Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/November 2006

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article review | archive

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GimmeBot (talk | contribs) at 04:53, 25 February 2007 (GimmeBot updating FAC/FAR archive links). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Kept status

Place more recent additions at top

Dalek

Review commentary

Messages left at Joewithajay and Doctor Who. Sandy (Talk) 15:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this article for FAR as it fails criterion 1. c. Lacks sufficient cites. LuciferMorgan 00:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understand you here. What are external jumps? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look (for example) in the Computer games section at the end: there are external jumps to off-Wiki websites. The content should be wikified, or the external jumps should be converted to references, or the links should be included in External links. The main Wiki article should be Wiki content, with external content given in References or External links. A lot of it may also be commercial or spam or advertisement. Sandy (Talk) 16:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed these, but having looked at the games I share Sandy's concern about whether they really merit mention in the article. We can talk that out on the article's talk page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No FAC would achieve the star with 7 cites, and this article is no different. It doesn't meet criterion 1. c. at all. LuciferMorgan 23:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is inaccurate. The article has much more than 7 cites, all taken from direct on-screen information and all cited parenthetically instead of by footnotes. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is wholly accurate - it has 7 inline cites. Inline citations are needed, and this "parenthetically" business is pure nonsense in the vein of the Operation Downfall FAR. I would suggest converting them to inline cites. LuciferMorgan 00:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prehaps the {{cite episode}} template can help. Jay32183 00:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, Lucifer didn't say there are only 7 inline cites; he said 7 cites, which is definitely not true. Cites are still cites - it would be more accurate to say that the cites are not in a proper format. To say the references/cites are not there at all is completely blinkered and that is nonsensical. That being said, converting those cites to inline is a relatively inconsequential and technical exercise. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned parenthetical inline citations in the article, but almost all of the parentheticals are just years. Only listing the year is not sufficient in terms of varifiability. Also cite.php is being used and the inline citation method needs to be consistant, especially in a Featured Article. Please understand that this is a review, you don't need to argue to keep or remove now. Some one has brought up an issue. Acknowleging that there could be an improvement but refusing to act on it because it is "inconsequential" doesn't really make sense in this case. Jay32183 03:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The citations are to the specific stories/episodes, and the years they were broadcast. In addition, where did I refuse to act on it? I said it was a technical issue rather than a substantive one, not that I didn't want to, or wouldn't fix it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: is it being said that a sentence like this:

Once the mutant is removed, the casing itself can be entered and operated by humanoids, as seen in The Daleks, The Space Museum (1965) and Planet of the Daleks (1973).

should be changed to this:

Once the mutant is removed, the casing itself can be entered and operated by humanoids, as seen in The Daleks[1], The Space Museum[2] and Planet of the Daleks[3].
==References==
  1. ^ Writer Terry Nation, Director Christopher Barry, Producer Verity Lambert (1964-01-04). "The Escape". Doctor Who. London. BBC. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Writer Glyn Jones, Director Mervyn Pinfield, Producer Verity Lambert (1965-05-01). "The Dimensions of Time". Doctor Who. London. BBC. BBC One. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ Writer Terry Nation, Director David Maloney, Producer Barry Letts (1973-05-05). "Planet of the Daleks, Episode Five". Doctor Who. London. BBC. BBC One. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help)

Because if that's really considered a significant improvement, I can do that. (Incidentally, it will significantly increase the article's size.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refs go after the punctuation, see WP:FN. Sandy (Talk) 13:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was suggesting with the cite episode template, and it should help satisfy the nominator's request for inline citations. I wouldn't worry about the article length too much. I believe the standard for featured articles is to only consider readable prose when determining the article's size. I did not mean to imply anyone here was unwilling to work, I was just hoping to avoid an argument that happens from time to time. Jay32183 04:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Personally, I think that having that many footnotes is less aesthetically pleasing than simply linking to the Wikipedia page for the individual serial, which contains all the information, but if there's a consensus that this form of citation is preferred I'll go with the consensus. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inline citations are required as part of verifiability. LuciferMorgan 10:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are required - where appropriate. And inline citation is not syonymous with dinky footnotes. Having said that, the suggested footnotes above are excellent, and if the authors are prepared to add them for people who like to count them, then I'm sure we will all be content. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - article is perfectly fine to me.....endnotes are somewhat archaic, so I respect the progressive thinking of the authors of this article. — Deckiller 08:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now you tell me, after I did this! ;-) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • XD it's all good, I was just paraphrasing what my English professor said about endnotes :). Great article BTW, as per the norm from WPWHO. — Deckiller 09:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Whole paragraphs still remain uncited. So no it isn't excellent or perfectly fine. Still needs a lot more work - just splashing a few inline cites here and there doesn't make an article meet 1. c. Also, if the authors are that progressive, why didn't they keep this article up to FA standards? Why is this at FAR? Exactly, because it doesn't meet FA standards. LuciferMorgan 20:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment I fully intend to finish the citations: the diff I posted above was only the beginning of the work. As for the article being at FA standard, clearly it was considered up to FA standard at one point. Now, perhaps standards have been raised since then, which is fine — but that doesn't mean that the authors don't care about maintaining FA standard. I'm going away this weekend, but will continue the citation work when I return. This stuff takes time. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • You should have plenty of time. The FAR process is two weeks, and the FARC process is two weeks but it won't close if good faith efforts to improve the article are being made at a reasonable pace, which you seem to be willing to do. Jay32183 05:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lead section is meant to be a summary of the article. All info there should also be in the body of the article and inline cited there, not in the lead section. LuciferMorgan 21:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just a query regarding the section on the major appearances by daleks in novels. Is the 'Novels' section intended to only list original stories? The novels which are listed appear to be relatively recent original novels, rather than, for example, the 1970s novels which were based upon the television episodes like The Dalek Invasion of Earth, Day of the Daleks etc. If so, it may help to clarify this in the heading or with a line of explanatory text. Also, for consistency, it would help to include the year of publication for the novels and the audioplays, to give the reader an idea of how they fit into the Dr Who chronology. Jazriel 10:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article is greatly improved, but I still see some referencing needs - one example:
    • When the new series was announced, many fans hoped the Daleks would return once more to the programme. After much negotiation between the BBC and the Nation estate (which at one point appeared to completely break down), an agreement was reached. According to media reports, the initial disagreement was due to the Nation estate demanding levels of creative control over the Daleks' appearances and scripts that were unacceptable to the BBC. However, talks between Tim Hancock and the BBC progressed more productively than had been expected, and in August 2004 an agreement was reached for the Daleks' appearance in the 2005 series.
  • Sandy (Talk) 18:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added two BBC News Online cites to the paragraph quoted above. I hope that's better? Angmering 07:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but that was only an example. The History section has a lot of historical information that isn't cited. Sandy (Talk) 13:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Status: How about this one? I see citations now in areas people were concerned about. Marskell 15:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not all areas though. LuciferMorgan 16:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
History (which contains a lot of referencable fact) is still largely uncited - move to FARC to give editors more time to finish work. Sandy (Talk) 16:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if {{citation needed}} were added to the statements that are of particular concern. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I did that, I was reprimanded. LuciferMorgan 01:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add tags, since they've been requested. Sandy (Talk) 01:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added cite tags to the History section only, which was undercited. I found several instances of WP:WTA while there, and suggest that the article is going to need an independent copy edit once more thorough referencing is done. Here's a prose sample from the section I just tagged:
However, despite this adoration, the Daleks were forever associated with Doctor Who. Nation, who jointly owned the intellectual property rights to them with the BBC, therefore had the problem of owning a money-making concept that proved nearly impossible to sell to anyone else and was dependent on the BBC wanting to produce stories featuring the creatures.[citation needed]
I think every section is undercited, only the History section is the most undercited. It's nice people are working on the article though. LuciferMorgan 02:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
During this FAR process, the article has gone from 7 footnotes to 67 (as of this edit), and you still think it's undercited? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do, as I just stated. There isn't many cites considering the article's size, though there have been improvements to editor's credits. LuciferMorgan 08:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria is insufficient citations (1c). Marskell 06:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tell you what - I'll remove my "keep" vote if you remove your "remove" vote. After all, if you're saying that the Wikiproject editors have a conflict of interest, since you nominated this for review, so do you. How about that? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tell you what - how about instead of making BS "keeps" without adequate reasons for them, whereas my remove is based on inline citations, how about you give us good reasons for your keep as opposed to "fantastic"? Better still - how about you cite the sections that remain totally uncited? Have your vote, I don't deny anyone a vote. LuciferMorgan 17:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My keep is based on the same reasons as Josiah's, which is based on the number of inline citations, and far more cited than many other FAs out there, including some which have recently been passed. Nowhere do I use the adjective "fantastic" - you can take that up with Superlex. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 18:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • List - Remove unless fixed:
    • External link farm, including commercial links. Pls cleanup per WP:EL and WP:NOT
    • ISBN please on Terry Nation book in References
    • (Fancrufty - inadequate reference - ref is to a Wiki article - *who* says they have a poetic quality, and where - exact ref please - in fact, many of the footnotes are to other Wiki articles - Wiki is not a reliable source) Some of the more elaborate Dalek battlecries have an almost poetic quality about them (for example, "Advance and Attack! Attack and Destroy! Destroy and Rejoice!" from the televised story The Chase).[65]
    • Book references for specific statements need page numbers - for example - ^ Bentham, Jeremy (May 1986). Doctor Who — The Early Years. England: W.H. Allen. ISBN 0-491-03612-4.
    • There are massive uncited sections from Parodies onward, including a statement about someone posing nude that certainly should be cited.
    • Prose problems and redundancies throughout - article needs a thorough copy edit - one random sample: The reason for the multiple titles is that in the show's early years each individual episode had a different name and overall story titles were used only by the production office. Subsequently, several different overall story titles were circulated by fandom without access to the correct records.[46] See: Doctor Who story title controversy.
  • There's still time to bring this to standard if someone gets out a big red pen. Sandy (Talk) 01:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sandy, many of the references that appear to be to Wikipedia articles are referring to specific television episodes, and use {{cite episode}} because that was recommended above. The citations are not using the Wikipedia article as reference, but the television episodes about which those articles are written. It's the same as using {{cite book}} for a book which also has a Wikipedia page: you're referencing the book, not the Wikipedia article about it.
I've removed several extraneous links (thanks for pointing the commercial ones out, as I hadn't noticed that those had been added), and I'll remove the "Dalek humour" ones if people think it's necessary (I think it's a rather nice addition, but I understand if people feel that it's inappropriate). I've provided the ISBN for Terry Nation's Dalek Special and a citation for Katy Manning posing nude with a Dalek. I've also tweaked the specific sentence you mention, and will try to get around to a full copyedit in the next few days. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 11:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I don't understand cite episode, so I'm striking that and the other items you've completed (still needs to know who considers that dialogue as "poetic"). Sandy (Talk) 00:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the "almost poetic quality" sentence (although I'm sure I've seen that referenced in print, after several days of searching I can't find it). I've also added a few more references in the last few days. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of cite episode, there's still a lot of original research in the article. LuciferMorgan 18:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please give a few examples? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah ok will do - thanks for kindly requesting, which goes a long way.

1. "The non-humanoid shape of the Dalek, unlike anything that had been seen on television before, did much to enhance the creatures' sense of menace. With no familiar points of reference, it was a far cry from the traditional "bug-eyed monster" of science fiction that Doctor Who series creator Sydney Newman wanted the show to avoid. The unsettling form of the Daleks, coupled with their alien voices, also made many believe for a while that the props were wholly mechanical and operated by remote control."

"Sense of menace"? Says whom? Are we interpreting the reaction of the TV audience? It's wholly possible many found their shape rather ludicrous. "Unsettling form"? This could be original research also - maybe perhaps there are TV critics that can lend weight and authority to the above points of view? LuciferMorgan 22:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the example. That paragraph has a citation from Doctor Who: The Television Companion by David J. Howe. (Howe is a professional historian of television in general and Doctor Who in particular; citing him on the subject of Doctor Who is roughly akin to citing David McCullough on the subject of Harry S. Truman or John Adams.)
Here are some relevant excerpts from that work: I'll let you decide if they're sufficient to justify the paragraph or not. If they're not, I'll either reword the paragraph or find more sources.

The Daleks are undoubtedly the highlight of the story. Nothing even remotely like them had ever been seen before, either on television or in the cinema, and they dominate every scene in which they appear. Their sedate, gliding movements and harsh, electronic voices make for an unforgettable combination. The fact that they are constantly in motion, their three stick-like 'limbs' twitching with alien life even when they are otherwise stationary, creates a very creepy effect. ...

The arrival of the Daleks has often been cited, with some justification, as the development that sealed Doctor Who's popular success. Certainly the creatures' appeal was immediately noted by journalists, as is apparent from the following review by Peter Quince that appeared in the Huddersfield Daily Examiner dated 11 January 1964: 'As for spine chillery... well, I take back what I said a few weeks ago about Doctor Who having gotten off to such a bad start it could never recover. It has recovered, and, though it still has its daft moments, it also produces some first class sensations — as, for example, last Saturday, when the Dalek "intelligence" had been lifted unseen from its robot and placed in a blanket on the floor, the episode closed with something very horrible indeed just beginning to crawl from underneath the blanket. So horrible was it, that I very much doubt whether I shall have the courage this evening to switch on to see what it was. Lovely stuff!"....

The Daleks are one of those science-fiction ideas that, in retrospect, seem so ridiculously simple that it is hard to understand why no-one had done anything similar before. There had been many different robotic monsters previously created for films and television shows, but these had always turned out looking like a man in a suit. Terry Nation must have realised this and, in his scripted description of the Daleks, specified that the creatures should have no visible legs and should glide along on a base .... [a description of the Daleks' design follows, which I won't bother to transcribe].... The resultant prop was both unsettling and unique. The simple 'pepperpot' shape with its three emerging appendages — eye-stalk, sucker-stick and gun-arm — was memorable, as was the strange gliding motion. The illusion of an alien creature was completed by the harsh electronic voice that grated instructions and barked out orders.

To viewers, the Daleks seemed truly alien beings — indeed, fooled by their relatively small stature, many initially believed that they were operated by remote control rather than by actors inside them. This was the intended effect, and the Daleks were a huge success. ....

Personally, I think that justifies the paragraph in question, but perhaps my judgment is skewed by my closeness to the subject matter. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak remove. "Merchandising" is undercited (only two citations in its subsections), and IMO "Popular culture" needs another look: I see some stubby paragraphs, and, in general, the prose in this particular sections does not look "brilliant" to me (after the first paragraph the particular section gets almost like a "trivia" section).--Yannismarou 18:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Not written to the required "professional" standard. Here are examples.
    • Second sentence: "The mutated descendants of the Kaled people (referred to in the first Dalek serial as "Dals")[1] of the planet Skaro, they are integrated with tank-like mechanical casings; a ruthless race bent on universal conquest and domination." It's a snake that needs chopping up; the semicolon is grammatically wrong.
    • Third sentence: "They are pitiless, without compassion or remorse. They are also, collectively, the greatest alien adversaries of the Time Lord known as the Doctor." Flabby. Why not "Without compassion or remorse, they are the greatest adversaries of the Time Lord known as "the Doctor"."? Minus six words.
  • "and were first introduced"—Spot the redundant word.
  • "in the second Doctor Who serial"—Do you mean "series", or perhaps "episode"?
  • "with the viewing audience"—"with viewers"?
  • "They have become synonymous with Doctor Who and their behaviour and catchphrases are part of British popular culture"—With two "ands", what's wrong with a comma after the first?
  • "The Daleks have appeared with every incarnation of the Doctor, with the possible exception of the Eighth Doctor in the 1996 television movie (where only their voices were briefly heard)." The last bit: what, you saw them being silent for a lengthy period? No, you need: "(where only their voices were heard, briefly).", or something like that.

That's the lead alone—well, there are other things there I haven't listed. This needs to be confined to the dustbins of Skaro. Tony 01:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While this is the least of your expressed concerns, "serial" is the correct word: classic Doctor Who was broadcast as serials of (usually) 4 to 7 episodes. In the programme's first few years, the serials did not have on-screen names, which has led to some confusion about what to call each story. For the serial which introduced the Daleks, there are several alternative titles, which is why the article uses that circumlocution.
That said, your other concerns about the writing are legitimate ones, and I'll see what I can do (time permitting). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have amended the offending sentences. I'm sure there are other prose problems which can be addressed if anyone has the time to point them out. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, comma before, not after "and", as you probably realised. Now, fixing just these examples is beside the point. I was demonstrating that the whole text his this density of problems. At this stage, I'd be going cap in hand to the Wikipedia:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors, asking for an urgent job. Tony 03:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, the LoCE can be most effective on an article that meets all the other criteria - best used when only the prose needs attention. This article has over 40KB of prose (needs trimming), and still has a lot of uncited text - not sure it's ready for a copy edit, as that could be misused effort if the text is later pruned or found to be uncited, original research. The lead is also rambling and choppy, not yet a well-organized summary of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True; sorry, I should have accounted for that. Tony 07:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back for another look: still not able to strike my remove.

  • A random check of the references looks good, but there are still a few questions:
    • I'm unable to find information on their website about this source - it looks like a personal webpage (not sure), and doesn't seem to be a reliable source. ^ THE DALEK CHRONICLES (2004-04-28). Retrieved on 2006-11-28.
    • Based on one letter to the editor, I wonder how the word "many" is justified in the text this letter is citing? ^ Michael Anthony Basil (2003-10-06). Science Fiction Weekly - Letters to the Editor. Retrieved on 2006-12-18. If I'm reading it correctly, it looks like one letter from one fan is the basis for the statement about many fans. When the new series was announced, many fans hoped the Daleks would return once more to the programme.
    • Jessesword.com seems to give more info about the reliability of this source, which could be included in the ref: Science Fiction Citations for OED - Dalek (2005-06-21). Retrieved on 2006-12-01.
  • There are still cite tags throughout the text - I counted at least eight.
  • I didn't look at the prose, as Tony has done that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They've been met in part; cite requests down to two, for instance, since Sandy's last comment. I've contacted Josiah again. Marskell 12:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi — sorry for my tardy reply. Since Marskell's note, Jeffpw has posted to Talk:Dalek saying that the article has passed FAR [1]. Is this accurate? There are still a couple of citations that I haven't been able to supply (yet), and Tony's prose concerns haven't really been addressed. On the other hand, the original issue of concern (insufficient cites) is certainly no longer an issue, with 85 distinct footnotes. Obviously, I've put a lot of work into the article during the FAR period, and I'm happy if it has passed muster, but I'm a bit confused. Can someone clarify the situation? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify. I only completed the administrative tasks that another user Diez2, initiated but did not follow through on. I have contacted several people about this, as he has now delisted 4 articles from FARC this evening, none of which were carried out appropriately. I do not feel procedure and protocols have been followed in this matter, and am very concerned about it. Please see my talk page and his for more details. Thanks, Jeffpw 20:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marskell, I said Tony's and Sandy's concerns should be met in full. I welcome any efforts in addressing this, but if they've only been partly filled this one should be removed. LuciferMorgan 23:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this has been reopened for the time-being; hope this doesn't throw too much of monkey wrench into things. As Josiah is posting within the last 24, we can wait to give him time. If Sandy can be moved to strike her remove re the references, maybe I'll just try to ce it myself and then we can (properly) close the thing. Marskell 19:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy can only strike her remove when her concerns are addressed, and as concerns copyedit it would have to meet Tony's concerns. Good luck though. LuciferMorgan 20:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're down to one {{cn}}, which I'm actively working on. Sandy seemed to think that it wasn't appropriate to ask for copyediting help until the citation requests were finished — do we have time to do this? I know that the two weeks are up, but much of the review period was over Christmas/New Year's, when many editors were away. I'm happy to continue to work to improve specific sentences and elements, but I'm at a bit of a loss when the concerns are so vague ("prose not brilliant" and the like). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well once Sandy's ref concerns have been met, message Tony about the prose. LuciferMorgan 02:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented out the last {{cn}}, which I couldn't find a source for after several days of hunting. Sandy's talk page says she's travelling till the 23rd, so I went ahead and asked for help at the League of Copyeditors. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the delay: I'm struggling to catch up, but will read now and strike my objections as appropriate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment—Still not well-enough written. My eyes went straight down to the opening of "Physical characteristics" for a random sample.
    • "Man-sized"—can we find a gender-neutral term? "Kill a man"—Why not "person"? Are you sure that no woman has ever been killed? And there are other examples of guys being everything, too. This is unacceptable in the 21st century.
      • "Kill a man" is a reference to one specific incident in which a Dalek used its "plunger" to crush a man's skull — it's only happened once, and yes, it was a man. That said, "man-sized" is fair comment, and I'll try to weed out any other sexist language I can find. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Metric equivalents, please (no, give us the metric, and if you must, bracket the US equivalent).
    • "but various episodes have shown Daleks whose arms end in a tray"—"Various"? I'd have thought that the notion that each episode offers something different would be too obvious to need pointing out.
    • Redundant "alsos". Tony 23:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've asked the League of Copyeditors for assistance, but will continue to do what I can until they show up. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Great. By the way, they don't "show up"; they decide on the merits of your article whether it's worthy of their excellent input. Tony 02:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks — good to know. It's my first encounter with the League. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment It's been suggested this article has come under undue criticism from FAR/C commentators as its a sci-fi FA on several talk pages. I would like it to be noted that every article at FARC comes under fair, objective and thorough scrutiny, regardless of whether it's a sci-fi FA. Furthermore, I personally happen to like the Daleks. Also, my fave band of all time is Marilyn Manson, and if you scroll above, you'll see I've nominated that article for FAR. My apologies if you and other Wikiproject Doctor Who members have obtained a flawed opinion of us people at the FAR/C process. LuciferMorgan 22:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Section break

Back for another look. External jumps and the external link farm appear corrected; referencing is much improved. I still have the following list:

  • Their most infamous catchphrase is "EX-TER-MIN-ATE!", with each syllable individually screeched in a frantic electronic voice ... Why is it ex-ter-min-ate rather than the correct ex-ter-mi-nate? Is that the way it's syllabicized according to the reliable sources, or is that a Wiki-mistake?
  • Regarding the question above about one source - this is an example only, all should be checked: Science Fiction Citations for OED - Dalek (2005-06-21). Retrieved on 2006-12-01. This reference gives no publisher. Clicking on it reveals jessesword.com - warranting further investigation (is it a personal website, is it a reliable source?) http://www.jessesword.com/ gives an author and information which seem to rise to the level of WP:RS. This kind of information (author, website publisher) should be included in the references. Pls doublecheck that all websources identify the publisher and author (when available). (UPdate: corrected that one myself - am now going through the rest.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some inconsistency in book footnotes - some have p. or pp., while most have just a number, and some are still missing page numbers. Pls have a second look, with an eye towards consistency.
  • I still see weasle words - examples: This belief is thought to be the reason why Daleks ... and This is probably not an innate ability, ...
  • The culture section has a lot of unreferenced assertions which, without citation, appear as original research or opinion - we need to know according to whom.
  • There are still significant copyedit needs. I started reading at the Culture section, and encountered this: Due to their frequent defeats by the Doctor, he has become a sort of bogeyman in Dalek culture, and the mention of his name often gives them pause.

A copyedit is needed: Tony already gave examples. I do think the article has come far enough that it would be productive to get LoCE involved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving this another look, Sandy, and for contacting the League again. I fear that the copyediting needs may exceed my meagre skills. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anything a matter of opinion always needs citations. Congratulations on your efforts thus far though.LuciferMorgan 00:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still working on this. LuciferMorgan added a few citation requests a day or two ago, which I've taken care of, but that's slowed down the more difficult tasks of finding citations for the "Culture" section and copyediting. (Still no word from the LoCE.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In CE'ing a bit of the first part, I found the writing was good. It does fall down in Culture, however. To many unneeded emphasizers and not enough cites.
All in all I think this is close. Marskell 09:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've decided it would be quicker and easier to fix the references myself: can someone pls tell us what this is and what makes it a reliable source? I can't find anything to indicate it's anything other than someone's personal AOL members website.
    • Balcombe, Chris. Daleks and the Kit Kat advert. personal website of the Dalek operator. Retrieved on 2007-01-19. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm... yes, it is someone's AOL website, but it's the AOL website of someone who was involved in the production of that particular advertisement. I had thought that might qualify as "a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field", but I can see that it's a bit borderline. I'll try to find a better source. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I've found a YouTube clip of the advertisement in question here, but we probably can't use that because it's a copyright violation. I can't find any reference to the ad in print, either. Should we delete the sentence, or is there some way to use the references, which are problematic in themselves but indicate clearly that the ad in question did exist? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If the original website is a reliable source, it works - I just couldn't find anywhere on the website that indicated who the author was or what makes him reliable - can you locate it on the site? Youtube is rarely a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The author (Chris Balcombe) is indicated here, on the front page of his website (scroll down). I suppose that technically identifying him as one of the operators is slightly OR-ish — I deduced it from the photograph showing him in the Dalek on the Kit Kat page [2] and the one showing him (named as Chris Balcombe in the caption) with Sylvester McCoy on the main page. (I think it's safe to say that this and this are the same person.) As I said, it's borderline whether this qualifies as a reliable source or not. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article lists this under the same ISBN as both 1998 and 2003, but the ISBN finder lists it as 2004 - which is correct and which edition is used? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ISBN for the first edition (which I have) was incorrect. A different editor added the citations from the second edition (which I don't have a copy of). Should I find the reference in the first edition and change it, for consistency's sake? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usenet is not a reliable source - since you have two sources on the statement, this ref should go:
    • Dippold, Ron (1992-02-06). Federal Department of Transportation Bulletin #92-132 (USENET post). alt.fan.warlord. Google Groups. Retrieved on 2007-01-15. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was meant to indicate that the joke was of long standing. The USENET citation isn't to verify any particular assertion, just to indicate "this joke existed at least as far back as 1992". I understand that USENET wouldn't be reliable for an assertion of fact, but why isn't it reliable for "this was being said at this point"?
  • What is this reference? It only points to a Wiki article. Is it supposed to be a cite episode?
  • "Destiny of the Daleks" is listed once as Episode Two, once as Episode 4, and once with no episode: does the one with no Episode need a number ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early Doctor Who serials had titles for each episode. For example, the six episodes of The Dalek Invasion of Earth were individually titled "World's End", "The Daleks", "Day Of Reckoning", "The End Of Tomorrow", "The Waking Ally" and "Flashpoint". (See The Dalek Invasion of Earth#Production.) "Day of Reckoning" is episode 3 of The Dalek Invasion of Earth; "The Dimensions of Time" is episode 2 of The Space Museum. The individual naming of episodes was dropped around 1966. (Incidentally, this is why Doctor Who stories appear to go against the standard MoS style for television episodes: individual episodes are placed in quotation marks, but serials are in italics.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If these items can be addressed, references will be complete; a ce still needs to be done. In case anyone is wondering, the reason I've spent hours in this article is that Doctor Who missing episodes still needs to come up for review for citations lacking, so it seems worth the time for Project members to understand how to cite. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Size check By the way, the article is at 41KB prose, which is approaching a limit on too long - you'll all have to watch that the article doesn't grow (see WP:LENGTH). Note that by changing the way the books are cited, I shaved 4KB off the overall size. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, two months today. I'm plodding through a ce, but I'd suggest that this is already within 1a. Everything I'm noticing is very minor—perhaps greater minds can find other problems. There is a bit of purpleness in the prose: three adjectives or nouns ("conquest, domination, and complete conformity") where two will do.
I read that "The naming of early Doctor Who stories is complex and sometimes controversial." Is this the reason for Sandy's link concern? Will it be solved with an initial note explaining how you have settled upon titles? Marskell 08:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorta, kinda, ish. We actually have a Wikipedia article on the matter, Doctor Who story title controversy. Basically, in the original series of Doctor Who, a given story was a multi-episode serial; however, for the first few years of the programme, the only titles that were used publicly were names of individual episodes. (So, for the first Doctor Who serial, the episode titles were "An Unearthly Child", "The Cave of Skulls", "The Forest of Fear" and "The Firemaker".) The production team used titles for the serials in-house, but these sometimes changed during production and weren't widely known until years later. This led to some confusion: for two early examples, see here and here.
The Doctor Who WikiProject has decided that for the purpose of article titling, we will use the titles used by the BBC in marketing DVDs and on their Doctor Who website (e.g. here). However, even this decision took some negotiation: see here for a sample of the debate.
Sandy's link concern was a slightly different matter, albeit one with the same origin. The first link in the article uses the title "The Survivors" instead of "The Daleks episode 2", because that was the title under which that episode was broadcast; however, the Wikipedia article on that episode is at The Daleks, so I piped the link. If a reader clicks on "The Survivors" and arrives at The Daleks, he can read down to The Daleks#Production and discover that

The seven episodes of the serial had individual titles: "The Dead Planet", "The Survivors", "The Escape", "The Ambush", "The Expedition", "The Ordeal" and "The Rescue".

(Perhaps we should consider moving episode titles up to an earlier point in the serial articles, but that's another matter.)
Now, I don't think we should have to explain all that to readers of Dalek. I had hoped that the link to Doctor Who story title controversy and the footnote to the Andrew Pixley essay would suffice, but if you think we need to give further explanation I can try to wordsmith something. It'll be tough to avoid self-reference though. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What else remains? Marskell 08:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm striking my remove, since my concerns have been addressed - if you're fine with the prose, so am I. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what I'll do is finish going through it, so that all the prose has been checked. The link concern sounds like one of those complicated pup cult "canon" things; I don't think it a remove basis and I trust Josiah's suggestion that readers will find the target they're looking for. Marskell 19:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Inches away. A little work remaining for "Other appearances". I have left a note on the talk. Marskell 18:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Taken care of, and thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note on closing: Sandy has struck the referencing remove and the prose has been gone over. I'm not entirely happy with "Other appearances" and "Merchandise", as I think some of it remains trivial (I removed what I thought was the obvious stuff), but "taking a flamethrower to the place" can often cause more problems than it solves, and I don't think what remains rises to remove. In sum, this has been extensively looked over, the referencing is robust, and the prose is much better. So a keep (finally!). Marskell 19:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was kept 19:13, 7 January 2007.

Tamil people

Review commentary

Messages left at Sundar, Subramanian, Ganeshk, India noticeboard, Tamil Nadu, and Ethnic groups.

The major concern is the article does not abide by WP:WIAFA criterion 1c. Inline citations are absolutely lacking.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I did some ref cleanup work (there were three ref styles in use): there are some Harvard style refs, which could be converted to cite.php if page numbers were provided. Two sections have the same heading; need to address section headings per WP:MOS. Sandy (Talk) 16:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know I sound repetitive, but yes, the whole article could do with a copy-edit. Here are examples from the lead:
  • "There are also a number of Tamil emigrant communities scattered around the world, especially in central Sri Lanka, Malaysia, South Africa and Singapore, with more recent emigrants also found in Australia, Canada, the United States, and parts of Europe." This thrid sentence has two alsos; the second one could go. Remove ", parts of"
  • "was only politically united for a brief period between"—Move "only" to later in the sentence.
  • "Tamil identity is primarily linguistic, with Tamils being those whose first language was Tamil." "Was"? So they're dead now? The sentence is circular anyway. Why is "linguistic" linked; the link is irrelevant to the flow.
    • "has been broadened to include also emigrants of Tamil descent who maintain Tamil cultural traditions, even when they no longer speak the language." Ouch: "include also"? And I'd be happier with "regularly" before "speak": no one forgets the essence of their native language.
    • "There are an estimated 74 million Tamils around the world." Why is this stuck at the end of the lead, rather than connected with the third sentence? Tony 13:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some copyedits and I'm about half way through. I will also be adding some inline citations, although I'm not the original author. Please give me a couple of days. Thanks Parthi talk/contribs 09:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-->Hi. I took a look at this article. While this article is quite well written, there are some aspects that are either totally missing or are very sketchy. These can be explained in a few lines at least. They are
  • Influence of foreign rulers on Tamil architectural styles (especially Vijayanagar mantapa and Yali columns used extensively by Nayakas of Madurai and Tanjore) and the influence of Tamil dravida architecture in Vijayanagara temples(George Mitchell et al)
  • There is no mention of Hoysala, Chalukya, Rashtrakuta and Vijayanagar rule over Tamil Country and their contribution to culture (at least a few lines).
  • Mention could be made of influence of Sri Vaishnavism from TN on South Karnataka culture.
  • Impact of Tamil Language on Telugu by way of Chalukya-Chola rule (K.A.N. Sastri)
  • Impact of Sanskrit on Tamil Literature and a paragraph on Tamil secular works (sciences, mathematics, drama, prose, lexicons, encyclopedia etc) and if any of these influence went to other places or came from other locals outside Tamil country.
  • Tamil language dialects and their origin/growth/influences. Tamil-Kannada mix languages in the border Nilgiri areas, Sanketi language.
  • Tamil attire over ages and changes over time
  • Influence of Kannada grammar on Tamil grammar in mid-later classical era (Mahadevan)
  • Tamil Cuisine, influences from outside (dosa) and its influence outside Tamil country.

The topic is vast and vibrant and has great potential.Dineshkannambadi 16:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please get some clarification from the reviewers? This FAR has been initiated to address the valid concern on the lack of adequate inline citations, which I'm trying to address. While Dinesh's suggestions are valuable and valid even, are they within the scope of an FAR? Thanks Parthi talk/contribs 03:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Is Dinesh questioning the comprehensiveness of the article? He should state that clearly, because that may be a more valid point in FAR. However, my point of view is that, in Tamil people, there is no need of putting more info on architecture, literature, language, grammer etc. The article already contains adequate info on these aspects in summary style. Further information should come under the scope of respective daughter article/see also articles, like Tamil literature, Tamil language etc. In fact, this article already seems to contain much detailed "history" section than needed. This could be more summarised, and appropriately linked to History of Tamil Nadu. Rather, I think what the article lacks is some info on Tamil society, which is more relevant to the scope of the article. Tribes and castes (eg Mukkulathor, Iluvar), cuisines, attires could be mentioned. A rather interesting aspect can be presented if some info on the genetics of Tamil people can be obtained.
However, these are all suggestions. Main concern in FAR is lack of citations, and need of copyedit (as pointed out by Tony). None has questioned the comprehensiveness so far. I would suggest (and not demand!) that besides providing citations, just add a few senences on attire, cuisine, and society (that should not be much problem, as lot of articles on these topics already exists). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I have gone through and copyedited the article for style and consistency. I have removed a couple of claims for which I couldn't find any supporting citations. I will trim the History section as there is already a comprehensive History of Tamil Nadu and then I will add some info on cuisine, society, etc. Can I requst other editors to jump in and add any information they can? Thanks in advance. Parthi talk/contribs 09:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-->I was only trying to emphasise that some information regarding interaction of Tamil people/culture with other people/cultures should also be included, as this undoubtedly has enriched both ends.ThanksDineshkannambadi 13:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply--> Fair enough. In fact the point I made about mixed languages implied tribal langages of the "Soligas" etc.Dineshkannambadi 18:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made further copyedits and added citations. I have also added a paragraph on Tamil dialects. Can you please take another look? Thanks Parthi talk/contribs 03:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great work going on in this article. IMO, the lead should be slightly expanded so as to summarise the scope of the article. The lead lacks a mention of the Tamil culture which occupies a good part of the body of the article. I will go through the article some time later. On a gross look, it seems that the main concern in the FAR (lack of inline citations) has been addressed. The other concern (need of copyedit) - don't have any idea yet. The culture portion may still be shortened. Anyway, I'll comment more later on. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment-->The dialects section looks better. The Irulu tribe of TN are unique (Hope I spelt it right) in that thay are traditional snake catchers who have changed their life styles significantly. Nowadays they actually help in preparation of anti-venom by supplying snake poison to various clinics that prepare anti-venom.Just a thoughtDineshkannambadi 15:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've now address all of Dwaipayan and Dines's comments. I have expanded the lead with a paragraph on the art and culture and even included a sentence on the Irulas. - Parthi talk/contribs 23:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I have changed the headings according to WP:MOS and there are no duplicated headings now. I have also updated the inline citations according the sources I have. As I'm not the original author, I had to use the sources I had instead of the original references. - Parthi talk/contribs 23:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: All the images used in this article have appropriate licenses. If you have specific concerns on any image, please follow the procedures detailed in WP:COPY. Parthi talk/contribs 03:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is also relevant to the above comment by Srkris. - Parthi talk/contribs 04:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just see the history of all those image pages. I have even indicated where they have been lifted from and why most of them violate copyrights or provide no source information. It cant be clearer than that. ­ Kris (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are lack of citations and prose. Marskell 06:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not 100% to close this early. This can move off quickly if people are happy with it. Marskell 06:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

V for Vendetta (film)

previous FAR

USS Wisconsin (BB-64)

previous FAR

Chess

previous FAR (19:04, 8 January 2008)

Order of St. Patrick

previous FAR

Operation Downfall

previous FAR

Toilets in Japan

previous FAR

James Joyce

previous FAR

Order of the Garter

previous FAR

Greek mythology

"Brilliant prose" promotion; messages left at Mythology and Middle-earth. Sandy (Talk) 17:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Additional message at History of Greece. Sandy (Talk) 12:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this article while searching for something and was quite surprised this is a FA. It is apparently a hold-over from the days of Brilliant prose. In trying to determine when this was featured, I was able to locate the date that the featured article info box on the talk page (15 Mar 2004), but I cannot locate a nomination, nor could I determine the nominator. This article lacks cites, but also is lacking in comprehensiveness and decent writing. It has changed a great deal since it became a featured article and has also suffered from a great deal of vandalism. I believe this would require a great effort to bring it up to current Featured standard.

Problems
  • 1a - Not well written.
  • 1b - Not comprehesive.
  • 1c - No cites.
  • 2a - Lead leaves much to be desired.
  • 3 - It has 3 images, which is acceptable, though an article on such a topic can and should have many more.
*Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 17:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering the same thing. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That only means I found a link to that Project either in "What links here" or on the article talk page when I ran through all 400+ articles: if a Project links to an article, I notify, in the hopes that casting a wider net will help find someone who will work on the articles. The "What links here" don't always make sense, but the idea is that the more potential editors we can pull in, the better. (And, if anyone knows of Projects that might help, please do put out additional notifications.) Sandy (Talk) 00:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The link was at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Middle-earth/Standards#Tenses... Carcharoth 08:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As a Greek I feel very sorry I see this article here. But I must agree it is an awfull article, as it looks like now! Bad lead! Bad structure! I don't even like the writing! Uncitated! I could do some things for this mess, but I don't think I can soon bring this article very close to FA criteria. I must study my material, find additional sources, think about the right structure, start rewriting, improve the prose (the most difficult task for me, since I'm not a native English speaker). Maybe it is better to defeature it and then start form scratch. I really don't know.
I don't think it is exactly within its scope, but I'll leave a message in History of Greece wikiproject, in case one or more editors have the eagerness, the appetite and the background to co-operate with me, in order to achive something within the pressing time limits of FARC. But I must admit I'm not so optimist about such a prospect!--Yannismarou 11:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will lend as much help as I can. Unfortunatley, my knowledge of the subject is limited thanks to a high school teacher who thought learning how to diagram sentences was much more important than learning about Greek mythology as everyone else did. Let me know if you'd like me to help copyedit and I'm always up for a little research. I'm glad to see that someone has taken an interest in this article. Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK! Thanks! I did some work with the lead, but nothing more. I hope I'll find some time tomorrow to work more on this. And I'll definitely need your copy-editing skills, when (and if!) I complete my improvements in this article.--Yannismarou 14:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just let me know. I just made a very minor correction to some sources you added. I changed the spelling of Aischylus to the more common (at least in English) Aeschylus. I have the article in my watchlist and I'll check in and see what changes are being made. Nice work so far! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your collaboration!--Yannismarou 19:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you may see, I've already worked on some of the sections and I'll continue improving the article. I estimate that I'll need about 10-15 days to bring it to close-FA status. I don't know what are exactly the time limits of FARC, but I had to inform you about my time table (approximately). This article still needs much more work, but if I stay on schedule and if I have a nice copy-editing at the end, I think that we can save it.
Oh! And something else. You might get the impression that my edits are scattered and mal-organized! You may even wonder: "What, on earth, is he doing?". Just don't rush to judge me! This is my way of working. You'll see that in the end the final result won't be that bad!--Yannismarou 15:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've watched this board for a while and if something is being done to an article, they will usually let it sit here for awhile. You're improvements have certainly sruced the article a great deal! Would you mind if I added a few more images? *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 02:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Be my guest!--Yannismarou 09:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I'll continue contributing to this article, after some incomprehensible interventions I saw from other users. You can check the talk page of the article to see what I mean.--Yannismarou 09:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC) Misunderstanding.--Yannismarou 15:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article still seems to be based on a picture derived from Bulfinch, Age of Fable and Edith Hamilton, The Greek Way. It has never been close to being a proper Featured Article, though once it appeared on the front page. --Wetman 09:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just inform that by tomorrow I'll hopefully have finished my rewriting and then I'll ask for a copy-editing.--Yannismarou 12:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, we should move to FARC just to keep things moving; please let us know when we should have another look. Sandy (Talk) 04:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No objection. I have still to work on two subsections concerning the gods and I've asked from Ganymead to help me with the copy-editing. But this urge for copy-editing help is addressed to everyone here who can help. I do my best, but I remain a non-native English speaker! I think that the "touch" of somebody having English as a maternal language is needed!--Yannismarou 12:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be working on the copy edit over the next few days. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a look, to see if I could help with copyediting - some questions first. Are all of those References really used in the article? Is all of that Further reading seminal, important, and necessary? Can someone look at the section headings (use of "the") relative to WP:MOS? I've never encountered the referencing mechanism used in Notes - can someone point me to something which explains it? The article is quite long, with 89KB overall, and a whopping 58KB of prose: is there a section or two that could be spun off into Summary style? Some candidates might be Modern interpretations or the Motifs section, or some of the text might be abbreviated in some of the sections which already employ summary style and have daughter articles. Can the Table of Contents be streamlined at all? It just seems that a look at the overall article organization might help. Sandy (Talk) 15:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, the references are all used in the text.
  • About the further reading, I also have my reservations, but I do not want yet to trim it, If I don't check each source, one by one, and be sure about its utility or redundancy. I've already removed some of these books (the list was even longer!).
  • I also want to trim the "See also" section. The remaining links look to me unimportant.
  • The motifs section is alerady short taking into consideration its importance. I'll try to summarize the "Interpretations" sections or maybe merge them with the "Theories of origin". But I think the first thing needing improvement is prose. If we have an article with a good prose, I believe that we can more easily "cut-needle". Yes, 89 kb is big, but Greek mythology is huge as a subject itself. As you can see most of the sections or sub-sections are already summaries of other bigger articles! After all, some of the current FAs are over 100 kb. As I had commented on Tourettes Syndrome FAC for me comprehensiveness is above length. Let's first achieve good prose and comprehensiveness and then we'll see what we can do with the size. In any case, I'll definitely check the overall organization of the article and we'll see what changes might be needed (I've already given you some hints).
  • I already saw your first tweaks in the article. Thanks! Waiting for more!--Yannismarou 15:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although I still believe that size is not the major issue here, I point out that the article is now 85 kbs long (minus 4 kbs). I created a new article (Modern understanding of Greek mythology), trimmed the interpretation and origin sections and got rid of the "See also" section. Further size changes will be clear, when I finish rewriting the remaining two sections about the gods.--Yannismarou 17:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New sub-article created: Greek mythology in western art and literature. I trimmed the the "Motifs". Now, we are at 83 kb.--Yannismarou 17:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status Have the concerns from this review been addressed? I would like to hear from the nominator and the editors. Joelito (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to know what the nominator and the other reviewers feel that is left to be done.--Yannismarou 22:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I'm thrilled to see the changes that have taken place on this article. I think that it has reached featured status and should be allowed to retain its star. Many lauds to Yannismarou for his hard work and to the other editors who have worked to bring this article up to standard. I have done some copy-editing and hope to finish in the next few days. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have also done some additional (slight) copy-editing to my own rewriting. I think the article is comprehensive and fullfils FA criteria now. But I'm still open to suggestions.--Yannismarou 10:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titanium

previous FAR

Real Love (The Beatles song)

previous FAR

Removed status

Place more recent additions at top

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sydney Riot of 1879

London Underground

Review commentary

Messages left at Stewartadcock, UK notice board, London, Trains, Rapid transit, and Underground. Sandy (Talk) 02:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has several major problems. There are many stubby subsections, the "History" section has no text in the main section, the citation style is inconstant, the books cited aren't using footnotes, and there's a {{fact}} after one of the statements. -- Selmo (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. Numerous short, stubby sections and one or two-sentence paragraphs, See also need attention (some could be linked in to article), undercited and References are blue links that need to be converted to a bibliographic style, external jumps, possible External link farm, and several different means of referring to See also/Further within text that should use templates. The article appears to have grown piecemeal, without organization; rewrite needed. Sandy (Talk) 02:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking more closely at it, sections such as "Terrorism" are far from comprehensive. It doesn't mention 7/7, or other specific attacks that have occored on the system. I would love to fix it myself, but my LUL knowledge is quite weak. -- Selmo (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose is faulty throughout. Here are random examples.
    • "an all electric railway system that covers much of the conurbation of Greater London and some neighbouring areas." "All eclectric" must be hyphenated. Remove "the conurbation of". Instead of "some", can it be more explicit?
    • "The Underground currently serves 274 stations and runs over 408 km (253 miles) of lines.[1] There are also a number of former stations and tunnels that are now closed." I think the second sentence is clumsy. Can it be reduced and merged with the first?
    • "In 2004–2005, total passenger journeys reached a record level of 976 million, an average of 2.67 million per day." Why not remove the redundant wording and simplify? "In 2004–05, passenger journeys reached a record of 976 million, an average of 2.67 million a day."
    • "... by 1880 the expanded 'Met' was carrying 40 million passengers a year. Other lines swiftly followed,..." Trains are swift, but the construction of railway lines is less appropriate for that epithet.
    • The title "Into the 20th century" doesn't go well before "The 1930s and 40s".

I haven't read the rest, but can tell that this needs an overhaul, like a train engine. Would be great to keep as a FA.

Tony 13:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good thing you wrote that essay. -- Selmo (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have issues with the references section. They should all be converted to something other than a bunch of hyperlinks - author name, title of the page, etc. Hbdragon88 05:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I cleaned up the Main and See also templates, and started cleaning up the footnotes and references so that editors working on the article would understand work needed on refs. I also removed external jumps. Sandy (Talk) 22:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are stub sections (2a), consistency of citations (1c). Marskell 15:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka Stockade

Review commentary

Left messages at Denni, Prester John, Manning Bartlett Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Additional messages at Australia and MilHist. Sandy (Talk) 21:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality disputed, carries several {{cite needed}}, and has no inline references. Also, colour of flag is different from colour of same flag here - which is correct? Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Citations needed, Wikilinking seems to need attention, References seems to contain External links and need to be written in consistent bibliographic style, short lead, NPOV tag not well explained, and image tags need attention. I converted mixed referencing styles and corrected section headings to WP:MOS. Sandy (Talk) 21:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Content is a problem in several places. For example, "The Australian colony of Victoria, a sparsely populated region of farmers and graziers, was declared separate from New South Wales on 1 July 1851. This tranquility was irrevocably disrupted that same year with the discovery of substantial gold fields all across the colony." To describe the colony of Victoria as "a sparsely populated region of farmers and graziers" is at best simplistic; how did all of those oppressed working class "criminals" from England become farmers and graziers just a decade, was it, after the abolition of transportation? Why should the readers assume that farmers and graziers and/or sparse population was tranquil? Australia didn't exist then, so let's not trot it out again—it's already in the opening sentence of the article.
  • The writing is clumsy in places, for example: "and was payable whether or not any gold had actually been found."
  • Seriously under-referenced.

Major rewrite needed, or it's heading for the dungeon. Tony 13:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, most people in Victoria in 1851 were not and had never been convicts. Most were free settlers. The first settlements in what is now Victoria seem to have been made in 1834 and 1836, but I'm not sure if there were any other people in north-eastern vic at that time. Both those settlements were on the south coast. Perhaps the article could have more about population numbers or when certain towns were established and how quickly they were growing just before and just after the gold rush started.SpookyMulder 11:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The article achieved featured status on 31 January 2006. Changes since are highlighted here - there have been 337 edits since. I note no citations seem to have been removed, there had been a references section. Has the standard changed over the year? I don't think the claim of seriously under referenced is deserved. I appreciate that not much use has been made of in-line citations, but the references at the end are quite adequate. Eureka, John Molony, ISBN 0-522-84962-8 [4] is by a noted Australian historian for example (even if doesn't yet have wikipedia article - see NLA manuscript collection info for potted biog ). The neutrality dispute has been resolved.--Golden Wattle talk 09:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c) and neutrality (1d). Marskell 00:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Birthplace of Australian democracy

I am one of those people who subscribe to the point of view that the Eureka Stockade was not the birthplace of Australian democracy.

It makes me so angry when I hear someone say it was and all I can think about doing is hurting that person.

That's how DEEP and BITTER my opposition is!!!!!!! And yes I typed all those out one by one!

It's really disturbing to find someone filled with so much hate aint it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.150.76 (talk • contribs) \



  • Remove, writing is not up to FA standard in addition some sections don't fit - like Peter Lalor and the film section which increase the feelings of disorganisation; MOS issues including quotes in italics, sloppy use of bullet points, over linking of date elements and no useful wikilinks in other long blocks of text; insufficient referencing. --Peta 02:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spyware

Review commentary

Message left at Fubar Obfusco. Daniel Case 05:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Additional messages at Malware and Computing. Sandy (Talk) 21:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, after putting this here too soon after an embarassing turn on the Main Page, I followed the advice I was given and actually, I think, made some improvements to the article. I took advantage of the holiday to do a full copyedit which streamlined the prose and (at the time, at least), made the article 5K shorter. I found citations for most everything that was missing (the fact that I did this with simple Google searches makes me wonder why the original editors couldn't have tried harder). I think I cleaned up the POV issues with the Sony section.

However... there are still three things needing sourcing, and I think the article could use more illustrations. I am less sure it is no longer FA-quality now, but I'm only one pair of eyes. I think this deserves review as a matter of course. Daniel Case 16:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional comments of my own. Due to its subject, the article is obviously prone to spam, which does create problems re stability. That can be contained, but just today an anon added two unsourced grafs which might be worth including. I don't have the time and I don't have the knowledge. If this is to stay featured, someone knowledgeable needs to stay on top of it.
I added a long comment at the head of the article just as a further warning to any spammers. Daniel Case 01:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have also proposed that the programs mentioned in the "fake anti-spyware" programs be spun off into a separate list (with all entries citing sources) to cut the length down a bit. Daniel Case 21:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Mixed reference styles (please consistently use cite.php, which is the main method on the article), Section heading 4.1 Advertisements does not show in the TOC on my browser (I've encountered this issue on one article before, it was caused by some non-printable character), external jumps, potential external link farm, and lots of cite tags. Sandy (Talk) 21:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The list of notable programs needs to be prosified or removed. I suggest placing them in a history section of sorts, like "Adaware was first, then such and such followed." Lead paragraph screams for a citation. Hbdragon88 05:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is citations (1c). Marskell 00:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. Just too many concerns still remaining. Unless someone (not me) makes this article their personal responsibility and keeps it at a reasonable level, it cannot remain a featured article. Daniel Case 04:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Looks good to me, so why can't one of the contributors fix the referencing? Tony 03:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space opera in Scientology scripture

previous FAR

United States House of Representatives

previous FAR

Julia Stiles

Review commentary

Messages left at PedanticallySpeaking, Bio, Films and Theatre. Sandy (Talk) 21:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this old FA is no longer up to featured status. The lead is insufficient, lacks inline citations (only 6), the quotes are not cited, none of the images have a fair use rationale, and it has several stubby/one sentence paragraphs. Nat91 21:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria are LEAD, citations, images, and prose. Joelito (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Floppy disk

Review commentary

Messages left at Litefantastic, Computer science, and Computing. Sandy (Talk) 22:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An old FA that lacks inline citations in many sections and has a variety of {{fact}} tags. Lead is insufficient (two sentences). Bloated trivia section ("In Marvel's Transformers comics continuity, Optimus Prime's personality was downloaded onto a floppy disk after his death"). Some "weasely" sentences ("It is probably true that floppy disks can surely hold an extra 10–20% formatted capacity versus their "nominal" values, but at the expense of reliability or hardware complexity."). Gzkn 06:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are lack of citations (1c), weasel words (1d), and trivia (4). Marskell 18:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James II of England

Review commentary

Messages left at Emsworth, Bio, Royalty, UK notice board, Ireland, and Scotland. Sandy (Talk) 21:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an older featured article, nominated with no discussion, a relic of the brilliant prose days. While it is not a bad article, it fails to meet two FA criteria.

  • 1. (b). This article is not comprehensive. While the life of James II is indeed well-covered, the "Legacy" section is woefully inadaquate. There is no discussion whatsoever of different ways different groups of academic historians have seen James II. Which brings us to the second problem: sources
  • 1 (c) The sources used here are severely lacking. Furthermore, the good sources cited are not properly used. We have two dated secondary sources, one general "bio" website and the EB1911. James II by John Miller, a good source, is not properly used. For instance, though this book discusses James' views on religious toleration and the way his subjects reacted to it (they saw it as insincere), this is not treated at all. Moreover, this article is almost entirely lacking in inline citations. In order to bring this article up to current FA standards, it's going to need to properly use books like James II by Miller and a lot more of them (see Miller's bibliography)

I'm not trying to be mean to the participants here; it's just that FA standards have (fortunately) risen quite a bit since this article was written. --Zantastik talk 21:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and the style of good writing mentioned above is characteristic of all the old EB-based articles , and probably all of thems that are FA should be reviewed and , unless much rewritten, removed. Reason: 1(c) DGG 05:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria are comprehensiveness and sources. Joelito (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autism

Review commentary

Messages left at Medicine FAR and Psychology. Sandy (Talk) 03:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this article is no longer up to featured status. It has 12(!) {{fact}} tags on it, and a couple of sentences are either weaselly or POV. Examples of the latter include:

  • Some now speculate that autism is not a single condition but a group of several distinct conditions that manifest in similar ways.(weaselly)
  • Parents who looked forward to the joys of cuddling, teaching, and playing with their child may feel crushed by this lack of expected attachment behavior. (POV as well as a few other problems)

If these problems are addressed I will happily support its remaining a featured article. Until such time, I beleive it should be delisted--Acebrock 02:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The weasle words and broad patches of uncited text are problematic (indicative of POV and OR), but the article has far bigger problems than just the cite tags and weasle words.
    • It doesn't conform to WP:MEDMOS
    • It is severely undercited, and relies on some sources which are personal or support group websites rather than medical sources.
    • The lead is too long and doesn't summarize the article.
    • External links have become a link farm for support groups, see WP:EL and WP:NOT
    • See also needs pruning and/or other articles incorporated into text.
    • Infobox isn't complete.
    • Article isn't tightly focused on its topic, with entire sections discussing other conditions.
    • Problem with Fair Use image.
    • Doesn't rely on highest quality medical sources, and References appears to have grown piecemeal; it's not clear those references were actually used in the article.
    • The Table of Contents shows an unorganized approach to the topic, and could benefit by following suggested sections per WP:MEDMOS, modified as needed for a neuropsychiatric condition.
    • There's a red link in See also.
    • There are external links. jumps.
    • It relies on daughter articles which are in very bad shape, speculative, and poorly sourced.

They is paged doesn't have much sources and more research could be done on this page to get better resources.JamesLJungkull (talk) 04:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC) James Ljungkull[reply]

    • It is not comprehensive
      • Treatment is inadequate
      • Causes is inadequate
      • There is no Diagnosis or History section
      • There is no Prognosis section, or Prevention/Screening section
    • Sociology section could benefit from being trimmed and making better use of Summary Style
    • It has numerous mentions of individual researchers or research institutions, which look like attempts to promote those people rather than an encyclopedic entry.
    • It duplicates the DSM criteria, which is a copyright violation.
  • In order to maintain FA, a serious and organized effort at improving this article is needed. Sandy (Talk) 03:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with Sandy, however I'm sure her approach from the [Asperger syndrome] article is very inappropriate. The current autism article is extremely biased and *published* research that is no longer relevant needs to go. --Rdos 08:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Rdos, I think that a reviewer's approach elsewhere is irrelevant. Here, all that matters is improving the article at issue. I, too, agree with Sandy's points. And while we're at it, the writing is sorely in need of improvement. Here are random examples from the lead for "Characteristics".
    • "Typically-developing infants"—Isn't there a better standard term? The hyphen after -ly is wrong.
    • In a contrast, the wording should be equivalent, not "individuals who have autism are physically indistinguishable from those without".
    • "Enlarged brain size appears to accompany autism, but the effects of this are still unknown." False contrast: why "but"? A semicolon would present a more logcial relationship between these assertions.
    • "Much of this is due to the somewhat vague diagnostic criteria for autism, paired with an absence of objective diagnostic tests. Nevertheless, professionals within pediatrics, child psychology, behavior analysis, and child development are always looking for early indicators of autism in order to initiate treatment as early as possible for the greatest benefit."—"Somewhat" adds nothing but uncertainty. Just get rid of it. "Paired with" is not idiomatic in this context. The contrast in "Nevertheless" is unclear. The subsequent assertions require referencing (a long-shot that all of those professionals do the same?). And there's too much crammed into the last sentence. Tony 14:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, little improvement in concerns raised. Sandy (Talk) 14:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria are comprehensiveness, sources, prose, POV/OR, lead, and images. Sandy (Talk) 01:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kitsch

previous FAR

Lawrence v. Texas

Review commentary

Messages left at Neutrality, Law and Supreme Court cases. Sandy (Talk) 18:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only one in-line citation and a few scattered external links in the article itself. This does not pass 1c. Hbdragon88 02:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if the article had more on the affects of the case, but the law doesn't move terribly quickly so courts are still deciding what the implications of Lawrence are. For instance, the Supreme Court hasn't heard any case since Lawrence that raised the same issues. So, it is impossible for the article to have a comprehensive review of the effects of the case for several years.Dekkanar 18:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking in terms of social and political aftermath not just legal. JoshuaZ 14:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Aren't all these court reporters inline cites? What the hell else are they? I agree that more references should be added (especially for interpretive statements), but this article has more than five inline cites, even if they don't appear at the bottom. Moreover, it's not in an obviously worse state than Roe v. Wade. But yes, cites for all the bullet points under "Broader implications" would be useful. Cool Hand Luke 04:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I can see how the opinions sections are already cited (learned this while citing my own court cases in a recent essay), but the whole section talking about history (like no-fault divorces) all needs to be cited. If you don't think Roe v. Wade is an FA either, nominate it as well, but please don't use the article status of Roe to justify the status of Lawrence. Hbdragon88 01:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria are inline citations and comprehensiveness. Joelito (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC) And prose. (Tony1)[reply]
  • Remove—Poorly written: when it comes to matter legal, precision of prose is of great concern. The lead is appalling:
    • Very clumsy opening: "not finding a constitutional protection of sexual privacy"—Shouldn't that be "finding that there is no constitutional protection of sexual privacy"? "The Lawrence court held that"—better as "The Lawrence judgment"?
    • "Lawrence has the effect of invalidating similar laws throughout the United States that attempt to criminalize homosexual activity between consenting adults acting in private." Remove "attempt to"; no two ways about it. Remove "acting". Heck, there's a lot of redundant wording ....
    • "The case attracted much public attention, and a large number of amicus curiae ("friend of the court") briefs were filed in the case. The decision, which contained a declaration of the dignity of homosexual citizens, was celebrated by gay rights advocates, hoping that further legal advances might result as a consequence"—"The case ... the case." The agency for "hoping" should be crystal clear. "Hoping ... will", not two hedge words (might). Remove "as a consequence". Tony 12:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak and reluctant remove. I like the analysis, but the lack of inline citations is a huge problem. The article mentions previous Supreme Court decisions and achieves a high-level legal analysis. But the lack of any scholarly backing, and subsequently, of citations, do not allow me to support it. There are also some stylistic problems, such as some external links not properly linked.--Yannismarou 19:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Prose problems, mixed reference styles, inadequate referencing, and no one is working on it. Sandy (Talk) 00:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I was a bit more familiar with the Americal legal system, I would love to work on this article!!! It is so close to FA status after a slight copy-editing and the addition of the missing sources. Unfortunately, my library does not include books of Americal Law and I do not know to what extent I should trust Internet source.--Yannismarou 20:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World War I

previous FAR 1

previous FAR 2

previous FAR 3

previous FAR 4

previous FAR 5

Bath

Review commentary

Messages left at OldakQuill, UK notice board, Cities, Geography and UK geography. Sandy (Talk) 19:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This FA has several problems.

  • As with most nominations here, it lacks inline citations. The article is 45k long and has only 7/8 footnotes.
  • Fair use rationale missing (and possibly an incorrect tag) on Image:Coat of Arms - City of Bath.jpg. Other images not checked.
  • Very thin lead for such a long article.
  • Poorly written: see e.g. first sentence of the Politics section
  • Degenerates into a list in the Bath in arts section
  • Horrible layout, too many headers, stubby sections, lists
  • Possibly excessive external links section.

--kingboyk 11:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria are citations, images, LEAD, layout, and prose. Joelito (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Insufficient inline cites. LuciferMorgan 00:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove as per Lucifer, and 1a and 2a. The lead is too short and represents a clumsy attempt to summarise the article. The prose is poorly written.
"Bath is a city in South West England most famous for its baths fed by three hot springs. It is situated 159 km (99 miles) west of central London and 21 km (13 miles) southeast of Bristol.
The city is founded around the only naturally-occurring hot springs in the United Kingdom. It was first documented as a Roman spa, although tradition suggests that it was founded earlier. The waters from its spring were believed to be a cure for many afflictions. From Elizabethan to Georgian times it was a resort city for the wealthy. As a result of its popularity during the latter period, the city contains many fine examples of Georgian architecture, most notably the Royal Crescent. The city has a population of over 80,000 and is a World Heritage Site."
    • The opening sentence is stilted. Try: "most famous for its baths, which are fed by three hot springs." Are they underground springs? Thermal rather than hot?
    • Founded earlier? No reference, which would be OK if this point were referenced in the History section; but it's not even mentioned.
    • As a result of its popularity there is great architecture in the city? Fuzzy. Buildings arise from wealth.
    • No hyphen after -ly, please.

This deserves a prompt demotion. Tony 11:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove. Inadequately cited, prose issues, poor image placement, external jumps, short stubby sections and paragraphs, mixed reference styles, and no one working on any of it. Sandy (Talk) 00:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revised Standard Version

previous FAR

Mark Antony

previous FAR

Mixed-breed dog

Review commentary

No original editor, messages left at Dogs and Tree of Life. Sandy (Talk) 23:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Message also left at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dog breeds. Joelito (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very few references for a FA and non of them are in-line references. A lot of POV OR can be found on the article as well, with sentences such as "many people enjoy owning mixed breeds". Michaelas10 (T|C) 21:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This needs massive re-writing. Potential OR, rather than prose (which isn't too bad), is the fundamental issue. It's an interesting and, I'd guess, fairly well-searched topic—no doubt for these reasons, lots of people have added nuggets of BS. In discussing intelligence of mixed-breeds we find: "For example, Benji, the hero in a series of films named for him, was a mixed-breed terrier." A fictional example used to support a real-world point?
Other random OR concerns:
  • "Some American registries and dog clubs that accept mixed-breed dogs use the breed name All American, referring to the United States' reputation as a melting pot of different nationalities." That's really how the term arose?
  • "Mixed breeds also tend to have a size between that of their parents, thus tending eventually toward the norm." What is the norm?
  • "If one knows the breeds of the parents, some characteristics can be ruled out; for example, a cross between two small purebreds will not result in a dog the size of a Great Dane." No shit?
  • Ah wait, there is some info that suggests someone read a book. The norm is provided: "With each generation of indiscriminate mixing, the offspring move closer to the genetic norm. Dogs that are descended from many generations of mixes are typically light brown or black and weigh about 18 kg (40 lb). They typically stand between 38 and 57 cm (15 and 23 inches) tall at the withers." OK, this is good and encyclopedic, if we have a source.
  • "It's important to note that..." I just love "it's important to note that...". It helps you clearly identify non-encyclopedic writing.
  • "Mixed-breed dogs can be divided roughly into three types:..." Roughly divided by whom? This screams OR.
  • After saying just the opposite, the article declares: "Overall, mixed breed dogs tend to be healthier. They have more genetic variations than purebred dogs." That needs sourcing.
This really is an interesting topic (as a dog lover), but I think this page is a good example of the "semi-OR" that went unnoticed a year or two ago: written with good intent and no desire to deliberately include inaccuracies, but still of the vague, unsourced, "I-sort-of-know-this" type. Hopefully it can be picked up and worked on! Marskell 21:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria are citations and OR. Joelito (talk) 04:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic Tiger

Review commentary

Message left at CGorman --Peter Andersen 16:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Additional messages left at Ireland and B&E. Sandy (Talk)[reply]

A very old FA. Needs more inline citations (1c) - a lot of the links that are actually there doesn't work. I doubt it is comprehensive (1b) and it is very listy (1a). --Peter Andersen 16:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. External jumps, mixed reference styles (refs need to be converted), not clear if "Online references" are really References or External links, but the sources necessary for adequate inline citations appear to be available, and this article should be salvageable. Sandy (Talk) 17:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Indeed - not as bad as I was expecting, given its antiquity (FAC in late October 2004). It has not changed all that much in two years (diff from 31 October 2004, the last version before it was promoted, to 20 October 2006, the latest edit before today). Inline citations are required, inevitably; the listy sections can no doubt be prosified, if necessary. -- 17:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've worked on this article considerably and it has gone from here to current. I will probably review the text one more time. It could still do with more citations and improvement in flow but I think it's considerably improved. –Outriggr § 01:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations and flow. Joelito (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone still working on this? There are still some statements needing citation (for example, the first thing my eyes fell on was "Today, wind power supplies only 5% of Ireland's electricity."), and the blue links in Notes need to be expanded to include bibliographic info and last access date. Sandy (Talk) 15:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I spoke too soon. It looks unsalvageable unless someone has the sources. Too many uncited sections that really need cites. I change my vote to Remove. --RelHistBuff 13:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/November_2006&oldid=110757499"