothing significant conflicts with them, then by all means add them. Along the way why not footnote a couple of the most important points, but this article has no references that support the material in it. But more than that, this nom isn't the place to discuss whether we need references. It's already been decided in the content policies that they are needed. - Taxman ^Talk 03:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not suggesting that we don't need references, and I'm not arguing that this article doesn't need them. I'm arguing that this article is fairly basic and presents material found in virtually every source, and so this case doesn't demand citations. I agree that the authors should put more references in, but I don't agree that it should be FARC'd for that. There is a difference between "should" and "must," here, and I don't think this particular instance crosses the line. You do. Sic transit gloria mundi. Geogre 11:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Right, but if you're so confident it represents what is in virtually every source on the subject then add some good general references you have that can support the material. If you're that confident I don't care if there are footnotes or not even if that would be better. But if you can't add references to support the material then we can't have a FA around that has no verifiability. WP:V allows removing all unsourced material which is the whole article currently. That's not acceptable for a FA. - Taxman ^Talk 04:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• What? There are currently three banners at the top of the page Talk:Franks. If de-featuring means a fourth banner there, I'm against defeaturing. If it means two of the banners there are both removed, then by all means delete it. (The alternative, to add a few current standard books on the Franks to the References, is apparently unthinkable.) --Wetman 05:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per nom. It is quite understandable that the editors don't think references are necessary. It happens when one edits article he/she is very sure about. But for the rest of the world, references are needed. I found many places where they are needed and if the editors want, I can put {{citation needed}} wherever applicable. To Wetman, please mention reasons that are a part of the process. The number of banners are no criteria for inclusion/exclusion. If you are interested, I refer you to India...another FA which currently has 10 banners on top of its talk page. It used to have more in the past. Yet, its considered a good FA. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Geogre. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Air Force One

Article is still a Featured article.

This aricle I feel don't live up to feature standard, primary becaus it seems not to cite it's sources. _→AzaToth 14:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. Prior discussions on WT:FARC seem to indicate we have an agreement not to defeature articles which cite sources but lack footnotes. This article has a prominent "Sources and further reading" section, so it is perfectly acceptable. Somebody ought to go separate the sources from the further reading, and rename the section, though. Last but not least, these concerns have not been brought up on the talk, a requirement of FARC. Johnleemk | Talk 05:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. There are sections in the article that must be cited (preferable in-line), it's a requirement (See: Wikipedia:What_is_a_featured_article 2a).
  • For example, in "Analogues in other countries" the statement "No other mode of transportation for government executives is as well-known as Air Force One" requires a source.
  • "Popular culture" needs a clean up.
  • The Air Force One movie poster is missing its caption.
  • In the lead there's a statement that says "can accommodate more than 70 passengers" however, the infobox and the "Capability and features" section claim that it can hold 100 passengers.

Unless these issues are quickly addressed, I would say that this article should no longer be featured. --Enano275 15:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment please follow the nomination procedure which clearly states that "Before listing here: post comments detailing the article's deficiencies on its talk page, and leave time for them to be addressed before nominating the article here.". My suggestion is to withdraw this FARC and post concerns in talk page. Joelito (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Invalid nomination. Due for removal later today. Tony 04:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Coca-Cola

The whole article is a big mess, in my opinion. The article has too many red links, uses improper citations and is formatted irregularly. And to top it all, a neutrality dispute tag has been on the article for many days now. Certainly not what one would expect from a featured wikipedia article. It hardly meets criteria 1, 2 and 5. Also, despite posting a message on the talk page two days back, no body seemed interested in improving the article. thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK} 08:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The neutrality of the article is questionable and the article looks biased in favour of the drink. The {{POV-check}} has been lying on the page since 5th May and nothing seems to have been done about it. The citation is also inconsistant and very poorly done with external links inside text. If the article doesn't improve I will reccomend its exclusion from Featured Articles. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • As explained below, something was done - bear in mind that no rationale beyond "This article sounds like it was written by the Coke company" was given for adding the tag. Actual explanations of how the article is biased ought to be given, or else how can they be fixed? Anyway, I'm just not one inclined to remove the tag without affirmation from at least one other guy that my stance isn't irrational. Johnleemk | Talk 12:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Only three days notice was given; as I am by nature busy, even though I'm interested in the article, I didn't notice it till now. Three days is not a reasonable expectation for editors to take notice. The POV check tag was added by someone who has been pushing his anti-Coke bias since last year, went dormant, and only recently returned. Since I do not consider myself a disinterested a participant, I did not want to risk controversy by removing the POV check tag, even though I rebutted his ill-thought out claims on the talk (which you would have noticed had you scrolled up a bit after placing the notice of an impending FARC). Johnleemk | Talk 11:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. I agree with Johnleemk that there is nothing wrong with the POV, and the POV warning should be removed after a while, once other editors have had a chance to see it and comment on the POV. However, the organization is somewhat of a mess and it could be shorter. I agree with thunderboltz that this article doesn't meet critera 1, 2, and 5. We could improve the article, but I doubt this will happen quickly. I know I'm too busy to do any significant work on this article for the next couple of months. Philbert2.71828 15:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm in the middle of a rewrite; I'm busy as well, but I think we can finish this off within a week or two. It's not as hard as it seems. Johnleemk | Talk 16:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I just did some minor reorganisation, and it already looks a lot better and unified. There's a history section, another section on production, one more for urban myths, and another for criticisms. Now all we need to do is flesh them out and add references. Johnleemk | Talk 05:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment on Fair-use rationale. This article uses Image:Lg new coke logo.jpg as one of its lead image. The image licencing states that its "fair use" image, however does not satisfy the requirement in my opinion. The "Fair-use" rationale can only be used for "low-resolution" images and I feel that it is very high resolution. Please consider either removing it or re-uploading a lower resolution image. (I hope I am not opening a Pandora's Box). -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Will do. There is a tag for requesting the image be resized, I think. I'm not sure where it is, but I think the fair use wikiproject should list it. Johnleemk | Talk 05:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed status MAY

Mail

Article is no longer a featured article.

Among the last 16 FA's without references. There is one fact referenced to the Bible and to Herodotus, but that doesn't come close to meeting the current criteria. There has been an outstanding request for references for over a year, and that's not something that is likely to be able to be done well in a short time. - Taxman ^Talk 16:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. Neutrality^talk 03:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. No ref. Skinnyweed 16:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Remove as it has no references. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Labour economics

Article is no longer a featured article.

Among the last 16 FA's without references. There has been an outstanding request for over a year, and that's not something that is likely to be able to be done well in a short time. - Taxman ^Talk 16:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. No references. Skinnyweed 16:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Strategic management

Article is no longer a featured article.

The opening paragraph:

Strategic management is the process of specifying an organization's objectives, developing policies and plans to achieve these objectives, and allocating resources so as to implement the plans. It is the highest level of managerial activity, usually performed by the company's Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and executive team. It provides overall direction to the whole enterprise. An organization's strategy must be appropriate for its resources, circumstances, and objectives. The process involves matching the company's strategic advantages to the business environment the organization faces. One objective of an overall corporate strategy is to put the organization into a position to carry out its mission effectively and efficiently. A good corporate strategy should integrate an organization's goals, policies, and action sequences (tactics) into a cohesive whole. To see how strategic management relates to other forms of management, see management.

This article was nominated in October, 2004. Prose like this arouses something close to moral revulsion in me. My judgment may be suspect, so please bear with me.

I'm not sure that "Strategic management is the process of specifying an organization's objectives, developing policies and plans to achieve these objectives, and allocating resources so as to implement the plans" says anything more than "Strategic management is the process of running an organization" does. I also feel no wiser upon being told that "An organization's strategy must be appropriate for its resources, circumstances, and objectives." More than 32K of this stuff and I tend to get a bit glassy-eyed. I get the impression that if someone were to edit out all the empty abstractions, tautologies, and buzzwords from the article, we'd be left with a stub suitable for merger somewhere. I remember when "featured articles" used to be "brilliant prose" and this stuff ain't it.

Specific criterion not met: 2a. — Smerdis of Tlön 19:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• October 2004 FAC
• No request for references or writing improvements

• Comment: Smerdis, I haven't seen the article, but I've seen a lot worse prose than this in FAs. Sure, the paragraph you quote needs polishing, but why not explicate specific problems in it to support your nomination? Tony 00:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC) PS I have no problem with the "Strategic management sentence"—your suggested replacement removes useful detail.
  • My suggestions imply that I am probably the wrong person to try and edit this stuff, or even suggest how it could be edited. At least it goes to great lengths to state the obvious. How about "Strategic management is deciding what an organization should do, and how to do it?" Smerdis of Tlön 04:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• remove! Not only is this a poorly written and unsourced article, it turns out its a massive copyright violation of this PDF. I'm slapping a copyright violation tag on the article so if people want to read the article they need to read this version. I can't believe this is a featured article. This sad news about this article is that the copyright violations in it go back well over a year to before it became a FA.--Alabamaboy 20:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC) Thank goodness it wasn't a copyright violation and my bad on not catching that the European Union agency was committing plagiarism. Still, the article lacks any references (let alone inline citations), is poorly written, lacks illustrations, and should be removed.--Alabamaboy 20:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Actually it looks like that source is compiled from the wikipedia article... I guess it needs some looking into. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 20:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, Wikipedia is cited as a reference in that article at the bottom of the first page. We must be just even in the face of the Enemy. Smerdis of Tlön 20:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak remove: Wiggle words and empty, self-negating phrases are par for business, but we don't have to embrace that language. After all, we're not going to repeat the wording of the people spoken of: we're supposed to be clearer than the originals, as one function of an encyclopedia is to paraphrase and explicate knotted subjects. To the degree that "strategic managment" has any meaning at all, it's the article's duty to explain what it means in terminology that isn't so much a semantic Mobius strip. Geogre 12:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Remove, very difficult and opaque prose, not written in an encyclopedic style at all. Sentences like "SWOT Analysis: I/O Economics for the external factors and RBV for the internal factors" do not serve to explain much. Andrew Levine 16:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• remove per nom & andrew levine Zzzzz 11:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• This is an invalid request as nothing was brought up on the talk page to give the authors a chance to improve it. Please detail any problems on the talk page, contact the main author and give it some time to be worked on. Only then nominate here. - Taxman ^Talk 14:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • If you think that would help, I suppose I could try. Smerdis of Tlön 16:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

actually it is valid as the new criteria was only added *after* this article was already listed. Zzzzz 11:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that is not correct, it's been in there for quite a while, I just made it much more obvious because this and some other nominations have missed it. - Taxman ^Talk 11:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: were this a valid nomination, I would definitely say remove. Anville 18:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• This might be a case for invoking WP:SENSE. Derex 17:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• After reading through the article again, it seems so horribly bad that I would eagerly ride roughshod over the niceties of FARC procedure. Remove to maintain the integrity of the FA system. Anville 12:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Remove - Jargon-filled, bad grammar, poor use of punctuation, poor use of wiki markup bold text, subheads are not parallel in structure, possible original research, lack of any useful citations. Reads more like a wikibooks entry than an encyclopedia entry. (I'm tempted to list it as a transwiki) Davodd 10:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Remove vapid. Would clearly not pass as a FA under current standards, hence should be removed. Derex 17:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Several inaccuracies. Example: Porter's five forces model is not "like a SWOT analysis with structure and purpose". Since the five forces are a way of modeling the competition in a whole industry, they don't have anything to do with the internal characteristics of individual firms (strengths and weaknesses). Five forces analysis is industry-centric; SWOT analysis is specific to a firm. Rhobite 23:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. This is one of the longest and most arduous articles I have come across here. Not "brilliant prose" by any standard. --Danaman5 21:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Update. Per Taxman's suggestion, I raised a number of concerns about this article on the talk page. Rhobite pointed out that the article I nominated had been vandalized, or at least severely edited. Mike Rosoft reverted the article to a previous version.

  The reverted article now has references — extensive ones — but it still strikes me as full of buzzwords, tautologies, and empty abstractions of a kind I can only call "process-cruft": attempts to make simple aspects of planning appear regimented and complex by dividing them into finely ground categories. If business people actually planned like this, nothing would get done.

  I am slowly being moved to go on the warpath against this kind of hinkeldreck in business and economics articles. I still support removal, but would suggest that the discussion be extended and that people revisit the current version of the article. Smerdis of Tlön 14:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Remove reads like a seminar scam. Needs in-line citations, rather than a list of dubious "references" most of which appear to have never been incorporated anywhere in the text. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 16:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Chetwynd, British Columbia

Article is no longer a featured article.

This was promoted to featured status despite several actionable objections not having been resolved (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chetwynd, British Columbia). The nominator acknowledged this when he said most of your comments have not been actioned upon, not because they are invalid, but because they would require dramatic changes to the way the article is written and formatted [1]. I believe it fails to meet several FA criteria, most significantly that it is not well written, it is not of appropriate length, and it does not stay tightly focussed on the main topic.

• Writing quality - the second and third paragraphs in 'demographics' are definitely not compelling prose - they're just a regurgitation of statistics and that's very boring to read. The final paragraph in Economy is the same. Some of the writing doesn't make sense, for example The last major accident occurred in 2000 when a million litres (6,300 bbl) of crude oil spilled into the river from a ruptured pipeline near the intake pipe.[23] Its sewage is collected by 28 kilometres... is a jarring non sequitur.
• Appropriate length - there is a large amount of overly detailed cruft here, with sentences like 'The Canada Land Inventory rated the quality of the soil as class 5TP soil (a relatively infertile grade)'. The Canada Land Inventory's soil classification system is not in any way a generally known or understood thing, and the fact that Chetwynd has class 5TP soil is meaningless to the vast majority of readers. Pupil numbers for each school in town is excessive detail, as is information about what courses are available at the college. The demographic and economic paragraphs I mentioned already are also excessive detail. A few more examples of information that really bogs down the reader are:
  • The runway, paved in 1975, is 1,371 metres (4,500 ft) long and 30 metres (100 ft) wide
  • The District's 2005 property taxes charged single-family homes CAD$16.72 per month for drinking water and CAD$13.31 per month for sewer.[21]
  • Chetwynd is the last stop before the Pine Pass, which cuts south through the Rocky Mountains
• Focus - there is a lot here that is not actually about Chetwynd but applies more generally to the region it's in, such as the whole climate discussion, and most of the geography discussion. Also culture - does this town of less than 3,000 people really have a culture distinct from its surroundings? And according to who is it based on appreciation of heritage, public art, and outdoor recreation?
• Also, the lead section does not provide an adequate summary of the article's content - half of it is about the coat of arms, which is not even mentioned in the main article text. Worldtraveller 13:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • December 2005 FAC-1
  • March 2006 FAC-2
  • De-featured by Worldtraveller but reverted April 2006
  • De-featured by Bishonen but reverted April 2006
  • Concerns with article not listed on talk page prior to nomination
  • I have a question. Worldtraveller, you're a good contributor, so what would we have to do for people to see the guideline that they have to pass twice to make a nomination that issues with a FA should be brought up on the article's talk page first? I'm not being snarky, I'm literally asking. - Taxman ^Talk 14:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I believe I raised this point on WT:FA prior to the nomination... Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I know the guideline exists, but only because I saw some discussion it triggered further up the page. Maybe put it in bold? Semi-regular FARC-ers like me might not notice that a new guideline has been introduced since their last nomination. Myself, I'm not too much in favour of it - I'd prefer to see nominations left a week longer rather than require a pre-nomination step, but that's beside the point. In this case, which is somewhat unusual, the objections have been in the FA nomination for almost two months for everyone to see, and should have been dealt with when they were listed. The pre-listing guideline is in place to make editors aware of problems and give them time to fix them, and I believe they've had sufficient time already in this case. Unlike FARC's main business which is dealing with articles that have declined in quality, or failed to keep up with rising standards, this one is about an article which was never up to standards in the first place. I'm also ignoring the convention that you can't nominate an article because of things that have already been discussed in its FA nomination, and listing it only 7 weeks after it was promoted - again, because this case is somewhat different from the usual FARC fare. Worldtraveller 15:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Did you nominate this article because you believe these issues cannot be overcome? That is usually what justifies a removal of featured status. Btw, the deconstruction of the coat-of-arms in the introduction is meant to introduce the different topics of the article. --maclean25 16:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't believe they can't be overcome, but if an article doesn't meet the FA criteria it should not be featured, and it certainly appeared during the nomination that no-one was actually willing to overcome the objections. As for the coat of arms, I'm not sure that's a very encyclopaedic way to outline the topic. I'd recommend a more direct approach, dropping the coat of arms in the intro and just summarising the article content. Worldtraveller 16:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• First I would like to get this off my chest: Worldtraveller, you have been disruptive in your attack on this article. The one possibility you did not consider during your criticism was that you could have been wrong. At the FAC you listed your concerns. Thank you for that, your objections were actioned upon by several editors to the degree that the comments were benefitial to the article. Meanwhile, others tried to explain to you that some of your actionable objections may actually degrade the article's quality. But since you could not be wrong, you did not listen but rather enlisted help. After it was promoted, you appealed knowing that you could not be wrong and since you did not approve it must have been a mistake. Knowing that you could not be wrong you appealed a second time. Knowing that you could not be wrong you appealed a third time. Then, knowing you were smarter that everybody else, you changed the FAC decision and de-listed the article from the FA page. After that was reverted you turned to revenge by listing it here on FARC (need to see a head roll? the talk page, request for comment, or WP:FAR too mild?) while ignoring proper procedure and guidelines (the article doesn't need fixing it needs demotion?). So here we are re-fighting the FAC. (thank you, I feel better now)

• Second, concerning Worldtraveller's purpose (assuming good faith) for being here, though not the reason, as noted above, I have made some edits to the page. I assumed that by "regurgitation of statistics" you meant to say that the article would benefit if the numbers were removed in favour of a description of their implications. I have done this for the second paragraph in demographics and to a degree at the economy section. I fail to see how I can do this for the third paragraph (on crime rates). By "overly detailed cruft" I assume you meant to say that the article would benefit from describing the implications of the details, rather than listing details themselves. I see your point and I have made edits accordingly (except the last stop before the Rocky Mountains - as this is much of the reason the town exists, I assumed you meant to put that in the "Writing quality" part of your criticism, not the excessive details part). As for the "focus" part I'm baffled. "does this town...really have a culture distinct from its surroundings?" Well...their museum covers the history of surrounding area, yes. However, their displays of chainsaw carvings do stop at the town borders. So...what should be done...? Concerning the climate and geography it seems your arguement is that because the climate does not stop at the municipal border but extends into the surrounding areas and therefore should be omitted from the article. If this is the case then Wikiproject:Cities is where you should argue this, not here. If this is not what you meant...then what? I changed the lead section to de-emphasize the coat-of-arms deconstruction. --maclean25 11:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Making a string of offensive accusations and then saying you're assuming good faith is well out of order. Please feel free to pick just one of those contradictory positions. Now, I took a lot of time to review the article and point out what I perceived as major failings. I did not see very much effort to address them, and in fact you even said you would only address them if the FAC nomination failed. As I seemed to be the only person to object, I asked someone whose opinions I respect to take a look. As it happened, she agreed - I did not ask or expect her to. The article was promoted despite the actionable objections being ignored, so of course I asked Raul654 why this was. I asked again because he didn't reply. I asked a third time because he still didn't reply, and this was over a month later. What would you have done in that situation?
  • I'm glad to see you are actually taking things on board now and editing. The article really is improving. As for the points you raise now, yes, talking about what numbers mean instead of merely quoting numbers is exactly what I meant, and your edits have substantially improved the parts of the article where you've done that. To further clarify, my problem with 'last stop' is that it assumes the reader knows which direction you mean. If I said 'Royal Oak is the last stop before Paddington', no-one would have much idea what I was on about except residents of West London. As for focus, well, the structure laid out by the cities project might work very well for a major city but less well for a town of 3,000. Slavishly following it doesn't make sense. Some day soon I might write about Øravík in the Faroe Islands - population about 10. Would you really expect me to include all those headings? Now major cities have a climate distinct from their surroundings, minor towns don't, so your climate section is describing the climate of the region and not the town. You could easily just say 'the town lies in the xx region, which has a cool maritime climate' or whatever it has, and leave it at that. A detailed description is excessive. Worldtraveller 22:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    • There seems to be an opening here so I will stick with what is relevant to the content of the article. Thank you for clarifying the 'last stop' sentence problem. Concerning the focus, of course, as you can see, I did not explicitly follow the suggested headings of Wikiproject:Cities as entire sections for each topic would create many very short sections. Instead most of the topics were merged, with similar themes going into sections so that the article could have solid 3-4 paragraph sections without resorting to sub-sections. That list is of topics that would be expected to be found in city-related articles. I don't think you will find anyone that believes all those topics should be in all the articles. I didn't consider the schools or media to be important enough for these small towns until two people requested those. You apparently don't agree with climate (don't be surprised if you find more - it is subjective to whatever your interests/pov are). Actually, I'm not sure what the problem is here, is it that the climate paragraph is irrelevant or that you consider it too detailed or not worded appropriately? And please note (as you can see from the reference) those figures came from a weather station at the Chetwynd airport (they're not an average of the general area). I believe they should be present as they are the very basic stats and it would be reasonable to assume that readers would ask what the weather is like there. I put the stats in table off to the side (out of the prose - optional reading if they are interested). Since you have now shown interest in editing the article, per your statement below, please feel free. I would most appreciate help with the writing quality as it all just flows naturally to me now since I've read it so many times. --maclean25 08:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Right, you see, previously you said that I should complain at the Cities wikiproject because you were just following their guidelines, so I'm glad you agree now that an article about a town with a population of 3,000 does not have to cover the same things as one about a major city. As for climate, if Chetwynd has a distinct micro-climate that should be mentioned, but as it is, even if the data was taken at Chetwynd you're still writing about the climate of the area it's in and not the town itself. Like I said, you should simply say, like the (whatever area it's in), it has a (whatever) climate and be done with it.
      • As for my interest in editing the article, I think you misunderstood me. I said that if I thought my efforts would be appreciated, I might be interested in helping, but seeing as you've accused me of being disruptive and of being motivated by pride and ego, while still claiming you're assuming good faith, I don't think working with you on editing is likely to be worth my time. Worldtraveller 00:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Remove: No evidence of a bad-faith nom. His objection was never addressed, and is sitll valid. It will take some time to address this during which time I think it should be removed. If you can get Worldtraveller on board, it should attain FA status quite quickly the next time around. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 16:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think it is a bad faith nom either. I think he has genuinely convinced himself that there is something fatally flawed with the article that I just don't see. You apparently see it, too. Can you please help explain which of his objections still holds? Get him "on board"? The would be amazing, but which one of his past edits makes you believe that would happen? Concerning this article, all he has done is complain that it should not be an FA at FAC and FARC, complain to others that it should not be an FA at User talk:Raul654 and User talk:Bishonen, and remove it from the FA page. Despite all this dancing around it he has yet to make a single edit to the actual article that would satisfy even the smallest of his concerns (except the presence of the FA star). This leads me to conclude this is about pride and ego, not fixing the article. --maclean25 17:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Stop claiming that you're assuming good faith when clearly you're not, OK? All I have done, in fact, is offer a lengthy and detailed assessment of how the article could be improved, and all I have got is rudeness and irritability back. Given your refusal to address my concerns, why would I have thought that editing the article myself to address them would have been at all appreciated? If I thought my editing the article would be appreciated by the people who'd largely written it, I would be more than happy to help, but it really doesn't look like it would be. Worldtraveller 22:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

THe artice is to large it needs t obe shorted not linthened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zginder (talk • contribs)

• Remove. Some of the writing is OK, but a closer inspection reveals many lemons, such as:

"An initial 1958 population estimate — inclusive of nearby work camps — associated with Chetwynd's application for incorporation recorded 750 residents".

Are the contributors having a war against the use of commas?

There are many redundancies and awkward wordings.

Tony 01:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Great Mosque of Djenné

Article is no longer a featured article.

Quite an old featured article, possibly conforming to older and less strict featured article criteria. In its current state, it is short and badly referenced — relying on a single source and not using any of the newer and more specific systems of referencing in Wikipedia, like inline citations. Don't get me wrong, it's really a good and well-structured article, but FA criteria have changed a lot since its nomination and it doesn't anymore cover them. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 17:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. Per nomination. This article is much too short and completely lacks the references that are required of Featured Articles. A request was posted on the article's talk page requesting more references before I even joined Wikipedia: see here for the request for references, and here for evidence of how long the notice has been there. RyanGerbil10 19:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Remove per nom and RyanG. Is that a featured article with a {{stub}} tag??? joturner 20:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Tobyk777 04:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Much, much too short, absent refs. It didn't get the two weeks immediately prior to this but there is no movement on the talk page for months at a time and last 50 edits stretch back to Aug 04. Marskell 08:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - it may not fall within the letter of the law, but certainly within the spirit of it. In redrafting the rules to exclude boring/rubbish FAs, we shouldn't start throwing out interesting ones on technicalities. We should let this one weather out this fad for hyper-referencing. A435(m) 23:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

History of Scotland

Article is no longer a featured article.

Among the last 16 FA's without references. Seems well written and structured enough so it's unfortunate, but there has been an outstanding request for over a year, and that's not something that is likely to be able to be done well in a short time. I'll stick to just four out of the 16 for now. - Taxman ^Talk 16:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Article is good in that many editors have written a lot; sadly it's just one of those articles that attracts too many editors of the wrong quality. Unfortunately, much of the medieval content is way off being up-to-date, and quite a bit is just awful. Of course, it badly needs references too. I'm very sorry to have to vote this way, I don't like to see the number of Scotland FAs reduced, but the article is no longer up to FA scratch, and makes FA look bad by being there; in fact, it wouldn't have even the tiniest of chances if it was nominated for FA now. It should probably have been removed long ago, it should definitely be removed now. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Neutrality^talk 03:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• I've corrected and highlighted several errors in this piece, both major and minor. I have no wish to be unkind-and I fully realize how difficult the subject matter is-but I do not think this item is either well researched or well written. Rcpaterson 01:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per above. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per above.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 23:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Remove, with a heavy heart. I promise I will revisit this article as soon as I can and do my best to someday re-submit it to FAC. Unfortunately, as it stands today, it heavily fails the minimum required criteria. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 16:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Remove as above. Tony 12:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Venus

Article is no longer a featured article.

I left a comment on the talk page a week ago detailing serious concerns. It has not been acknowledged, and no edits sinces have attempted to address the problems, so I am listing it here. Here's what I said:

I think this article falls well below the standards we expect of FAs these days. The lead section is inadequate, there is nothing at all about the exploration of Venus, precious little about volcanism and the theory of global crust recycling, inadequate referencing, and an enormous and not particularly relevant list of books that mention the planet that should be replaced by germane prose. To be honest I think the article needs a rewrite largely from scratch. Worldtraveller 15:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Remove, non-existent lead, outdated and insufficient reference system, massive accumulation of cruft, and it's not comprehensive. Should look a lot more like the about-to-be FA mercury.--nixie 06:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per nom. Fails FA criteria. Joelito (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per nom. Sorry to say, but this article is not nearly as good as it could be. Same is true for most of the other planet articles. Note that one reason for the current lack of comprehensiveness is that a lot of the information originally in the article has been moved to other articles.--Jyril 08:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Remove as per nom and "nixie". -R. S. Shaw 23:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Rock, Paper, Scissors

Article is no longer a featured article.

No references is the real reason this has to be removed. It has a few external links, but many, many unverified statements, most of which I suspect may be unverifiable. I'm not satisified with its completeness or brilliant prose either, but the first objection should suffice. Sorry to see this go: I love the game, but we aren't fooling anyone with the FA tag. Passed a few years ago, would likely not even meet GA muster today. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 16:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Hold the press, folks. I just assumed you were right, but the article does have several references. There are though still quite a few other problems, so remove. - Taxman ^Talk 16:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Remove, as per nomination. --Ragib 18:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per nom; may have been an FA years ago when it was promoted, but certainly not one today. Although not a requirement for FA status, I would like to see more inline referencing. joturner 13:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Remove as per nomination. Also, this one's badly formatted, inconsistent in wikimarkup and looks ugly (not that it's a thing that can't be quickly fixed). The very organization, ordering and segmentation are badly done and a major cleanup is required. I wouldn't even name this a good or even fairly OK article in its current state. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 17:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per nom. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 00:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Tobyk777 04:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Remove, fails FA criteria (lacks inline ciatations). --Terence Ong 03:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Note that inline citations are not required. Referencing is all that is required. joturner 01:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. Per nom.Hezzy 20:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Weather lore

Article is no longer a featured article.

Was nominated in May 2004, references requested in April 2005, and not much happened. 2 references, 4 external links, no inline cites, and it doesn't look like there is any enthusiasm to add them. Batmanand | Talk 21:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Mistakenly added here rather than peer review? Move the request across, maybe? Brain on another planet, agree with removal, not on basis of inline cites, but inadaquate scope and sources. --zippedmartin 10:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Remove - again - likely original research. Would never pass as a featured article if nominated today. Davodd 10:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - Apart from being a rather strange article, it is poorly written and many of the image captions talk as if various claims are real facts. The referencing is poor with no inline citations and it reads too informally in some places. Lewis 20:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Poorly written... Then how did it get to be a FA in the first place? If you want to be useful here you might try raising criticisms that are actionable. Denni ☯ 23:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It got to FA status by being nominated in May 2004, when both the criteria and the degree of scrutiny for FACs was considerably lower than they are today. Batmanand | Talk 00:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

That's bullshit. Those who voted it as a good article then would, I think, vote it a good article now. I will agree with you that articles must now meet stiffer criteria to succeed as FA, but I think it's nonsense to presume that those which no longer do are suddenly "poorly written". Denni ☯ 00:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil in your comments. I accept what you are saying, but this is a discssion about the article being defeatured; you have partially answered one of the criticisms (about the prose), but that does not change anything about the referencing issue, which IMO is the big problem with the article. Batmanand | Talk 00:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to be rude. What I meant by poorly written is that the article reads somewhat like an essay. There are also a lot of questions one might ask about weather lore that this article does not answer. For example, who were the first people to use it, who uses it now? how do they compare to modern methods of weather prediction? Most/all of the article is an evaluation of the validity of various rhymes and adages rather than about their history/origins, which I would think would also warrant some mention. In response to why it became an FA in the first place, it seems that a large reason that a consensus was reached was that many people simply liked the pictures. Lewis 00:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a complete article. Any topic can be extended. This one is no different. You may also wish to revisit the comments in the FA discussion. Of six supporters, four stated they liked the article, one did not differentiate between pictures and text, and only one comment related only to the pictures. Denni ☯ 20:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

All I am saying is that I don't believe the article is comprehensive enough to be a FA. FA Criteria #2 b) says that an article covers the topic in its entirety, and does not neglect any major facts or details. This really has nothing to do with what was said in the previous FA discussion, in its current state, I don't believe that it is sufficiently referenced or comprehensive, sorry. Lewis 21:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Remove Needs to be more heavily referenced. Request is almost a year old now. Borisblue 16:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Remove as per many of the points above, especially the OP. I can understand how it became a FA, though; despite its shortcomings, it's an enjoyable piece of writing and charming in its way. Much too superficial however. Matt Deres 00:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Remove For OR and basically no references. Staxringold 14:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Proper procedure: A year-old request concerning references surely does not satisfy the requirement that appears at the top of the FARC page: "Before listing here, leave comments detailing the article's deficiencies on its talk page, and leave some time for them to be addressed." The nomination should be withdrawn and comments left on the talk page so that the main contributors have a chance to improve the article before listing. That way, it's polite, traffic in this room is minimised, and standards are maximised. Tony 10:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If you read the talk page, a request for references was made over a year ago, on 22 April 2005 to be precise. This diff was the result of that request. Then nothing happened for a year, until I nominated it for FARC. Batmanand | Talk 10:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you read my comment just above? To repeat, a year-old request hardly satisfies the requirement. The nomination should be withdrawn and its deficiencies flagged on the talk page. Here, people are pointing out a number of issues; these should all have been notified first. Tony 10:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, a year old request, if completely ignored, just shows how much long the problems in an article have been ignored, and to me, perfectly meets the guideline. But if the request have been at least partly fulfilled, as it has in this case (a couple references have been added), then I'm with you. But it's a little late in this case, and consensus is clearly that it should be removed, so given the situation, I don't see the sense in enforcing the guideline now. We should do it right away or not at all. - Taxman ^Talk 14:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

My nomination was about the lack of referencing. A request for more referencing, that was barely heeded, was made a year ago. Hence the "comments detailing the article's deficiencies" are already on the talk page. Hence, whilst the letter of the law may not have been followed, the spirit of the law most certainly has been. Batmanand | Talk 15:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• OK, but it demonstrates that the 'spirit' and 'letter' of the law should be brought into harmony. The requirement to post a notice on the talk page needs to be more explicit regarding timing. Tony 03:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Remove: Not only are the references lacking, the article style is totally unacceptable. Not very encyclopedic, and overuses the crutch of extensive primary source quotations. There is no need to have an explicit timeline for posts on the talk page, if inadequate time has been given (which is not the case here), that will be taken into account in the discussion. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 16:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - possibly one of Wikipedia's best looking articles - the photographs are outstanding, and the content is interesting. People concerned about the lack of references should recall the articles description of Weather lore as a "body of informal folklore" - by its nature it will not have as many references as an article based on scientific literature. I don't think this is a problem, because of the informal scope of the article. Brendanfox 00:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article has been significantly referenced since voting began. Denni ☯ 18:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Quantum mechanics

Article is no longer a featured article.

The article has a very short lead, completely inadequate for a FA its size (3a). I've raised the issue at the talk page but it has not been addressed. It should be removed untill it attains FA quality again. Loom91 07:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It's also factualy inaccurate, speculative and contradictory. I give the following passages as examples:-

"This probability cloud obeys a quantum mechanical principle called Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which states that there is an uncertainty in the classical position of any subatomic particle, including the electron; so instead of describing where an electron or other particle is, the entire range of possible values is used, describing a probability distribution. So in normal atoms with electrons in stationary states, the probability of the electron being within the nucleus (or somewhere else in atom within similarly small volume) is nearly zero according to the Uncertainty Principle (it is nearly zero as the nucleus has a volume and is not a point). Therefore, quantum mechanics, translated to Newton's equally deterministic description, leads to a probabilistic description of nature."

It's not only subatomic particles that obey uncertainty principle, this is a false claim. It is also a false claim that the probability cloud obeys the uncertainty principle. The probability cloud obeys the Shroedinger equation. Uncertainty principle only predicts the existence of such a probability cloud.

Comment - I am a PhD student in a subject closely related to quantum mechanics. It is not wrong to say that the probability cloud obeys the uncertainty principle (UP). Indeed the UP is a constraint on the spread of the probability distribution *in phase space*, be it defined as the Wigner function or any other sensible way. However I agree with your other criticisms. I reworked this paragraph. -Cedric

The sentence "Therefore, quantum mechanics, translated to Newton's equally deterministic description, leads to a probabilistic description of nature." is devoid of any remote semblance of meaning.

"In some cases, both general relativity and quantum mechanics converge. As an example, general relativity is unable to explain what will happen if a subatomic particle hits the singularity of a black hole which is a phenomenon predicted by general relativity and involves gravity in the macro world. Only quantum mechanics can provide the answer: the particle's position will have an uncertainty that follows the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, such that it might not really reach the singularity and thus escape the possible collapse to infinite density."

This passageis contradictory, inaccurate, unreferenced speculation. Such shortcomings are far too numerous for me to list all of them. Suffice to say the article needs a major copyediting by experts to meet the ever-increasing FA standards. Loom91 07:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I'm no physicist - in fact, I haven't taken a science class in almost five years - so I can't speak to your allegations about the accuracy of this article. However, we luckily have an expert on hand (you) who seems to know a fair bit about the subject of quantum mechanics. Seeing as you've already spotted a few seemingly big problems, why not be bold and fix them? Since this isn't technically a valid objection (as it wasn't listed on the talk page prior to nomination), that might be a good idea. To speak to your only valid objection, the too-short lead (which you mentioned on the talk page on May 9), yes, it is true that WP:WIAFA requires a lead of 2-3 paragraphs. However, for me, this violation is too minor to merit demotion, as it is easily fixed by somebody who has thoroughly read the article and has a good understanding of the topic. (Again, for lack of any other knowledgable and interested volunteers that I know of, I'll nominate you.) Cheers! The Disco King 17:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Unfortunately my knowledge of the subject is not comprehensive enough to actually correct all those errors, while I can recognise them as errors. {{sofixit}} is always the best solution to any problem, but not always feasible (in this case because I don't have enough time). Loom91 07:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment

1. I'm happy with the lead. Criterion 3a requires just "a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent section". I note, too, that some reviewers in the FAC room have been getting themselves into a knot about the number of paragraphs that a lead should comprise. IMV, that is too strict: there are a number of ways of writing a satisfactory lead, and some of them may not require precise numbers of paragraphs. That is why 3a deliberately avoids the issue.

2. Since the complaint, as aired on the talk page, is not, IMV, actionable, a question hangs over whether this is a valid nomination. It would be proper to withdraw the nomination and go through the process again, citing better reasons. Give the contributors a chance to fix it before the nomination.

3. I agree with Disco that it would be an excellent outcome if Loom91 corrected what s/he has identified as factual errors. This is the very thing that WP's science articles need. But reviewers and nominators are, of course, under no obligation to do so.

4. There are a few problems in the article: the caption for Figure 1 is ... whoaaa ... far too long, and I hate the italics. Figure 2 is just a question mark: why bother? The prose is OK, but could do with a run through to fix awkward little things such as "which we today call Quantum Mechanics".

It would be sad to defrock this one. If the nominator agrees to fix the factual errors, I'll agree to copy-edit it. Tony 02:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• As I said before, I would love to correct the errors but my expertise does not allow me to. In any case, "correcting factual errors" is not the solution here, sourcing statements is. Wikipedia is not in the buissness of determining "facts", it is in the buissness of practicing WP:NPOV, and it is impossible for me to not only know what the correct stement would be but also source it from presumably papers in technical journals. This a job for a real expert, and as long as none is forthcoming, I think it will be best to give this article a temporary leave from the hectic life of a FA. Loom91 07:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• A while back, I nixed the paragraph about "both general relativity and quantum mechanics converge", which was beyond redemption, and I just made a few other fixes. If I weren't on deadline in my real job-type job, I could do more. As it stands, I advocate removal, just because quantum mechanics demands (and deserves) a solid article, and this isn't it. Anville 20:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Goomba

Article is no longer a featured article.

A quick skim through this article is enough to see that it lacks the criteria for featured status. Below I have listed several of the reasons for this:

• Various grammatical and stylistic errors such as the word "Goomba" existing throughout the article both capitalised and lowercase and the word, "Mario" in reference to the Mario video game series existing unitalicised.

• At the end of the introductory paragraph, the off-topic sentence, "there are quite a few enimies, besides the one listed here, that appear in most Mario games" exists.

• The sections Characteristics and Goombas in Mario games seem redunant, as both spend some time explaining how different types of Goombas interact with Mario.

• Bits of original research are scattered throughout the article, including the sentence at the end of this paragraph: "In the film Super Mario Bros., (1993), the term Goomba refers to someone who de-evolves after being hit by King Koopa's de-evolution ray. As with most of the characters in the film, the Goombas are drastically different in appearance in comparison to their video game counterparts, represented as large reptiles with an ogre-like appearance. They are played by human actors in costume and do not resemble the small in-game Goombas at all. However, this can be a reference since the original game described them as former members of the Mushroom Kingdom and the de-evolved versions are also former members of the Mushroom Kingdom"

For the time being, I believe that this article's featured status should be removed. Once it is cleaned up sufficiently, then perhaps it can be restored.--Conrad Devonshire 02:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Remove - I have explained myself above--Conrad Devonshire 02:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Have you raised this issues in the talk page before coming here as per bullet #1 of the nomination procedure?Joelito (talk) 03:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• I standardized the spelling to initial-capitalization, added some italics and chopped some OR. What do you think about it now? BrokenSegue 05:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. I voted to keep at this article's last FARC and I stand by the decision. All this article needs is a copyedit and footnotes. The issues should be raised at the article's talk page prior to nomination. Granted, there are only two references, but I think we're better served by keeping this featured and improving it's quality rather than de-listing it. RyanGerbil10 03:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. It would have been faster to fix many of these problems yourself then to write up this nomination. -- SCZenz 06:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Some minor ones. maybe, but the more I look at it, the more it seems to lack featured article criteria.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 21:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Remove per the previous FARC (not so much this one). It seems obvious that the references are staggeringly inadequate and do not verify all the facts contained in the article. It is also not very comprehensive: there is no discussion at all of who designed the character or of its real-world background. This is not up to current FA standards. The first issue, at least, was raised more than a month ago and has not been addressed that I can see. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Invalid nomination—No notice was given on the talk page. This nomination should be removed so that the prescribed process can be pursued. See above:

• Before listing here: post comments detailing the article's deficiencies on its talk page, and leave time for them to be addressed before nominating the article here.

Tony 11:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Concerns about this article were raised in two months ago at the first FARC, which was certainly linked to the talk page such that anyone watching the article would be aware of it. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • That's entirely besides the point. During the last FARC, a lot of issues were brought up; some were addressed, some weren't, but in the end, the result was Keep. If you feel that the criticisms made at that time were inadequately addressed, how do you expect the editors of this article to know that? The nominator MUST place notification on the talk page of the article well in advance of nominating an article here. Editors aren't mind-readers. Since this is an invalid nomination, I propose that the nominator withdraw the nomination in order to fulfill the FARC criteria. The Disco King 01:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Notice was placed on the talk page in advance of this nomination, in the form of the previous nomination. Anyone watching that page would have seen the FARC posted and followed it to the page where the concerns were listed. People have had two months to address these problems, and they have quite obviously not been addressed. It seems safe to say that nobody intends to address them. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
        • You're not understanding. When the result of the last FARC was Keep, editors of the Goomba page could assume (and would be correct in assuming) that the article was still of featured quality, and that no more improvements were needed to maintain this featured quality. If the article was not of featured quality - that is, if the issues which you mentioned and which were also mentioned during the last FARC were large enough to merit demotion - then Goomba should have been demoted last time. It wasn't; consensus was that it was an FA as it stood. If you want to launch a new FARC nom on the same grounds as the last one, you need to give notice on the talk page first, because it is a new nomination, and even though these criticisms were brought up in the last FARC proceeding, any reasonable editor would presume that these criticisms were either misguided or otherwise no longer applied, since, as I've mentioned a few times now, the result of the last FARC was Keep. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 19:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
          • I agree with Disco Thing: another warning was required to be posted before this nomination for it to be valid. Tony 01:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
          • As I've said, the problems were brought up long ago. The editors of Goomba have had ample opportunity to address them, and they have not. The fact that the last FARC ended in keep is irrelevant, as it that doesn't make the problems that were brought up disappear. They should have been addressed in any case. If the editors of Goomba read the previous FARC to mean that the problems didn't exist, that's pretty foolish of them -- most of the people who commented there clearly don't appear to know what they are talking about. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
            • I've taken a look at the old FARC (a link is below), and the chief complaints were: weasel words, non-comprehensive, and that the article was fancruft. The third complaint was soundly opposed by most people commenting; the second complaint was dismissed due to the limited amount of information available on Goombas, making the article as comprehensive as it could possibly be; and the first complaint was addressed by User:CyberSkull in a copyedit. So precisely what complaints from the old FARC were the editors of Goomba supposed to deal with? User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 18:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
              • The first complaint is that the article has two, inadequate, references. This is still the case! The latest reference is from 1990 -- I guess Goombas haven't appeared since then? This alone is reason enough to remove featured status. Moreover, the fancruft complaint is quite accurate as well -- the article makes no attempt to connect Goombas to the real world. It doesn't even mention, as a start, who created the character. This problem has been ignored rather than addressed (the first FARC being a testament to this), and likewise is reason enough to remove featured status. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• remove per all criticisms from previous FARC nomination, noe of which are addressed. Zzzzz 18:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Maybe someone could just fix it, though. Steveo2 19:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: if you spotted some grammatical errors, why didn't you just fix it? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

See the previous FARC here.

Algorithm

Article is no longer a featured article.

I feel that this article as it stands should not be a featured articles. It lacks references, is incoherently written and the history section is almost completely missing. —Ruud 23:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Remove - not well-written (incoherent structure, needless repetition of basic facts); not comprehensive (history section is a stub); completely unreferenced; appears to be factually inaccurate in places (although I can't verify that, since there are no references); lacks focus (several irrelevant digressions into programming topics). --Allan McInnes (talk) 23:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Have this issues been taken in the article talk page before nominating it for FARC? If not, remove/close this nomination. Joelito (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The todo-list has been there for a long time... these are not problems which are going to be fixed on short notice. —Ruud 01:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The to-do list does not mention any of the problems/issues you are concerned about. Joelito (talk) 01:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
      • It does. —Ruud 01:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Algorith's to do
          • Rewrite the history section
          • Ancient algorithms (Babylonians, Euclid, Sieve)
          • Formalization (Turing machines, Lambda calculus, Church-Turing thesis
        • Where does it say anything about references or writing cohesion? The only thing that it mentions is the history section. It must also be noted that the to-do was created on February 1, 2006. Joelito (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
          • You said "any of the problems" (emphasis added). —Ruud 02:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
            • I never said "any" on my original comment but that's not the point. Please remove the nomination and follow the procedure for FARC. Joelito (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
              • Seriously though, in its current state this should not be a featured article and there's a snowball's chance in hell that is will be anytime soon, whether I express all of my concerns on the talk page or only one of them. —Ruud 03:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
                • You may be correct but the procedure must be followed to give editors a chance to improve the article. Joelito (talk) 03:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. The pending task has been sitting there since February. There's been a section stub notice sitting in the article since February. Anyone editing this article more than casually would have to have been pretty blind not to notice these things. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per cp Zzzzz 18:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Remove as per Allan McInnes -R. S. Shaw 06:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep We need for an article about algorithm. Unless there is a better one elsewhere on Wikipedia. We need also for more external links. Splang 06:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not WP:AFD (nor is Wikipedia a linkfarm). —Ruud 10:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The page in question is the entry point for a big amout of articles about Algos. I the page is removed of featured list of article, we need for another page to replace it (in this list) as entry point. Of course the page itself must be valuable. Secondly, the guideline allow to add external links and they are part of content of the page. Removing them is vandalism. There is now just 2 links in this article. Can't be justified. Splang 06:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. It's not horrible but it's not good enough for featured status. It really needs more careful referencing. Haukur 14:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Invalid nomination—No notice, as required, has been provided on the talk page. A directive that the article "must be rewritten in a langage with a more conventionnal syntax" has recently appeared, but that does not fulfill the requirements here; nor does a "to do" list from some time ago. Tony 02:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Graffiti

Article is no longer a featured article.

(Previous FARC nomination)

• There are no adequate references. What was previously known as the "References and additional sources" was comprised of film documentaries and general websites, many of which are image galleries. There do not seem to be any print or scholarly sources used, and I'm confident there are plenty on this subject. Additionally, inline citations aren't used, so it is difficult to verify anything that is said.
• As a consequence of lack of adequate sources and inline citations, the text is littered with generalizations, weasel words, and what may be considered non-NPOV statements. Good example:

"Most of those who practice graffiti art wish to distance themselves from gang graffiti. Differences in both form and intent exist: graffiti art aims at self-expression and creativity, and may involve highly stylized letterforms drawn with markers, or cryptic and colorful spray paint murals on walls, buildings, and even freight trains. Graffiti artists strive to improve their art, which constantly changes and progresses. Gang graffiti, on the other hand, functions to mark territorial boundaries, and therefore does not transcend a gang's neighborhood; in the eyes of lovers of graffiti-art, it does not presuppose artistic intent."

• The article's coverage of the subject is incomplete. There are barely any sociological, psychological, or aesthetic/critical interpretations, and I'm pretty sure significant academic research has been devoted to this subject. Graffiti is clearly more complex a subject than history and legality.
• The lead is inadequate. Most of it is devoted to etymology.
• There are too many external links within the prose.—jiy (talk) 08:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove, the sourcing is inadequate. More importantly, the writing is severely disjointed and disorganized. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove as per Christopher. If anyone wants to see a valid warning posted on a talk page, this one is it. Thank you Jiy. Tony 01:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Robert Walpole

Article is no longer a featured article.

"Angered by his political attacks, the Tories sought to ruin and discredit him along with the Duke of Marlborough. In 1712, they alleged that he had been guilty of corruption as Secretary at War; these charges, however, stemmed from political hatred rather than fact. Walpole was impeached by the House of Commons and found guilty by the overwhelmingly Tory House of Lords; he was then imprisoned in the Tower of London for six months and expelled from Parliament. The move, however, backfired against the Tories, as Walpole was perceived by the public as the victim of an unjust trial. His own constituency even re-elected him in 1713, despite his earlier expulsion from the House of Commons. Walpole developed an intense hatred for Robert Harley (by then Earl of Oxford and Mortimer) and Henry St John (by then Viscount Bolingbroke), the Tories who had engineered his impeachment." (from article: Robert Walpole)

I believe this article violates 2d in this paragraph and several others. Moreover, there's quite a lot of material that needs to be cited (e.g. "William Pulteney (a capable Whig statesman who felt snubbed when Walpole failed to include him in the Cabinet)"], among other less-than-objective statements about Walpole's opposition. If I had the time and knowledge to verify or edit all of this to make it appropriate, I would, but as it is I'll just have to point out its failings. It's a good article in that it contains a lot of information, but it does smack of poorly-supported POV. Fearwig 20:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Remove nomination Have these issues been taken to the talk page before nominating here? Joelito (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Look on the talk page. (Yes.) If you think it needs to be there longer (than 4/29), feel free to remove the nomination. But I think it's warranted, especially given the scarcity of activity on the Walpole talk page. Fearwig 03:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Invalid nomination. Here's the entry on the article talk page, under the heading 'Corruption charges', that the nominator is referring to:

Is the author who wrote so unconvincingly of Walpole's innocence in the corruption scandal going to support that with some kind of reference, or are we supposed to take it as a given? This is a horribly biased article, in tone. I can scarcely believe it's "featured" with unprofessional language like that. It comes off as hero worship, not history. It would be wise to cite some secondary sources with that information and to flesh it out with a balancing opinion, especially as Tory-Whig factional tensions are as tight among modern historians as they were among 18th-Century politicians. Fearwig 04:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC

IMV, this counts as part of normal discussion on a talk page, and does not represent . Contrast this with the nominator's text above, in which he clearly, plainly states that the article violates 2d, and mentions other 'failings'. That paragraph is what was required on 20 April on the talk page, not the more loosely conceived and (forgive me) intemperate language that did appear. Tony 04:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

More than fair. I agree that the original language was... ill-conceived. But I think that it is as good to have this discussion brought to light via the removal nomination as to wait (perhaps to no end) for someone to respond to the same statements in the talk page. If there is a problem with the article, there is a problem with the article. Whether or not it was expressly made clear in the original statement that I think it is unfit for "featured article" status (which I really did, though without pointing to the POV problem as "2d") it is a very biased article with no reason to be held up as an example to other editors. I appreciate the purpose of this process, but there is a point at which it becomes more bureaucratic than useful. Fearwig 05:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• remove article is not npov Zzzzz 18:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• The article is not NPOV. Frankly, I've been rather surprised by its continuing in its present state, and I never knew it was an FA. The authors probably fell for the propaganda that dominates the easy sources on Walpole. The standard view is still dominated by Macaulay's Whig History, and there was nothing NPOV in his history. Being a student of the Tories, I'm no fan of Walpole's, which is one reason why I haven't worked on the article. Geogre 03:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove: I thought it was Lord Emmsworth. Now that I'm sure of it, I will go ahead and move for removal. He's gone dormant, so the talk page business is kind of off point in this case. We can put any number of forms there: he's not here. Again, he did good work in his way, and it's so common for an 18th c. historian to see the Macaulay version of history that it's not even worth rising from one's chair. Virtually any book you could look at before 1980 had the same "Walpole the Wise developed all things good and modern, while the pettifogging Tories were each individually insane, immoral, or in pay to Satan." You just couldn't find neutral sources, or sources that weren't so reliant on those biased sources that they could get NPOV. The matter is very slowly getting redressed, and no doubt Emmsworth used very respectable books. Geogre 11:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Remove, agree with Geogre, who as always is quite perceptive about these things. Regarding the talk page business, this problem has been brought up on the talk page with no response and frankly I don't anticipate one, as Lord Emsworth has not been contributing for the past couple months. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Bible code

Article is no longer a featured article.

These concerns were have been on its talk page for 3 days with no response whatsoever I have some major problems with this article, especialy it being a FA: In sevral places the prose doesn't flow well. In ohter places the text doesn't make sense, like here:

"Additionally, since the English translation (of which there are hundreds of versions to choose) is not the original text of the Bible, this would require one to believe in the design of the English language or translation—either through the influence of an omniscient entity, or through careful construction"

Now, what is that supposed to mean. The bible code is in Hebrew, it's not meant to be translated. The Enlgish langaugae wasn't designed to be compatible with ancient Hebrew. It doesn't work traslated. This sentence among others makes no sense.

Also, this article has one picture, just one; And the pic shows the bible code on a traslation. The part of the definition of the code it is in Hebrew. The picture itself is inaccurate. The "overview" section should be the intro. For some reasons this article has an intro, then an overview. This article has way too many redlinks, unorganized refs, and just looks bad visualy. Also, there are no inline citations. Above all, this article has a major lack of information. It mentions no predicted events and Names no supporters or opposers. It doesn't explain the programing used in the code. It also doesn't explain the spiritual views on it. This article is terrible. Tobyk777 04:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Remove per nom. - Mailer Diablo 09:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Not comprehensive, no inline citations, poor prose. --Danaman5 05:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Response to your criticisms - First off, three days is not very long. Don't jump the gun on these nominations; a lot of people don't have time to check Wikipedia every day.
• Strong keep. Invalid criticisms. Titwatcher 23:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Your criticisms of the text don't flow particularly well, either; would you care to point out awkward sections in the article? The context of the quote is within an explanation as to why English is not used for Bible code. (I.e., aside from the fact that for religious reasons Jewish scholars prefer to use the Torah, since the English translation etc.,) The sentence makes perfect sense to me. Pictures are not a requirement for FAs. The requirement says that an FA "has images where appropriate," and that pics are not a prerequisite. Perhaps you could suggest some other images which would be appropriate? The lead is too short, but I don't think that the overview is entirely useless, more incorrectly titled. It's not an overview of the article, it's an overview of the technique. If the title of the section was fixed accordingly, that problem would cease to exist. Red links are easily fixed. Either start stubs on the people mentioned or remove the links altogether. This alone shouldn't be sufficient reason for demotion. FA guidelines are silent on the topic of redlinks; on the WP:FAC page, articles with redlinks are passed regularly. I don't see how it looks bad visually. At all. Furthermore, this article does indeed name supporters and opponents. Under the history section, the article lists at least seven supporters, and under the "Criticisms section," at least six prominent critics are mentioned and their criticisms explained. The programming of the code is mentioned in the "Overview" section. Your biggest concern, in my mind, is the "no inline citations." WP:WIAFA does now require inline citations, and this is a bit of a sticking point on this page. So let's all be bold and try to add some inline cites, a few paragraphs to the lead, and retitle the "Overview" section, and we'll be in business! There's nothing wrong with this article that a bit of hard work can't fix. The Disco King 18:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You are correct in that it does name supporters and opponets. However, I feel it doesn't go into nearly enough detail on their reasons. You are right in that it does talk about the programing, but once again, in far too minor of detail. It doesn't touch on the coputer programing used, how it works, (or doesn't), or how it was written. If its an overview of the code. That's what the section should be called. Not just "Overview". There are many instances where the prose here doesn't make sense, similarly to the one I already mentioned. Also, to me, this article looks horrible visualy. Tobyk777 03:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Summer Olympic Games

Article is no longer a featured article.

No references of any kind, only four external links, half of article is ugly lists, nowhere near comprehensive. Was kept from brilint prose times. References were requested a year ago by Taxman. What followed was a comment by an anon user. And the situation hasn't changed since. Delist. Renata 19:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong weak remove I don't know, in which state it was, when became featured, but I find the current one to be just horrible. One of the two "most memorable" pictures of the Summer Olympics is the one of loughing Hitler, another one is a poster... No comments... Featured article with no references at all! Another (relatively minor) point:e.g. the following quote "Following the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan" without stated reasons for Soviet boycott (roughly: "failing to protect our athletes", etc., as I remember) is a POV. Cmapm 01:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Article was improved, but it's still Strong weak remove vote from me: more POV should be fixed and more references provided - I just reworded unreferenced erroneous info there and I suppose, more errors exist. Also, sentences don't flow well in some places. And the article still does not seem to be comprehensive. But "strong remove" is mostly due to the political image - I don't see, how does it add to the article, except showing, that Hitler was present and loughing there. I should like to see Leonid Brezhnev's image (who was present at the 1980 Olympics), some Americans - probably should like to see Bill Clinton there (he was present at the 1996 SO). So what? Cmapm 20:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC).

So you're saying that Hitler's presence at the 1936 games was insignificant and that he didn't say, do, or possibly do anything that is worth noting? And you can't answer that yes because the Wikipedia article does contain information on his presence. Obviously it was important enough to be in there, so a picture is nice. Also notice that there is lack of pictures in the article. Anything we cdan get that has to do with it should be helpful, not hindering. Instead of ranking on the article, please continue to edit it, as you seemed to have been doing a fine job before. Thanks for making an attempt at fixing it up. > J@red  20:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I just mean, that many other heads of state opened the Olympics and were present there, but only Hitler's image is considered the most significant and is honoured to be added into the article. He didn't do anything bad, and hence he's the most notable, and if he should do something bad, then he would be notable as well, doesn't he? Cmapm 20:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Concur that the current status is not worthy of featured article status. I've added a note to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports Olympics asking for some help getting it up to current FA standards. Hopefully, we can get it there. -- Jonel | Speak 01:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• • • Yes, but so far it's not removed from there :) It requires a lot of work to correspond to FA criterias currently IMHO. Certainly, I'll keep track of the article and could change my "remove" vote, when the article becomes suitable for the FA in my opinion. The topic is worth the featured article, of course, and perhaps I'll contribute to it too somewhere in the future (I'm currently involved into much different topics). Cmapm 02:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• • • I've changed my vote. Still unresolved are incomprehensiveness and light POV issues. I beg your pardon for the late fix - I was too busy with studies. Cmapm 14:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Fix up. I definitely agree that it isn't in a good state right now, but I know that with a few people helping, it can be fixed up in a jiffy. If the people who say "delist" here can help out to keep it featured, that'd be great. For now, I say we just need to fix it up. → J@red  19:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. We all know that if it was fixed up it should be kept, but it has no references, so if it's not fixed up it has got to go. - Taxman ^Talk 12:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I beg to differ. Let me just point you to the References section of the pages. The references are accurate, too, as I have checked. → J@red  19:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Even with references it is nowhere near comprehensive. Renata 04:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
      • What isn't? The article is definitely comprehensive to me; that has nothing to do with ref.s anyway. → J@red  19:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
        • As an anon user noted a year ago, this article should be under History of Summer Olympic Games. There is nothing else but history. How about economic side of it? How about influence on sport developing? How about influence on culture? Politics? Tourism? Television? How athletes are selected? Who runs the games? What's the procedure/structure? It does not even say how many athletes attend! Renata 14:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• remove non-comprehensive Zzzzz 18:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Notice. Please note that a lot has been changed between the nom date (May 5) and today (May 16). Please see this diff for further evidence that this page is back up to featured status. → J@red  19:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Richard Feynman

Article is no longer a featured article.

This biographical article is in poor shape, first there was Taxman's request for references in April 2005, I suggest improvements be made to bring the article up to the current featured status in January 2006 where I mention all the obvious problems with the article including:

1. Non-functional footnotes/messy references - when you look you will see the problem
2. The giant quote section
3. Poor structure
4. Images don't meet licencing requirements

Subsequently there have been several complaints on the talk page about style and grammar and a consistent stream of questions trying to establish facts from the article, which further highlights the structural and comprehensivness issues with the article. I should also point out that the bulk of the article is lists. --nixie 00:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Keep. In December 2004, this article was deemed a Featured Article. Are we to revert all changes? Feynman was big on clarity and content but style was never an issue for him. --Ancheta Wis 08:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Remove I don't have a problem with the quote section (see WP:GTL), and the references section can be easily fixed (in fact, I believe I have already done so), but there are 4 fair use images that lack fair use rationales and another image with an obsolete {{noncommercial}} tag. The inline external links should be converted to WP:FOOTNOTEs, with WP:CITE information. Thanks, AndyZ _t 22:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The MOS says quotes sections are largely deprecated.--nixie 01:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• remove articler has not kept up with current FA standards Zzzzz 18:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Remove unless a dedicated editor can address the inaccurate/unclear statements in this article. Specifically, under "the Caltech years" the part on Quantum Electrodynamics doesn't belong. His work on this predated his move to Caltech, and it probably deserves a complete section. The paragraph on Quark/Parton theory is unclear and has no reference to the earlier work of Gell-Mann and Zweig. Someone with a physics background should come in and fix this. 203.76.194.70 21:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed status JUNE

Breastfeeding

No longer a featured article

Copied from WP:FAR

Featured status: As at 05:26, 13 October 2004

Difference: To 19:32, 28 July 2005

Unable to determine the original promoted version (apparently prior to October 2004).

• Unexplained technical language used throughout
• Poor formatting (--, "ibid", etc)
• Poor writing ("Breastfeeding may hurt some women. Sometimes this is related to an incorrect technique, but it usually eases over time.", "After World War II Western medicine was taken to Japan and the women began giving birth in hospitals, where the baby was usually taken to the nursery and fed formula.")
• Lead lacks mention of controversies surrounding breastfeeding, and any mention of declining breastfeeding rates in the face of encouragement from governments etc
• Poorly and haphasardly referenced
• Seems to have a strong bias towards breastfeeding, whereas bottle feeding is a choice made by many.

It is impossible to cite a valid source recommending bottle feeding over breastfeeding vs. hundreds to thousands demonstrating clear benefit. An article about suicide will narurally be biased against the practice as well.Williamwells 08:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In short: this article would never survive an FA nomination today. See the talk page for more examples. Stevage 08:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one that got it to FA status. Since then I've given up battling with people coming along and changing it quite drastically. It is now quite different to how it was when it was accepted as an FA, and the quality drop is quite obvious. I considered FARCing it myself. violet/riga (t) 21:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, what a pity. So how does one get an actual review to take place? Stevage 09:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Best thing to do is to escalate this to WP:FARC. violet/riga (t) 15:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

In relation to the last comment (bias), yes it has been the target of pro-breastfeeding groups, but by presenting the facts (it is the best method recommended by all medical associations) it will inherently appear biased. violet/riga (t) 09:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. The article has been messed around so much and does not meet many minimum standards of FA status. violet/riga (t) 09:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Remove as per nominator. Put it out of its misery. I note that there's no coverage of the micronutrients in breastmilk and their impact on cognitive performance. There's an interesting body of research on this. WHO recommendations not mentioned. Tony 09:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • That would be covered in the breast milk article though. violet/riga (t) 10:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - This is exactly the kind of thing that makes me yearn for a static version, to prevent articles deteriorating thanks to non-vandalistic but bad edits. Worldtraveller 10:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Remove too much point form, reads like an instruction manual. Plus per nominator. Andjam 12:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Remove I'm not sure if I or violetriga is the nominator. Anyway, it's a real pity, and hopefully it can be fixed and restored soon. Stevage 17:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Remove, unformatted references, bare links in the article, and inappropriate tone. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Gender role

Article is no longer a featured article.

The article fails to satisfy Criterion 2a ("compelling, even brilliant" prose). Take, for example, the lead.

• What is "concrete"? If a specific term in the context, it requires immediate glossing.
• I can't quite see the difference between "socially enforced rules and values"; use one or the other, or explain on the spot; and why mark the distinction with "both"?
• "genetic, unconscious, or conscious"—Are the second and third items mutually exclusive in relation to the first?
• "objective" vs. "subjective"—This is wobbly; isn't the distinction between social and psychological? Whatever it is, "objective" and "subjecctive" are unclear.
• Stubby second paragraph.
• "Such creativity"—What creativity? In any case, prefer "this/these" to "such" nowadays.
• "the gender/sex system"—Pluralise for consistency? The same throughout the article (avoids the s/he problem, too).
• "how much"—"the extent to which" would be nicer.

There is much redundancy. There are stubby paragraphs. In terms of macro-structure, why is Talcott Parson's theory given top billing, before the treatment of more overriding features of gender role? It's rather Western-centric, too. When you think about it, the pic of the bagpiper is pretty Western-centric in its assumptions. Fix upper-case initial in a subheading. "However" is often stuck in the middle of sentences (hard work for the readers). Plus much more. Needs a thorough revision.

The comprehensiveness of the article (2b) has been questioned by a contributor on the talk page, who complains that "it is biased against biologism. In fact, it doesn't even have a biologism section ...".

It could do with more inline references (2c); there are many unreferenced phrases such as "Some have argued".

Notice of these problems has been posted on the talk page.

Tony 02:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• "I intend to nominate this as a FARC in a week's time." - but you nominated it the next day.... perhaps a small mistake? Not saying the nomination is invalid though, as it has its problems... It is as it always was ^{T | @ | C} 02:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not a mistake at all; since the time factor was removed from the prescribed process here (a move that I strongly disagreed with), there's no definition of 'leave enough time'. Overnight, I decided that 'enough time' is a day. It appeared to be the consensus on the talk page that an interval should not be prescribed.

I should add that I did not nominate this article to prove that point, though, but because the article is deficient. I note that after the notice was posted, one of the contributors has edited the article (by adding a single character space).

Tony 03:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Just some comments. I don't think that the comprehensiveness as raised by the contributor was such a serious problem. The section in question was not quite straight criticism, but more a discussion of the topics. However, the section wasn't posed as so what was being argued was absolutely clear, so that may be the strike against the section, instead of the possibly inaccurate section header.

As to the time period, it may have been best to wait a week anyway, even after notice was given, just so we wouldn't have the problem of thinking that the rapid nomination to FARC was possibly a "mistake". Dysprosia 03:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it wasn't a mistake. Tony 05:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Never said it was :) Dysprosia 06:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support removal. Not our best work. Rebecca 06:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support removal. Article is accurate, but also POV throughout, and poorly written at several points. It's a good article, but not a great one.--Urthogie 08:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support removal. I find the article an embarrassment to read in structure, style and POV content. Article gets off on the wrong foot by making a category mistake in the very first sentence. A role is not a set of norms. JPF 09:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. Does not address the concept of gender role as understood by non-academics (i.e. 99% of people) in any way whatsoever. There are other, more minor instances of glaring POV. These complaints have been repeatedly advanced on the talk page over the past year. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)