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 00:02, 3 March 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

Messages left at Lord Emsworth, Ireland and Nurismatics. Sandy (Talk) 15:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that a bunch of my FAR nominations have been reviewed, here is another one in need of in-line citations. Also, it has at least one deprecated image tag. Judgesurreal777 22:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Managed to find some time :) I've cited most of the article, and put {{fact}} tags in where I didn't have a reference. I've added some images (and removed the one with the deprecated tag, which was low resolution anyway). I haven't removed the references I didn't use (which were basically all of the existing ones) in case they're useful for the missing citations. The history section needs expanding though; I don't have time to compress 200-odd pages of Galloway's book into a few paragraphs. (I note in passing that both the other Order of... articles have now been kept, hopefully we can make it three from three) Dr pda 02:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and work on the few missing citations this week (do I sense the Thistle heading this way?). Yomanganitalk 10:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yomangani has made some decent work on these Order related FARs, so can we please not wear him out? If they come thick and fast, he might not be able to give them the attention they deserve. LuciferMorgan 22:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the sentiment, but Dr Pda has done most of the work on the Order articles so far and the nomination rate has already slowed down, so it isn't a problem for me at least. I'm having trouble finding supporting references for some of the claims in this particular article which is why work is somewhat slow. Yomanganitalk 22:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to get back to the library this weekend and have another look at Galloway's book to see if I can get the last couple of citations. It also has a colour version of the painting of the foundation installation banquet (I tried to take a photo last time, but it didn't work because of the glossy page). Re the issue of supporters, the reason I put a fact tag on it was because I didn't see this privilege mentioned in the original statutes. The reference which has been added for this doesn't explicitly mention the Order of St Patrick. Also as I understand it the stall plates of the Orders are usually brass with an enamelled coat of arms (see Image:Stall plates of Knights of the Thistle.jpg), so they would be colourful. I note in passing that Wikipedia:WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals now exists. Dr pda 12:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you get that last cite? A look tells me we might not need FARC. What does the nominator think? Marskell 15:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found the last cite today. I'll add it, plus some more information and another picture when I have time tomorrow. Dr pda 16:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hurray! I'm glad to see another one keep its star :) Judgesurreal777 22:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Downfall

Review commentary

Original author, Raul654, aware. Messages left at MilHist and Japan. Sandy (Talk) 21:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has no in-line citations at all (1c) and contains weasel words ("Everybody has" in one of the paragraphs). It appeared on the Main Page in 2004, which leads me to believe that it's a very old-school article before in-line cites were required. Hbdragon88 20:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the claims in this listing are wrong. There are 10-20 parenthatical citations. And the phrase "everybody has" does not occur anywhere in the article (which has not changed in over 2 weeks) Raul654 21:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to say 1. c. isn't met here, regardless of whether the 10-20 parenthetical citations count or not. Also, the lead is rather short. LuciferMorgan 21:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the overall level of citation isn't really adequate, regardless of the exact number involved; for example, there are direct quotes (which is what I'm guessing the contents of the "Assumptions" section are) which aren't cited. Kirill Lokshin 02:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Everyone" is in the section of casualties. "Everybody based their estimates on the experience of the preceding campaigns, but they could draw different lessons:" I thought this was a rather obvious fact, to introduce the various estimates done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by Adm. Nimitz's staff, by Gen. MacArthur's staff, etc., etc.
—wwoods 23:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, the the person who made this FAR nom does not understand the concept of weasel words. Weasel words are a way to drop an unreferenced commentary or opinion into an article ("Some people say..." is the the canonical example). Saying "everybody did this" and then enumerating who did what is, as this article does, by definition, not weasel words. In fact, give how wrong both of the nominator's claims are, I'm starting to doubt he even read the article, and I'm tempted to remove this FAR listing. Raul654 03:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to disagree with a removal, as the complete lack of inline citations in the beginning sections of this article would merit its listing here, regardless of what you may think of the nominator. Gzkn 06:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Raul654 has no right to remove this FAR listing - I don't care if he is the Featured article director. I'd like to say I read the article, and perhaps rather than criticising the reviewers here he should get to work. His attitude is rather unwelcome as far as I'm concerned. LuciferMorgan 16:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Lucifer, and it's absolutely nothing personal. Rather, it's a systemic issue: WP needs to be seen to be democratic, and part of that is that office bearers are, as far as possible, on the same functional level as the rest of us. Tony 07:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest that this article remain under FAR. Here are my comments:
  • For some suggestions on the citations, I just added some {{fact}} tags in the article.
  • A description of the Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps would be needed. Or a wikilink if there is an article about this group. If this is an organisation of adult civilians, then it is unclear to me why the text about a high school girl follows it. If there was an organised mobilisation of children, then that should be described as well.
  • Can something be done about the hyperlinks to the images on the CIA web site? Either obtain an licensed image or expand the text.
  • The sentence, "This gave the United States a justification for their use..." sounds like speculation. Did someone say this? Or is this the opinion of the author?
--RelHistBuff 12:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are things to admire in this article, but there are problems with the prose. For this to be "among our very best", as required, the writing will need to be thoroughly copy-edited. Let's look at the lead.
    • "Later, in the spring of 1946, Coronet was the invasion of the Kanto plain near Toyko on the island of Honshu." Remove "later", since it's obvious that the spring of 1946 is later than "November 1945". More importantly, Operation Coronet "was" an invasion? Having correctly used the conditional "would" elsewhere, the same should apply here. Better: "would involve", because it surely consisted of not just invading. Or did this bit happen and the others didn't? I'm confused, and I shouldn't be.
  • "Japan's geography made this invasion plan obvious to the Japanese as well,...". Just why this is the case isn't clear to me (perhaps I'm missing something obvious). And why "as well"? Unclear.
  • "The Japanese planned an all-out defense of Kyushu, with little left in reserve for any subsequent defense operations. Casualty predictions, though varying widely, were extremely high for both sides.
  • The stubby third para is more awkward for starting with "However,...".

This article is definitely worth retaining, so I hope that the writing can be improved. Tony 13:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that some copyediting would be good - I will if/when I have time. The last section in particular seems a bit choppy. It would also be nice to see the first few sections having the same level of citations as the last ones. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, how are the footnotes looking? I agree that the links to the CIA website are awkward. I'd like to just copy the two maps, but the article (still) says,"Copyright pending. Not for distribution or reproduction without permission of the author, the Center for the Study of Intelligence, and Harvard University." (Although that hasn't stopped someone from adding them to de:Operation Downfall and fr:Opération Downfall.) The maps just illustrate the fact that the defending forces had tripled in strength, which is already stated in the paragraph.
—wwoods 06:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little worried about the clause, "the fact that Japanese civilians were being encouraged to become suicide attackers". I had put a cite tag on that one, but it was removed with the edit summary that this was common knowledge. But I still wonder about this. I am aware that kamikaze attacks were planned among the military. As for civilians, the Japanese did commit suicide in Okinawa and other islands to avoid capture. But I was wondering if there was a campaign for Japanese civilians to become suicide attackers in the event of an invasion of the home islands. Hence, the cite tag. --RelHistBuff 10:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's some description earlier, at the end of Operation Downfall#Ground forces. I suppose it could be expanded.
—wwoods 18:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, I believe that last quote concerning the high school girl should be removed. It is picking on one small shocking point of what is purportedly a national campaign. Even if the statement is sourced, having this isolated statement without the complete context is more worthy of tabloid journalism rather than an encyclopaedia. The description of organised civilian suicide attackers should cover its campaign and organisation on a high-level but properly detailled because this is clearly a controversial assertion. In any case, such a description should cite the source, because I do not believe this is common knowledge. --RelHistBuff 13:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasons are, frankly, unconvincing. That particular incident is not out of the ordinary at all; removing it would reduce the quality of the article, so it will be staying in. Raul654 19:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Raul, I don't disagree with your reasoning, but I do object to your dictatorial "so it will be staying in". It's a wiki, so a more cooperative angle would be more productive. The risk is that some reviewers might ignore your point because of the last six words. Tony 14:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe that a cite should be added to the clause, "the fact that Japanese civilians were being encouraged to become suicide attackers" and more information is needed for the “Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps”. If one googles “Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps”, there are only 236 results. Most of these are links to this article on mirror sites of Wikipedia. The rest are blogs and forums that discuss the corps using similar language to the article which may imply that the bloggers got the info from Wikipedia. Hence, it looks like WP:OR unless this is corrected by the cites and additional info. --RelHistBuff 08:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status?? Diff since nom. Sandy (Talk) 14:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would ask for an extension of the FAR deadline to address the concerns above. They are fixable, hence FARC is not necessary yet. --RelHistBuff 14:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit to the paragraph about the militia forces. As for the name, I don't speak the language, but from googling around, my best guess is that “Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps”, "Peoples' Volunteer Fighting Corps", and "National Volunteer Combat Force" are variant translations of "Kokumin Giyu Sento-Tai".
—wwoods 21:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. Looking up using the other terms produced a few more sites. Again mostly bloggers and private websites with similiar descriptions. I assume the differences in descriptions are that different books were used as a source. Anyway it is clearer now. With that info, I toned down the "suicide attackers" clause. As the corps description is now cited, there is no need for the clause to be cited. --RelHistBuff 08:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the sentence on Yukiko Kasai, as it is properly sourced and the source is well-known and accepted, it does satisfy WP:V and WP:RS. However, the reason I do not believe it is appropriate in an encyclopaedia is that it is an anecdote. In all military situations, one can find examples of extreme behaviour. A historian is able to study and make general conclusions (for example, on kamikaze). We should write on those conclusions. But to pull out some anecdotes that mainly illustrate a particular point-of-view on a battle, mobilisation, prisoner treatment, etc., would be a subtle violation of WP:NPOV. --RelHistBuff 09:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, it's a useful anecdote, illustrating the extreme fanaticism/desperation of the Japanese. When you have to stretch your definition of combatant down to 'schoolgirl' and of weapon down to 'pointed piece of metal'... Also, "the Japanese predilection for fanatical resistance" is an objective fact. Iwo Jima and Okinawa were the first battles in which more than 5% of the Japanese were taken prisoner.
—wwoods 19:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Wwoods. Yes, it's anecodatal; on the other hand, as Wwoods says, it's an objective historical fact that the Japanese resistance was fanatical by any definition ( fa·nat·i·cal (f…-n²t“¹-k…l) adj. Possessed with or motivated by excessive, irrational zeal.), and that the Japanese attempt to mobilize the population matched this zeal, and the anecdote serves to illustrate this finely. Raul654 02:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The number of citations has now been doubled, and there isn't a significant uncited paragraph in the article. I think this one is good to go. Raul654 21:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed some of the refs (updating URLs and adding access dates), and concur that the level of referencing is now adequate. I changed the awkward sentence mentioned above ("Everybody based their estimates on the experience of the preceding campaigns, but they could draw different lessons:" to "Casualty estimates were based on the experience of the preceding campaigns, drawing different lessons:") It looks like the phrases about suicide attackers, giving the U.S. a justification, and Patriotic Civilians Fighting Corp have been addressed - is that correct? I concur that the anecdote about Yukiko Kasai, the high school girl, is awkward and context is not provided; I think it should be better addressed, but I'm not sure how. I'd like an update from Tony on the prose before closing. Sandy (Talk) 20:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the anecdote, making equivalences of "Japanese population = fanatical" is a generalisation. The military leadership, I agree, the civilians, no. Just to be specific, I am concerned about the violation of criteria 1d. --RelHistBuff 09:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime you talk about the overall feelings of a population, it is (by definition) a generalization; that doesn't make it any less of a fact in this case. It is commonly acknowledged that both the Japanase military and civilians were fanatical. Consider the example on Saipan, where hundreds (thousands?) of civilians literally threw themselves off cliffs rather than be captured. Raul654 15:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Battle of Saipan article does not describe the Japanese as fanatical. In that battle, the civilians were told that they would suffer cruelties if captured, hence many committed suicide (not suicide attacks). One could say they were deluded, but not fanatical. The millions of civilians in Japan were not "fanatically" preparing for an invasion force. Most stayed in bomb shelters or turned off all lighting covering their windows and prayed for the war to end. This is not to deny that the Yukiko Kasai incident occurred nor that the military attempted to mobilise civilians. Yes, that did happen. However, I am concerned that including the anecdote and using phrasing such as the word "fanatic" will skew the opinion toward the effect that one might think the Japanese civilian population was "fanatical" in general. Hence my concern with critierion 1d. --RelHistBuff 17:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm, on second though, you might have a point there - that it might be worth making the distinction in the text between civilian and military. Raul654 21:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per your request, Wwoods now has added a description of the patriotic fighting core, which now immediately preceedes the description of Yukiko Kasai. Raul654 23:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The characterization "fanatically" is now in a quote attributed to Americans. The quote about Yukiko-san doesn't actually give her opinion; quite possibly she — and the middle-aged men being issued satchel charges and bamboo spears to fight tanks — had mixed feelings, but decided to exercise "the better part of valour".
—wwoods 02:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose closing this one. There's tons of exact numbers quoted of personnel etc., and they aren't cited. Where have these numbers come from? Thin air? No, they've come from sources, and should be inline cited. Move to FARC. LuciferMorgan 00:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally I'd like to have it on the record that the number of inline citations an article has isn't indicative of an article being "well referenced", something the FA director should also remember when passing so many FAs. If everyone wishes to close this one then the FAR process as concerns cites is rather lax in my opinion - look at all the different numbers, ie. 35, 000 this, 1, 000 that etc., all stuff that can be easily mistaken. LuciferMorgan 00:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From a quick scan, it seems to me that almost all of the numbers are in sourced paragraphs. Which ones concern you?
—wwoods 07:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One cite means a whole paragraph is sourced? Since when? All of the numbers concern me - just because there's an inline cite at the end of a paragraph, it doesn't mean a specific number is cited. LuciferMorgan 16:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting plain ridiculous. First, you complain about lack of citations. So Wwood and I more than double the number of citations. Then you complain that many specific numbers given in the article are not cited, when in fact we are hard pressed to find *any* that are not cited. And then when asked, rather than coming up with any specific examples, you simply complain about the ones that are clearly cited, because you can't be bothered to look any of them up. I think you've made YOUR opinion on the matter quite clear, in that you simply intend to complain ad nasueum about things that are perfectly good and proper. Raul654 16:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When a whole paragraph is drawn from one source, I don't see much point of putting in multiple references to, e.g., "Frank, Downfall, p. 209–10."
—wwoods 02:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Utter rubbish. You were the one complaining like a baby about FAR in the first place, and thought as the FA director you could simply stop the FAR - simply you're the one who can't be bothered to cite the specific numbers, and also this is coming from the same person who passes FAs like Smarties. Your opinion sways nothing with me, because I don't think your term as FA director is something to be proud of. If you want fact tags, you'll have them - feel free to whine afterwards like you did in the first place. And by the way, this is my opinion on this specific FAR and your obnoxious attitude in general. LuciferMorgan 20:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way I'd also like to add that there's a lot of one sentence statements occurring which creates disjointed prose, meaning the article is in breach of 1. a. also. Raul is free to complain about this too - he's invited. LuciferMorgan 20:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of repetitive style prose occurs also, specifically the endless of the words "would" and "was", which get's tiring. Many sentences either read "would have" or "was to" - another 1. a. violation. I'll be sure to vigilantly look for more flaws in "good faith". LuciferMorgan 20:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It does make it easier to respond to criticism if it is precise, so adding {{fact}} templates to uncited facts does help. But not if you carpet-bomb the article with them, like this Are you really asking for every single clause in the article to have a footnote? It is pretty damn clear to me where the information in this article comes from already.
"A lot of one sentence statements" and "repetitive style"? Most sentences are single statements - sentences that make more than one statement are apt to be criticised as "snakes". Are you complaining that there are one-sentence paragraphs? Similarly, forms of the verb "to be " are rather common in English prose. Perhaps you would like to contribute by copyediting the article to correct its perceived structural and grammatical faults, rather than throwing stones from the sidelines? -- ALoan (Talk) 20:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Adding cite tags to every sentence which does not have a reference (and some which do, if you had paid more attention to the citations) is simple disruption to prove a point, and I have reverted.
Second, as to "would have" and "was to", there are only so many ways in the english language to conjugate verbs about events which never took place but were supposed to. Raul654 20:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And third - there is no requirement that every sentence in an article be cited. In fact, other than a few one sentence stubs, there are no articles at all that are completely cited. Raul654 20:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added cite tags and they've been reverted - I didn't do it to prove a point, but to answer wwoods question above as to which ones concern me. This is disruptive and belligerent, and frankly an utter joke. Since it seems the FA director throwing his weight around like a clown is condoned here, I have no intentions of further contributing at FAR at all - Raul's attitude is frankly disgusting, and I hope his term as FA director comes to a swift halt. Indeed all he thinks is in terms of numbers - ie. more FAs the better, merely adding more cites to just about everything, etc. 1. a. and 1. c. is clearly at fault here, not that anyone cares. Goodbye and good riddance. LuciferMorgan 20:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS - As to ALoan's statement, I have no intentions of copyediting the article in this environment, and if he feels that compelled maybe he should copyedit it himself. LuciferMorgan 20:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you insist - I have done some fiddling, but the article was pretty good already, IMHO. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; that was helpful.
—wwoods 02:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments—My feeling is that this should not go to FARC, but should stay here just a little longer while it receives its final polish. Here are the changes since Sandy's status comment on 30 Nov, and here are the changes since nomination. But I'd be happy for a little sprucing up. For example:
    • Why "three (3)" etc.? I've never understood why any text includes both, and there's certainly no reason to here. (The usual practice is to spell out single-digit numbers only, unless there's a good reason not to.)
    • "Olympic was to be mounted with resources already in the Pacific, including the British Pacific Fleet, which was actually a Commonwealth formation which included at least a dozen aircraft carriers and several battleships." Remove "which was actually"; either it was or it wasn't, and there are two "whiches". Possibly insert "stationed" after "already"? Replace "which included" with "of", but only if what is specified was the basis of the formation.

See what I mean? That last one is just a single sentence, and while many sentences are well written, there's a case for asking someone different to run over it. This is such a good article that it's worth polishing. Tony 02:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The number is spelled out because it's a direct quote from a cited source. That's what the source does, so that's what the article quotes. Raul654 03:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That last sentence was my fault, I think. I knew it wasn't ideal, but was at a loss for an elegant rephrasing. I have had another go - "Olympic was to be mounted with resources already present in the Pacific, including the British Pacific Fleet, a Commonwealth formation that included at least a dozen aircraft carriers and several battleships." -- ALoan (Talk) 12:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see the quote marks; you're right. Tony 11:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As to why it's "three (3)", I figure it's a style adopted to ensure that the information doesn't get lost. Essentially the same reason we have to write out the amount of a check in words as well as numerals. —wwoods 17:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status: Well, this looks like it's been around the block a few times. Can we close it? Is the nominator still watching with an opinion by any chance? Marskell 18:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Close it - nobody cares what I think anyway. LuciferMorgan 23:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that —wwoods and Raul654 have addressed some of the issues I brought up. I still have strong concerns about NPOV in its current state. However, as noonly one other editor has spoken up, then please take the consensus decision without me included. My comments remain neither support or object, but simply neutral. --RelHistBuff 07:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), and POV (1d). Marskell 22:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is about the use of the Yukiko Kasai anecdote. I do appreciate that wwoods has added the context surrounding the anecdote (description of the mobilisation of the militia). In my opinion, this description is sufficient in describing the rather desperate measures undertaken by the Japanese leadership. The anecdote, however, does not give any additional facts but rather adds an emotional element (due to her age) and perhaps some shock value. Military history articles are very careful in the inclusion of such anecdotes because they can be used to subtly push a POV. I suggest the anecdote be dropped for the sake of criterion 1d.
The second concern is about the use of term “fanatical” for describing the Japanese civilian population. I toned down a phrase so as to match the description of the militia and my result is as follows:
  • Given the large number of Japanese troops to be faced and the organized resistance among Japanese civilians ... (italics added)
This has been changed by wwoods to
  • Given the large number of Japanese troops to be faced and the organized resistance among Japan's "fanatically hostile population" ... (italics added)
Although the latter is sourced, I believe my formulation is sufficient and avoids an unintended push of a POV that all civilians were fanatical. As the quoted description of the civilian population is already in the “Assumptions” section, repeating it here does not add to the article.
If these two concerns are addressed, then I would vote keep. --RelHistBuff 12:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • RelHistBuff's suggestion that the anecdote be removed has been discussed extensively, and rejected as being detrimental to the article. Also, about the "fanatically hostile population", it comes from a cited primary source, and it is an objective fact. He might not agree with it, but that's the way it is. Raul654 18:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rel, I checked the PDF and "fanatically hostile" is indeed the phrase; your point is good faith, but it would actually be an error to change that and "leave it in quotes". Given that the quote comes from the U.S. military, I don't think the reader will be led to POV assumptions—what kind of wording would you expect, really? I'm neither here nor there on the anecdote. Marskell 20:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm still troubled by the high school girl anecdote (because of my work on medical articles, I'm usually troubled by any kind of anecdote :-). It seems that the "fanatically hostile population" can be dealt with in the same way many POV concerns are dealt with in articles - by specifically stating whose opinion it is, so it doesn't appear to be asserted as fact. The article says "planners" (clearly implying military planners), but perhaps it could be made more clear that this is an assumption made by the US military - a properly attributed phrase would feel less like "fact" about the entire Japanese population, and more like US opinion. Sandy (Talk) 20:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The fanatically hostile population part is already properly attributed. If you click on the [6] link, it goes to the ref which says: Sutherland, Richard K. et al, "DOWNFALL": Strategic Plan for Operations in the Japanese Archipelago Raul654 20:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I made a slight change "planners" --> "U.S. military planners". Really, I think this one is fine; I can't imagine how anyone will be led astray, especially with the PDF sitting there to look at.
            • On the anecdote, I suppose the only question would be whether you're sure it's not apocryphal. Marskell 20:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • The historian whose book it comes from, Richard Frank, is probably the greatest living authority on Japan at the time of the surrender. I have no doubt of either its authenticity, or that thousands of similiar incidents occured. Raul654 21:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(indent off) I believe Sandy’s idea of noting that this was the military planners’ assumption would remove the appearance of POV. Rather than paraphrasing and focusing only on the “fanatic” part, it would be better to include the complete sentence as stated in the source. I made a change reflecting this. --RelHistBuff 10:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally missed that second use. Your change seems appropriate. Marskell 17:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for the anecdote, I was not noting whether it truly occurred or not. In fact, I would assume it was true, although I would also note that Richard B. Frank’s book is known for pushing its own POV. My objection is that it is precisely what it is: an anecdote. I would object to any anecdote especially in war articles. Usually they cause problems in lower-quality articles and are a source of POV-wars. Featured articles, if they are written well, do not need them. The paragraph describing the Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps is excellent and is sufficient. It describes persons including girls of high school age (17 years old) were equipped with primitive weapons (such as an awl). The anecdote does not add additional information. --RelHistBuff 10:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to close this as keep. Moving it elicited comments as hoped but the discussion of the anecdote isn't producing anything new; I think due diligence was done here and it's within criteria. Marskell 04:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toilets in Japan

previous FAR

James Joyce

Messages left at Filiocht, Bio, Authors, Ireland, Books, Irish literature, and Novels. Sandy (Talk) 21:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. A very old nomination. No inline references, short lead, some short paragraphs, no fair use rationale on copyrighted images, and badly needs Wikifying (linking technical terms). Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It certainly doesn't need Wikifying (avoid linking common terms). The lead is not short. The paragraphs are not particularly problematic. As for the citations, the article is built from information gathered from the books listed at the end. Richard Ellmann is the source for almost all biographical information on Joyce that you will see by anyone, as it is widely considered the best biography of the 20th century, certainly of a literary figure. Burgess's book has information on critical themes, and particularly the language games of Finnegans Wake. Citing to this page here, that page there, the other page another place is far more than any print encyclopedia does. From Britanica to the DNB to any other source you'd consult, you will see a list of works that provided the information, but citations only if the information is controversial. There are no claims in the article that are controversial. Geogre 03:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: By Wikifying I meant it contains many nearly linkless paragraphs and technical terms are left unlinked. Yes, I do believe a two small paragraph lead is very short for a biography article. The references at the bottom might cover the article entirely but per criteria 1c it has to have inline citations. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It doesn't appear that the original author/nominator has edited in a year and a half (last version edited by Filiocht,) the talk page indicates some doubt about some of the content, and the article history shows no editor appears to be actively following the article. Inline citations are required for FAs on Wikipedia, which can't be compared to other encyclopedias, since anyone can edit: this article does not include them, and there are numerous statements that should be cited. The end of the article contains an external jump, and uses mixed reference styles (some of the references inserted towards the end may not be to reliable sources). The References section appears to contain what may be a link farm rather than actual sources for the article, and the External links section may need attention. Per WP:LEAD, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Sandy (Talk) 06:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Link farm? I see the names of the major works on Joyce. Please be sure that you are reading "References" and not "External links" and that you read the lead itself. Additionally, the fact that the people on the talk page were not turned back does not make them correct in their "concerns." People will say the darnedest things. Geogre 13:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is a very well written and sourced featured article, and I can see no reason why it should not remain one. There are no false or controversial facts at all in the page. The only thing that need fixing is the bio-box which is redundant as it contains information easily assimilated from the lead. It is ugly and falls into the section below spoiling the layout. Other than that it seems a perfect page, and I can see no legitimate or worthwhile reason for it being listed here. Giano 14:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm no expert on the subject, but this appears to me to be a well-written, well-structured and comprehensive article on Joyce. I'm actually quite impressed with the way the bottom-of-the-page stuff is laid out; I think it's clear, logical and helpful. I tend to agree that the lead could perhaps be a bit longer, but it's not problematically short and all the important stuff is set out in it in a well-thought out way. And well done Giano II for deleting the ugly and useless infobox. Palmiro | Talk 02:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I would advise all editors and people who have commented here to switch from defending/praising the article to addressing the concerns of this review. Past experience assures me that the article will be demoted if in-line citations are not added. There are many reasons for the necessity of in-line citations, some of which have been mentioned above. In-line citations are an actionable objection and a fair reason for removal of FA status. Joelito (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The FA criteria, say that an FA should have in-line citations "where appropriate". The burden is on those who think this needs in-line citations, to demonstrate that. This article is one of our very best, and continues to deserves its FA status. Paul August ☎ 01:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought inline citations are basically a requirement for all FA's. If this article was to go through the FAC process in its current state, I'm pretty sure it would not pass due to the lack of inline citations. Gzkn 06:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well not according to the Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. The relevant passage is:
Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations (see verifiability and reliable sources); this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations.
Paul August ☎ 08:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Then perhaps WP:WIAFA needs some clarification, as I thought consensus had been reached numerous times in the past (see the talk page of FAR, for instance) that FAs need inline citations. And FACs that lack them are routinely rejected. I did always think that the "where appropriate" led to vastly different interpretations. Perhaps its time we cleared up the confusion and state with clarity in WIAFA whether FAs need inline citations or not. (I happen to think they do, but all the arguments in this particular FAR lead me to wonder if my view is indeed consensus.) Gzkn 12:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think (IMO) that if a fact is controversial, or newly discovered then it does need a firm clear reference preferably with a page number to a certain edition. However when the subject is a long dead much researched noncontroversial figure then the footnote is not necessary. " For instance Henry VIII had six wives" does not need citing - "Nicholas II had s secret wife" would need citing. However. listing references used is always essential. I see nothing on James Joyce that makes me want to say "hang on a moment here". Admittedly I have taken to citing almost every verb, my current work is only half finished and already has 117 - but the subject is almost unknown. Joyce is a much researched and reported figure, and that is why this page is fine as it is. It is all there in the references. Now if an anon comes along and inserts a controversial fact, then he must be asked to verify with a detailed ref, but at the moment there is nothing to warrant demoting this page. Giano 12:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this summary. Case closed. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's understandable. I'm not going to get into whether or not the lack of citations warrants demoting James Joyce, but I do think the article needs inline citations. Perhaps those who are familiar with him are comfortable with this article, but what about readers who don't know much about James Joyce? How are they able to figure out whether to trust this article or not? For example, I don't know his early life, so how do I go about verifying the stuff in Dublin, 1882-1904? Which facts belong to which sources? How do I know they are all true? Let's take a random statement: Joyce refused to pray at her bedside but this seems to have had more to do with Joyce's agnosticism than antagonism for his mother. Doesn't this call for a citation? Gzkn 13:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish. You have been warned and have decided not to take my advice. Joelito (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all in favour of requiring in-line references for current featured article candidates, but in the current state of Wikipedia it seems premature to say the least to question the status of a long-standing featured article for lack of something that has only relatively lately come to be seen as a requirement. This is a featured article review, so I think people are entitled to bring up whatever issues they feel are relevant in support of that article's status; furthermore, the request for review cites several other issues which are addressed in the replies here, not just the question of references. Palmiro | Talk 23:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All FAs are held to the same standards. If by relatively lately you mean since January 2005 then you are correct. Long-standing FA status has little to do with current standards. Again, it's your choice if you wish to conform to the current FA guidelines or not. As I have said before, past experience shows that the article will get demoted if editors choose not to add the in-line citations.
Also see this thread where the majority of FAR reviewers express their thoughts on the issue. Joelito (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have any passed recently? I really wish to stop this argument. Experience in FAR says no in-line = no longer FA. Joelito (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I bet you do. You were the one who brought up the subject of the date. Giano 16:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there's really a problem with uncited information, you could also use the citation requested template (or even <gasp> the talk page) to indicate where the dubious statements are that need references. Palmiro | Talk 01:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Certainly it needs inline citations, and it could use some copyedit: last para begins with 'Not everyone is eager to expand upon academic study of Joyce' but in effect it mentions only one of his relatives, that's hardly justifies suggestion that there is some widespread movement - seems like journalism style.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can someone advocating for FAC status removal please reassure me that they have recently read a book (that's one of those rectangular things made from processed tree that taste so much like cardboard and are encountered in a library) and are converstant with the academic practice of footnoting! I just checked a couple: in all cases there is an extensive bibliography at the end, and those things that might raise eyebrows or are generally in need of explanation are annotated at the bottom of the page with a footnote. Folks, we are writing an encyclopedia, not a review article or a term paper! Dr Zak 20:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How many people wrote that book? Can anyone edit it? Don't compare oranges with bottles. In-line citations are an FA criteria. If you wish to argue them go to the talk page of WP:WIAFA.
Furthermore, books have in-line citations. For example my The Tainos:Rise and Decline of the people who greeted Columbus. Yale Univeristy Press. ISBN 0300056966 uses in-line citations (parenthetical citations). Joelito (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How many in-line citations does the FA criteria say an FA needs exactly? Paul August ☎ 21:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, please see the relevant policy at WP:V, Sandy (Talk) 22:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No we will not close the review. An editor has expressed the concern that the article lacks in-line citations (A criteria of What is a featured article?) and we will, therefore, review the article. Joelito (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Joelr3143, please stop whining about lack of inline citations. It would be much more helpful if you provided inline citations for the entire article instead. For my own part, I don't know any encyclopaedias with inline citations. Look at the Britannica, for instance. We cannot apply recently-adopted guidelines retroactively. This is not an improvement but a mess. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I move that we re-factor this page, to remove the discussion of FA criteria to its talk page: inline citations are a current requirement for FAs, and arguing WIAFA on the FAR isn't useful. Sandy (Talk) 22:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that we should move the discussion of FA criteria to the talk page. Joelito (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. We will not shunt the discussion off to the sidelines. You have nominated because of lack of citations, therefore well discuss lack if citations. The long and the short of it is than some editors have commented they do not agree. Those same editors who have chosen to comment feel the page should retain its FA status. Regardless of any ambiguous rules and regulations dreamt up wherever. You are quite rightly going to struggle to achieve consensus to demote here. In fact their seems to be no consensus concerning any of the reasons given in the nomination. Taking away FA status because of inline cites is not automatic otherwise we would not be having this conversation. So the subject stays here. Giano 08:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This is a review (FAR) and not FARC. No one wants to see the removal of FA status for this article. However, many would like to see this article attain our current standards. In order to demonstrate that this article may need additional inline citations, I have placed a {{fact}} tag based on a comment from someone in the talk page. --RelHistBuff 10:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you had written a featured article, you should know that it's impossible to provide inline citations after the article is completed (let alone written by another editor). If you want to dispute some fact and think it needs to be sourced, you are welcome to add citations like I did with your tag, rather than litter the page with reckless tags. Such facile approach to editing is simply not acceptable. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it's impossible to provide inline citations after the article is completed (let alone written by another editor) Please don't tell this secret to Yomangani (talk · contribs) - he seems to be doing a fine job. Sandy (Talk) 17:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the cite. The tag was not meant to be reckless; I placed it as a point of demonstration. In any case, the idea was to show that there are potential areas of dispute which is why inline cites may be needed. This is the advantage of having the article under review. --RelHistBuff 12:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Where appropriate" is not in the criteria accidentally. It would be counterproductive to demand that every factual statement has a citation - do we really want every article would turn into a forest of citations? The sky is blue; Paris is in France; Queen Elizabeth II of the Queen of the UK; and gravity makes apples fall off trees. End of story.

Would the persons advocating "review" of this article please indicate which specific factual statements in this article they find sufficiently surprising, unusual, controversial or confusing to require specific inline citation. (The inline external links in the last section could quickly be turned into footnotes, for those who like to count them.) -- ALoan (Talk) 13:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've only read the first page or so. The writing looks pretty good to me. (The bit about dogs is a little awkward in the first para of his life, but that's a trivial matter.) All FAs must meet the current requirements for referencing. Tony 14:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've expanded the lead a bit, and tried to make it reflect a better sense of where JJ fits in to literary history. Adding inline citations would primarily be a matter of flipping through Ellman (it has an index, after all). I have no stake in the question of whether all featured articles need them, but if anyone who has Ellman at hand (Geogre, I assume you do; ALoan? Paul?) would track down a couple of the assertions in the article--I'll happily do a bunch myself, though not for a few days most likely--we'll have this thing properly referenced in no time. As for the notion that there's nothing controversial, I haven't read the article carefully enough to say, but given Stephen Joyce's recent insanity I'd say we can't be too careful. That blighter will sue anyone in a heartbeat. Chick Bowen 05:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am happy to cite appropriate pages from Ellman, if someone will say which statements they think need a citation. Paul August ☎ 17:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the offer to help, Chick Bowen. Paul, I am (in fact many of the reviewers here are) usually reluctant to pepper a well-written article with cite tags, but if folks are now offering to do the sourcing, would you like for us to add cite tags to the article (which is the easiest way of doing this), or would you prefer we put a list on the article talk page? (I'm also wondering if anyone is looking into the tags on the images?) Sandy (Talk) 19:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll bow to others' preferences about cite tags vs. talk page. I've gone through the images, though. Detailed fair use rationales would be good, and I can add those later. The only one that is of real concern is the lead image, Image:JamesJoyce1904.jpg. It includes the date it was taken, but of course we need the date it was first published to verify that it's PD. The photographer (Constantine Curran) published a book in 1968 and was evidently still alive then, so that suggests it's not PD by creator's death. It might not be PD. In the meantime I'll look around for a good portrait we can absolutely certify is PD. Chick Bowen 05:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This appears to be a well written, instructive article worthy of its status. The debate here seems to relate largely to whether or not the article should receive inline citations in order to maintain its FA. Inline citations are not an FA criteria because of the where appropriate aspect of WP:WIAFA. It seems that there are those here who seek to make in-line citations a defacto criteria for FA status, despite it not being policy. We should wait until it becomes a hard and fast consensual policy before arbitrarily demoting articles because the referencing style doesn't comform to some peoples preferences. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations list

  • Comment Ok. I am sick and tired of people defending the article and stating that they do not find any places that need in-line citations. Here are a few examples:
    • "Reaction to the early sections that appeared in transition was mixed, including negative comment from early supporters of Joyce's work, such as Pound and the author's brother Stanislaus Joyce." Cite this negative reaction.
    • "This has led many readers and critics to apply Joyce's oft-quoted description in the Wake of Ulysses as his usylessly unreadable Blue Book of Eccles to the Wake itself. " Weasel words, should be cited.
    • "Indeed, Joyce said that the ideal reader of the Wake would suffer from ideal insomnia and, on completing the book, would turn to page one and start again, and so on in an endless cycle of reading." Is this a direct quote?
    • "For some years, Joyce nursed the eccentric plan of turning over the book to his friend James Stephens to complete, on the grounds that Stephens was born in the same hospital as Joyce exactly one week later, and shared the first name of both Joyce and of Joyce's fictional alter-ego (this is one example of Joyce's numerous superstitions)." This sound like it needs a citation since I cannot verify it easily.
    • "He has also been an important influence on writers and scholars as diverse as Samuel Beckett, Jorge Luis Borges, Flann O'Brien, Máirtín Ó Cadhain, Salman Rushdie, Thomas Pynchon, William Burroughs, Robert Anton Wilson, and Joseph Campbell." Citations that he is/was an influence for some of these writers is needed.
    • "Countless critics over the past century have argued that Joyce's work has had a harmful effect on modern and post-modern fiction, creating generations of writers who have eschewed storytelling, proper grammar, and coherence in favour of self-indulgent rambling." Which critics? Cite.
    • "Some scholars, most notably Vladimir Nabokov, have mixed feelings on his work, often championing some of his fiction while condemning others (in Nabokov's case, Ulysses was brilliant, Finnegans Wake horrible)." Cite this scholar.
    • "The phrase "Three Quarks for Muster Mark" in Joyce's Finnegans Wake is often called the source of the physicists' word "quark", the name of one of the main kinds of elementary particles, proposed by the physicist Murray Gell-Mann. (James Gleick's book Genius suggests that Gell-Mann found the Joycean antecedent after the fact, as physicists have pronounced quark to rhyme with cork and not with Mark.)" If this sentence is true cite the book and page number.
    • "However, Nabokov was less than thrilled with Finnegans Wake (see Strong Opinions, The Annotated Lolita or Pale Fire), an attitude Jorge Luis Borges shared." Cite since we are stating the opinion of someone.
    • The in-line external jumps at the end of Legacy should be converted to appropiate ref format.
    • I could go into more detail but I think this is enough to prove my point. The article is well written but to someone that knows very little of Joyce and his works the referencing is inadequate. Joelito (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I have to agree that the lack of citiations in this article and in general should be a disqualification for featured article status. Without extensive citations, it makes it much easier for someone to coverly slip in either false or misleading information and/or assert a specific point of view which is not clearly supported by quality sources. Also, it raises the question just how accurate an article is if it cannot be verified by specificly cited sources. Without such verification being available, it really is hard to tell whether it is fair, accurate, and NPOV or not. On this basis, I have to agree with those above that this article right now needs a number of citations to keep it at featured article status. Otherwise, if the data were supported, the article itself looks good. Has anyone contacted the Unreferenced Good Articles WikiProject for help? I think they might make a priority of this one. Badbilltucker 15:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legacy section I began to convert the inline refs, but one of the sources for the lawsuits is a blog (reliable?), and the rest are dead links. Another knowledgeable editor might know where to source these edits, or whether they should be deleted. Sandy (Talk) 16:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sandy. I think these all have proper citations now. Paul August ☎ 18:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New look?

Chick Bowen and Paul August have done a lot of work on the article (diff). Can we get a review from other editors of what, if anything, remains to be done? I'll leave a note for the original nominator. Sandy (Talk) 13:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Statements about medical conditions, diagnoses, phobias, and details of one's personal life without citations concern me, whether in BLPs or wrt the deceased. I'd like to see inline cites on the canine phobia, fear of thunderstorms - God's wrath, John's drinking and financial mismanagement, rejection of Catholicism, squandered money his family could ill afford, mother's cancer - drinking at home - conditions grew appalling, and Stanislaus and Joyce strained relations - frivolity - drinking habits. With those, I'll be satisfied that we can avoid FARC. Sandy (Talk) 16:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's easy enough to do, but it just means a dozen more citations of Ellman. Would a broader footnote with some explanation at the beginning of each sentence do? As a scholar, if I were writing something like this, once I established that all my biographical info was coming from the same source I would more or less leave it at that. Chick Bowen 16:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not fond of the idea of broad covering footnotes, because future editors might insert something that isn't covered. I just don't like opening the door to anything about diagnoses, conditions, alcoholism, cause of death - issues of that nature - not being cited, guess it's my work on medical articles. Whatever you think best: I know that would work in a hard copy or other academic environment, but we have to confront the dynamic nature of an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and any statement that isn't ref'd might be challenged by a future editor. Sandy (Talk) 21:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've done what I could. Some things just are too general to cite, I think. The drinking particularly; it's hard to find a page of any biographical text on Joyce that doesn't mention it, so we cite particularly notable incidents of it, like the Phoenix Park fight. Chick Bowen 22:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied with the work done - thanks to all who rolled up their sleeves and dug in, Sandy (Talk) 23:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we clean up the references and external links? Maybe add a further reading section. Joelito (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can do the work of cleaning up the Footnotes, but I don't know what to do about the listy stuff after the print references, some of which is repeated in External links, and a lot of which may not be needed. Perhaps one of the Joyce-knowledgeable editors can clean out some of that (I mentioned early on that it appeared to be a link farm, it looks like too many web sources are listed, not sure if they are really used in refs) - I'll expand the footnotes. Sandy (Talk) 16:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not properly cited-Not FA right now: The article has still serious referencing problems. But first of all let me stress something, answering to those who don't regard inline citations as a prerequisite for FA status: Wikipedia is not Britannica, where almost all important articles have the signature of a prominent scholar, who guarantees for their accuracy. Here the articles are written by anonymous editors. If we do not provide (verifiable) citations, we offer no guarantee to the reader that what we write is accurate. If we want to compete encyclopedias like Britannica or Larousse, we have to adopt higher standards because of the nature of Wikipedia. That is why I strongly believe that every assessment, quote or historical fact should be cited. Bibliography is not enough, because if you don't mention a specific page your biblography is not verifiable (see a similar discussion during the FAC of Finnish Civil War). Yes, other scientific books do not have detailed citations, but they do have an eponymous editor! Fortunately or unfortunately, Wikipedia has anonymous editors, whose signature is not enough in order to guarantee and verify what they assess.

Let's go to the article now. These are the problems I found out:

  • The biography section is under-cited. I chose not to tag it with citationneeded, because I did not want to overdo it. But for me, each paragraph should have at least one inline citation. I strongly believe that we should verify all historical facts mentioned there.
  • In the next sections I added some tags in uncited assessments and quotes. It is wrong for me to cite Joyce's own words or to use terms such as "one of tthe most influential works" etc., without verifying them. Who guarantees me that these assessments are accurate or that the quotes are true?
  • Obviously, the online references and external links need cleaning.
  • I don't like some stubby or one-sentence paragraphs within the text, but this is not a major issue.

The article is good, but, in order to become FA, it definitely needs some more work. I see many dedicated editors here, and I feel confident that everything will be fixed.--Yannismarou 07:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are forty three inline citations in the article. Under such circumstances, it is difficult to assume good faith of those who continue to clamor for the article's demotion on the basis of its lack of inline citations. This is simply not true. I also object to such phrases as "in order to become FA, this article needs..." Please remember that this is not WP:FAC. The community has already identified this article as featured. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ghirla, I'm not referring to the official status. Officially, of course, it is FA. But for me it does not fulfil the current FA criteria. So, for me it needs more work in order to attain FA status. And I must confess that I'm really sad you do not assume good faith. I did not expect such a poignant remark (a remark obviously offending for me) from such an experienced and respected editor of Wikipedia. Please, try to understand that my only interest is the quality of the article. There is no reason to take it personally. And I honestly hope that you will reconsider your opinion of my not assuming good faith.--Yannismarou 10:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yannis, I've got an impression that your nebulous requirements to FAs are not shared by our community. So far, you opinion that each FA should have at least sixty inline citations remains... your personal opinion. I respect your opinion but I don't fathom how you expect to defeature the article alone. Since the nomination has been withdrawn, I don't see any point in contributing to this page. There is nothing left to discuss. Best, Ghirla -трёп- 10:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not try to defeature the article. After all this is not FARC but FAR. Here we review; we defeature in FARC. And, as Sandy noticed, the fact that the nomination is withdrawn does not influence the course of the review. Until all the concerns are addressed the review is open. And it is not just the references as you can see. After all, it is another reviewer (Sandy) not me who spoke about the "listy stuff after the print references". Thus, as you can see, the review is still open and there is much more to discuss. If the concerns are addressed, the article keeps its stat; if not it goes to FARC. But this is something to be decided later. Not now.--Yannismarou 10:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh! And I did not say that each FA should have 60 citations. You interpreted in a different way what I say. I said that an article of such length should have 60+. These are two different things.--Yannismarou 11:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To the point, I'm happy the referencing is imroved and my tags are replaced with citations, but my belief remains that the biography section still needs more referencing. And of course references (the online sources) and external links (are they all necessary? And, if yes, shouldn't they be categorized or alphabetized?) still need cleaning.--Yannismarou 10:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<Sigh.> Thanks to Ghirla for providing additional referencing. I am happy to trim down the external links section. However, I must join with some of the grumpier people on this page and say that the statement, "The article still has serious referencing problems" is completely innaccurate. It might have been true when this review began; it is certainly not true now. I would characterize Yannismarou's objections as quite minor indeed. Chick Bowen 02:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can choose any characterization you want, but my "objections" are actionable. A question about the References: I still see a long list of external links even after Chick Bowen's cleaning. Are all of them used in footnotes? Because, if they are not, these links are not references but external links, where they should be placed. The distinction must be clear here.--Yannismarou 07:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Links fixed, thanks (all external links mentioned in footnotes are linked separately there). I never said they weren't actionable, and I never said I wasn't grateful for any advice, but you do understand after several of us have put so much work in that we'd be a bit put off by (in my mind) unduly sharp criticism. All constructive comments are very welcome of course, and we'll do the best we can to continue to improve the article. Chick Bowen 07:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK! It looks much better. I still have some (let's say "minor") reservations about the level of referencing, but the article has been indeed improved.--Yannismarou 08:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another new look

Move to close FAR. Thank you, Chick Bowen - this is so much better. This addresses the concern I raised earlier, Yannis seems generally satisfied, the original nominator is satisfied, and if the final changes address Joel's concern, I move that we close this FAR. Sandy (Talk) 09:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If other reviewers do not have the same opinion with me and do not think that the Biography section should be a bit more referenced, I won't insist and I won't ask for moving it to FARC.--Yannismarou 07:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Garter

Review commentary

Messages left at Emsworth, UK notice board, Middle Ages, and Nurismatics. Sandy (Talk) 20:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has no inline citations (1c) and the image in the lead has an inappropriate copyright tag (3). Jay32183 20:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'd like to know how Lord Emsworth feels when he returns to Wikipedia and sees so many of his FAs defeatured or at FAR/C. LuciferMorgan 23:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as far as the image, I don't know. But I'm sure an article doesn't have to have inline citations(altough it would be nice). Suffencient references are given in the appropiate section. Joe I 09:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a review, not a removal candidate, so we aren't voting yet. Inline citations are required to verify specific facts. Right now a non-expert can't verify anything. You are right that if the image were the only problem that the article wouldn't be listed here, but it still needs to be fixed. Jay32183 13:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please see above.  :) Joe I 10:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Needs inline citations (1. c.) and I feel it may possibly be too listy which makes the article disjointed (1. a.). LuciferMorgan 09:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a great article! The lack of inline is because he didn't write it when inline was required, or even available (it was a problematic template system). He lists the references used in writing it, and this is how legitimate academic scholarly works are done. The level of inline citation that seems to be the "norm" now at Wikipedia is at the far end of the extreme in scholarly works - and inline citations don't mean an article is of good quality. -- Stbalbach 15:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Uncited, extremely listy, some version of something that looks like it wants to be See also or Notables but is just a long list, does not conform to WP:LAYOUT. Sandy (Talk) 16:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the lists of the members could be split off into its own article unless anybody objects, but I don't think the bullet points in the body are a particular problem. Should be easy to cite - I'll come back to it in FARC if nobody does anything on it. Yomanganitalk 01:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A list of all the members ever already exists at List of Knights and Ladies of the Garter. Given that it's such an exclusive Order (26 members + royal extras) I don't think it's inappropriate to list all the current members in the article; it's certainly the sort of thing someone looking up the subject would probably want to know. Maybe a two-column format would make it look better. A lot of the other bulleted sections in the text (e.g. vestments) could easily have the bullets removed. What layout problems specifically did you have in mind, Sandy? I may be able to help cite this, but I'm quite busy at the moment. Dr pda 03:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Discussion on citations moved to talk page. Sandy (Talk) 19:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've mostly finished on this. I've split off the current member list just because it was easier to handle that way. There are two paragraphs that I haven't been able to reference which I think must come from the Begent and Chesshyre book - I'll try and get hold of this, but feel free to move it to FARC in the meantime. Yomanganitalk 16:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are insufficient citations (1c) and images (3). Marskell 06:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Much work already done. Moving it down to keep it on track. Marskell 06:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I've added references from Begent and Chesshyre to the remaining paragraphs so just about everything is cited now (although a unsourced statement about a possible link to Sir Gawain and the Green Knight was recently added). I removed the assertion that some of the vestments were designed for the coronation of George IV because this wasn't mentioned in B&C, and is indeed inconsistent with the details given in the article about each item (the hat may well have been, though). I've also replaced the picture of the Queen Mother, which was a copyvio (painted in 1938 by an artist who died in 1972, so not "no rights due of age" as stated on the image page). The image of the garter needs to be properly tagged or replaced. I notice the section about the chapel of the Order got split off to its own article some time ago. For consistency with the articles on the other orders I think there should at least be a paragraph with a {{Main}} tag. Dr pda 14:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed the header picture, as I don't see how we can claim fair use just because it is a better picture than the ones we already have. I've also removed the Sir Gawain statement, as "a presumed link" sounds like OR to me (and I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere so it isn't generally presumed). I've also cancelled my order for the C&B book! Yomanganitalk 15:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's mostly very well written, but the prose needs cleaning up in places (sorry to sound like a broken gramaphone record). Take the opening:
The Most Noble Order of the Garter is an English order of chivalry with a history stretching back to mediæval times; today it is the world's oldest national order of knighthood in continuous existence and the pinnacle of the British honours system. Its membership is extremely limited, consisting of the Sovereign and not more than twenty-five full members, or Companions. Male members are known as Knights Companion, whilst female members are known as Ladies Companion (not Dames, as in most other British chivalric orders).
    • Remove "with a history of".
    • The use of semicolons throughout is problematic. Needs an audit to ensure that the closeness of statements is logically expressed by semicolons vs stops. The first one here, I think, should be a stop.
    • "oldest national order of knighthood in continuous existence"—try "oldest continuous order ...".
    • Remove "extremely" (what does it mean here?)
    • "Whilst" is a personal hate of mine: why not simply "and" as a link?

And further on:

    • Again, the relationship between statements is a problem: "The Order was founded in 1348 by King Edward III as "a society, fellowship and college of knights."[1] Various dates ranging from 1344 to 1351 have also been proposed." It's a contrastive, isn't it? "The Order was (or "appears to have been") founded ..., although other dates have been proposed, from ...".

A 30-minute run-through by fresh eyes should be enough. Tony 01:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Dr pda and I have both run through it (eyes at least, if not exactly fresh). I've asked a few people to have a go, but it will be a while before they can get to it, so if anybody wants to volunteer... I've left "oldest national order of knighthood in continuous existence" as I think that it makes it clear that the order's existence is continuous rather than the order being a honour that can continue by being passed down through the generations - I couldn't see how to rephrase it and maintain that distinction (fresh eyes will deal with that appropriately, I guess). Yomanganitalk 14:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I know the review has passed now, but since you mention this early sentence: I reduced it to simply "It is the world's oldest national order of knighthood, and the pinnacle of the British honours system", but perhaps that oversimplifies it. I figured that "is" adequately says that it currently exists. I may have misunderstood the meaning of "continuous" here. I saw it as the excess verbosity one often sees. ("My grandma is the oldest member of my family in continuous existence.") I'll try something else, and make Tony's suggested changes also. –Outriggr § 08:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my mind. "Continuous" is staying out unless someone wishes to put it back, and most of the other comments above look to have been addressed. –Outriggr § 08:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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=112201232"