Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/April 2007

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Raul654 (talk | contribs) at 02:29, 30 June 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Kept status

Belgium

Article is no longer a featured article

This article has several problems

  • No citation at all, and no references
  • It is poorly written and seems amatureish, plus it is in dire need of trimming/rewriting/editing
  • There is only one image that is not a map, and even the maps are of poor quality
  • The links are not organised in any way
  • The article is slightly biased towards the Flemmish government

Definitely NOT featured standard, if you ask me! Páll 07:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Remove. No references. Lead is too short. Lot's of tiny paras. Nominated a year ago. A good example of how our standards are evolving. This would not pass a FA today. Remove and send to PR. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. No references. - Taxman Talk 15:38, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove - More than enough time given to fix. --mav 02:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have just added {{farc}} to Talk:Belgium (4½ days after it was first nominated). I think we should give its regular editors a chance to respond to this criticism. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think there would be any problem with starting the clock based on that time instead. Just gives more time to fix it if someone is able. - Taxman Talk 20:53, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
I tried to improve on some things, but haven't the knowledge to fix others, such as the "history" jumping from 800 to 1800 in one sentence, after laboring over ancient stuff for several paragraphs.
The lead paragraph is still way substandard. And doesn't the article give their art and trade status remarkably short shrift? Sfahey 1 July 2005 04:14 (UTC)
  • Remove The writing is very sloppy in sections. The link dump at the end needs trimming and organizing. ike9898 July 8, 2005 09:21 (UTC)
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 08:07, 1 June 2007.

Bahá'í Faith

Review commentary

Messages left at User talk:Dmcdevit and Religion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

doesn't have criticism section suffers from over all POV, ignores criticism section guidelines comparison with islam christianity articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esmehwp (talk • contribs)

  • Uh... huh? JuJube 11:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what the editor is contesting, and they don't cite the "guidelines" the article "ignores". Wonder if this is in good faith. MARussellPESE 12:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lead needs expansion, it might be a little oversectionalized, other than that at a quick glance I don't see any other MoS issues. I fixed a "didn't" and two section headers that began with "The". Dates look fine, Summary style is employed well, I don't have any knowledge on the subject so I couldn't speak as to content accuracy and/or POV. Quadzilla99 05:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, apparently "The Bab" and "The Convenant" are the way those two are referred to in Bahá'í circles so another user re-inserted them in the section titles. Reviewers should note that. Quadzilla99 14:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here's a couple of minor things that could be fixed:
        • "differing from the other traditions only in its relative newness and in the appropriateness of Bahá'u'lláh's teachings to the modern context." Newness just sounds weird to me, a better word could probably be found.
        • There's a couple of times when things such as "[the faith] is seen as" or "Bahá'ís beliefs are sometimes described as" are without a source, like the second paragraph of the section titled Religion.
        • There are some constructions that I'd like to see use stronger, more definite language: "Although it concentrates on social and ethical issues as well, some of the Bahá'í Faith's foundational texts might be described as mystical."
        • "Study circles" section doesn't have any citations.
        • Since homosexuality is outlawed, maybe the article could use some more coverage of that issue, instead of one sentence mentioning it's outlawed with a link to a subpage discussing the issue.
        • The Persecution section deals with presecution since 1979, I realize earlier persecution is dealt with in the history section, but maybe some earlier incidents merit mention here. Quadzilla99 15:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment - I have changed the article to address the above suggestions, though the persecution section might be too long now. Thanks for taking the time to look into it. Regards, -- Jeff3000 17:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wow, instant service! Thanks for addressing those so quick, this should be able to avoid FARC. One more thing to nitpick over, I was actually more unhappy with the weakness of the word "might" in the sentence quoted above, "has been" or "have been" might be better. Quadzilla99 18:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b) and POV (1d). Marskell 03:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments on FARC. Quadzilla99 00:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be clear I'm keep but as for points for future improvement—the lead could be expanded per WP:LEAD, there a lot of sections but I think they present a logical division; maybe they can be reduced somehow but I don't see how in most cases personally (the two international plans could be combined though maybe), you could condense the multiple refs using the system in Tourette Syndrome, and some of the lists could perhaps be converted into prose (such as the one in the "United Nations" section). But I don't see any of these as major problems; as I said in some instances I personally don't see any other way to present the information. Quadzilla99 00:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All valid complaints already addressed by Jeff3000. JuJube 00:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 17:53, 31 May 2007.

Buckingham Palace

Review commentary

Messages left at User talk:ALoan, England, Architecture, British Royalty, WikiProject Biography/Royalty, WikiProject London, British Government and UK noticeboard. LuciferMorgan 11:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this, it is very comprehensive and there is a lot of information. However, i feel it does not cite enough references, it is not clear which information came from which book and the lead is rather long. Therefore is propose looking at 1)c) and 2)a). Simply south 10:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There seem to be quite enough references to me. It is just a matter of not being, as Simply south says, "clear which information came from which book". In other words, the inline citation issue. The lead is marginally long. JPD (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undeniably it is very scarcely referenced; and there are a lot of red links —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Scarcely" referenced? What, eight apposite paper sources are now no longer enough? And I count a mere nine redlinks. What is the matter with redlinks anyway? They are the way that new content is added. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem with the page at all, nothing contraversial. Giano 16:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which parts of the lead you would leave out, if you think it should be shorter? Yes, it has five paragraphs, which is perhaps more than WP:LEAD recommends; on the other hand, it is a long article, and the lead is a good summary of it. I doubt we are going to get anywhere rehashing old arguments about the "density" of inline citations. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article is fine. The lead is longer than a paragraph, but this is only if you define "lead" as "bit above the TOC." There is a lead paragraph, but there is an introduction to the subject, and it requires that much space. The references question is not a question at all: the thing is fine. Red links are a sign that you and you and you need to either stop over-linking or need to start writing; they have nothing to do with this article's FA status. Utgard Loki 17:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've attempted to trim down the lead - there were a number of places where it diverted into marginal relevance and the partial explanation of the pre-Palace history did not entirely cohere. The amount of lead I've removed is quite bold, but please do think about whether it needs all that stuff reinserted. Regarding the inline cites: I felt the assertion that Buckingham Palace was deliberately targeted by the Germans in WWII was sufficiently challengable to require an inline cite — and I'm a military history geek, I'm sure an art history geek would find a number of other challengeable assertions (though I obviously can't tell you what they are ;). Regards, The Land 19:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do what you like - I wrote it once and now I'm through with FAs. It has been much edited, and I refuse ever again to have anything to do with a page in which LuciferMorgan is in anyway involved (i.e. here) so its farewell from me on this subject. Giano 20:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He has only been involved in notifying people that this page exists... The Land 20:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Mr. ALoan is involved, there's no reason we can't get through this quickly. Some notes:
  • Embedded links are deprecated on FAs; should conform to the footnote style of the rest.
  • I notice one one sentence paragraph. Check for these.
  • The lead was too long and the trim is good. Some could be added back, such as a sentence on the pre-1800s property, but compressed.
  • Check for consistency in spaces and full stop location around ref numbers.
  • No, red links are not a criteria concern.
  • No, density of citations is not a criteria concern. I think we can amicably look through this for any statements "likely to be challenged."
And yes, LM was only notifying people that the review exists. There's no harm in that. Marskell 22:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), and LEAD (2a). Marskell 12:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some of the little stuff has already been taken care of. I flagged one quote and some BLP info (hidden). Marskell 12:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another bullshit FARC a la Restoration literature. I even see the same people voting keep, and oddly enough these people are never at FARC.. Go figure. LuciferMorgan 13:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explain yourself please - in full Giano 13:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or don't. For God's sake Lucifer, there was no need for a flame post. At this point, the article is not in keep territory. But ALoan knows what he's doing, so we can wait. And shut up. Marskell 14:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you shut up for a change Marskell and do us all a favour? Every FARC once in a while you seem to poke your nose in for no good reason. Just because you're an admin don't think I'll put up with you telling me to shut up - you throw something at me and I'll throw it straight back Marskell. LuciferMorgan 16:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get too excited and over-tired everybody, because next week I've booked the Battle of Pearl Harbor performed by the Batley Townswomen's Guild in the FARC for Bulbasaur. Yomanganitalk 17:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's ok then. If you see read Attack on Pearl Harbor you will see that it was a minor incident which caused few casualties and had little strategic consequence, except causing the USA to win World War II. grumble grumble grumble ;) The Land 17:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why all of this discussion got indented under my Comment, since it's not a response to me, and it's not a conversation involving me? Unindenting ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the moment the page is just about fine. However, I have been saying for the last 18 months that it is too big and high profile a page to be reasonably maintained. Too many want to add their Auntie Mabel's night of passion with a GI in the rose garden on VE night, or one of their terrible holiday photos or some other such nonsense. In short unless it is almost constantly watched it is unstable. When I turned it from a stub into an FA it was a very different page to that today, I no longer have the will or the time to constantly monitor it, so it can only go one way. I think there is a case for these very big high profile pages to be permanently protected or at least only open to selected editors, but that "aint" going to happen. So it may as well be abandoned. I don't see the point of anyone spending huge amounts of time working on it just to satisfy demands here. Giano 13:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relative to many FAs, I wouldn't call this unstable and we certainly shouldn't demote on 1e. It's at 30k readable prose, which is fine, though the lead might be trimmed some more. WRT to work needed, see this edit from DrKiernan. He has rapidly become our top royalty editor and the embedded concerns and fact requests seem knowledgeable and fair. If that is taken care of, along with the redlinked newspaper and any BLP info in "Security" (that section could also be trimmed) I think we'd be very close. Marskell 15:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an expert on Royalty he will doubtless know that many of those facts he has tagged come from the Buckingham Palace Guide book listed in the refs - others have obviously been added by numerous other editors, and as for the sentence reading oddly from the "Sunday Graphic" that will have to be taken up with the editor of that illustrious organ - if he is still alive. In the time it took him to make those edits he could have fixed it up - Oh yes, the Normanby to Normandy is changed regularly - it should be Normanby. I cited all the references I used and the time of the FAC and that is all I am prepared to do. At the moment there is nothing wrong with the page, although a few people have added sections I would prefer to trim, and ending withthis section is very odd [1] but it seems a shame to upset people for such trivial reasons. The page contains all, and often more than, people need or want to know about the palace - and if they want to check a fact the references are there for them to do so. It you choose to demote this page that is entirely up to you, and no problem for me as I won't be the one maintaining it. Giano 16:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

Big Bang

This article is still a featured article

The article is not NPOV, not historically or factually accurate, and attempts to portray a theory as uncontested scientific fact. Edit wars have been going on for years and will no doubt continue. The article fails 1, 2, and 3 of the featured article criteria. Those who know better have been unable to change the article to a more NPOV position due to constant reverts by Big Bang proponents. The unknowing public could come across this page and be completely misinformed and mislead about the ongoing controversy surrounding the topic. Getting the article Featured in the first place was no doubt a ploy from an article proponent to further remove attempts to contest the factual accuracy of the article. Failure to remove the featured status of this article will only result in continued decline of the quality and accuracy of the article. [posted by Ionized at 19:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)][reply]

  • Do we accept anonymous nominations? ThisThanks for adding an attribution to the nomination. If this was an anon, I would have said (did say) that the nomination smacks of trolling. Keep, of course.-- ALoan (Talk) 21:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am not an anon user. For over 2 years the article has been in edit wars. To consider it factual is to look at it solely through the eyes of its paradigm. It is a horrible candidate for Featured status because of the reasons already stated above. New contributors to the article are obviously not reading the past archived talk pages, for the article is back in a state that was previously fought about heavily. I expect to see nothing but 'keep' votes however, because dissenters are simply BANNED from this website! It is sickening, and the Featured status of the article is only going to be used to further restrict any changes that can be done to it. --Ionized
  • Keep. It seemse very well thought out and presented, and NPOV as far as I can see.--naryathegreat | (talk) 00:25, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Joke137 05:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I feel the need to point out that this is not a vote for deletion of the article, rather simply a vote to remove its 'Featured' status. My points are entirely valid, longstanding, and backed up by the history of the page. I simply want it removed from being 'Featured', this would appease me and you can all go about your merry editing of false information without my further interruption. --Ionized
The above vote comment is blatantly false. It has been contested by professionals in peer-reviewed scientific journals for years. A simple perusal of the talk pages will verify this fact as the references are within. If it was not contested I would have no right to make the claim. --Ionized
This doesn't mean it can't be an FA. It has mention of alternative theories. ~~ N (t/c) 21:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What is a scientific fact? --R.Koot 21:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am not disputing the mention of alternatives, although even in their mentioning they are disclaimed. The article attempts to outline the history of the theory but does so inaccurately. That alone breaks rule number 2 of the requirements for a FA. Previous attempts to enlighten with more factual historical basis always resulted in edit wars, after which the article was simply reverted back to the innacurate version, and users that attempted to fix the article correctly where either banned or threatened. The history of Gamow's predictions and Hubble's law are just two examples. R. Koot, your inanity is not helping this issue. Sidenote, just figured out my old login so here is the official stamp so that the community doesnt accuse me of impersonating --Ionized 23:09, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-10 15:29
  • Comment: The only thing 'obvious' is this communities lack of commitment to a quality and accurate portrayal of encyclopedic information. It is to your own discredit that the article will remain 'Featured', for if this 'Exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work, representing what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet.', then it helps to set a laughable standard of quality and accuracy for Wikipedia. Its interesting that a simple democratic vote can overrule absolutely valid points, are you people getting paid to adhere to the dogma? Rather than simply removing its featured status like you should, by voting to keep you will simply force me to "be bold" in editing the article. I planned on not touching the article had you simply removed its featured status, but if it is to remain featured than it needs a large overhaul so that it more truly represents historical fact.(edit: I guess thats not true, I didnt plan on editing the article and even if it is kept as Featured I wont touch it, cause I know from experience that edits result only in reverts and edit wars) --Ionized 17:19, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Please would you take this to the article's talk page: it would be interesting to see a list of the points of change that you think are necessary to make this article historically accurate. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed such a list would be interesting to see, however it is already imbedded in the page history and the archived talk pages, hence I hesitate to spend time doing as you request because I know from previous experience that the recommendations are ignored and/or censored. What you are asking of me has already been done in the past. Since this is the case, the burden does not lay on my shoulders to re-iterate it all. It wasnt even my intent, the intent was simply to remove the FA status of the article, knowing with certainty that any proper revision to the article is impossible. However, I can state that the history behind Hubble's Law and Gamow's predictions, even starting with the 2nd sentence in the preamble, are being portrayed in a manner that is inconsistent with historical fact solely because the current wording lends false credibility to the BB theory. It is not entirely the BB proponents fault, most of them truly believe that history happened as it is written on the page, contrary even to the cited sources which state otherwise (again, see the archived talk pages.) To make the article historically accurate would require a complete re-writing, which is not what I was requesting, as it would no doubt only begin a new era of edit wars on the page, which is not my intent. The fact is, if the information in the article would be written correctly, any one reading it objectively would realize that the BB foundations are not rock solid. Since this would cause utter distress to the BB community, the article is simply not allowed to be written accurately. Again, all that I requested was that the article is no longer Featured, that would be good enough for me. It is more than obvious that this request will not happen, hence any further action by me on the matter would be entirely fruitless. I DO NOT intend to 'be bold' and re-write the article. --Ionized 21:01, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks fine to me. What exactly is a "Big Bang proponent"? Are those the people who convinced God to create the universe? Well I hope they've learned their lesson. Kaldari 06:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article does not qualify as a featured article in its current version, and this regardless of if the Big bang happened or not. The article is an OK Wikipedia article, but not an OK featured article. I don't see how it is really NPOV, to present in the lead section, the position without its critics, I don't see how it is NPOV, to present the position, and even use terms as if the subject is a mathematical notion and an absolute truth, and in the "Features, issues and problems," every problems are answered, without indicating that there are also debates and answers to those answers themselves. NPOV also requires to present the best arguments of each sides and their critics. While the arguments are presented in one side, their critics are dumped in a section to then being criticized in their own turns. The article for this reason sound more as a theses, and while is a good article, does not have this plus thing that would make of it, featured. I really don't see how anyone would claim that words such as this: "This apparent inconsistency is resolved by inflationary theory" are not POV. Fadix 18:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no scientific debate over the merits of the Big Bang theory. It is true that there are those who object to the Big Bang. There are also those who object to any scientific claim you care to make. We mention the critics in the article and give them appropriate amount of space with respect to how notable their claims are -- they certainly don't belong in the lead section any more than creationists belong in the lead section of the evolution article. Joshuaschroeder 18:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For those of you looking for a wiki safe from the scourge of science, I would suggest CreationWiki. They have a wonderful article on the Big Bang, BTW, which I'm sure could use dedicated editors. Interestingly, their intro paragraph doesn't mention criticisms either. Kaldari 19:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is a good article, but I'm not sure it would make featured if it was put up today. It's not friendly enough to non-technical readers (even the intro doesn't exactly ease people in), and on the other hand lacks detail in some areas. Presumably this is why, oddly, the History comes before the Overview - because the History is relatively nontechnical. But what's called for is a better structure, leading from simple fairly non-technical overview (of theory, history, issues, debate) to more detailed theory overview to theory detail. Rd232 21:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:11, 22 August 2005 (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 09:14, 29 May 2007.

United Kingdom corporation tax

Review commentary

Messages left at User talk:Jguk, UK notice board, and B&E. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article has no inline references at all. Nssdfdsfds 15:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. This has been on my long list ever since jguk pushed it to FA in early 2005. I will have to see what I can do. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was my comment as well when I reviewed it for WikiProject Taxation. Good article but I'd like to see inline citations. For someone not familiar with UK corporate taxes, it is difficult to verify with just a references section. Morphh (talk) 14:18, 04 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone willing to start on a list of the facts that are the highest priority to be cited directly? Basically those most central to the topic and or most controversial if there are any. Even though I know nothing about the topic, I'll pitch in where I can over the next couple weeks, but I won't be able to get to it right away. - Taxman Talk 02:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to help out in a couple of days time. I also know nothing about corporation tax, but given time I can usually translate HMRC speak into English, so I can plough through the manual. Do you mean to {{fact}} the necessary points, or to write up a list on the talk page? Winklethorpe 07:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're asking me I was just referring to writing up a list here or on the talk page. But if you can just plow through it go ahead. I'll pitch in when I can. - Taxman Talk 03:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a section on the talk page to collate referencing issues. Please contribute as you can. Winklethorpe 20:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fast track to FARC? Significantly under-referenced, and the prose will definitely need a spruce-up. It's a complicated topic, so the prose needs to be as simple and crisp as possible.
    • "the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 as amended from time to time." Remove the last four words.
    • "the rules governing corporation tax"—a comma would make sense before "the".
    • "have diverged more and more"—"have increasingly diverged" would be neater and more formal.
    • "The tax borrowed its basic structure and many of its rules from income tax. It is currently governed by"—Referent for "It"?
    • "as of 2005"—update this unstable area?
    • "Neither term is formally defined. However, capital implies something of enduring benefit, revenue implies that it is normally ongoing expenditure." Ideal place for a semicolon after "defined".
    • "For example, expenditure by a company on acquiring a new head office will be capital; expenditure on stationery will be revenue."—Present, not future tense would be more direct. Tony 23:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • How would fast tracking to FARC help anything? We've got several people willing to help, we just need more time. If you see prose errors fix what you can. - Taxman Talk 03:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • As you get to it, WP:MSH issues to be tended to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm sure I've seen that having a heading directly after another heading (e.g. History then introduction in this article) isn't approved of, but I can't find it. Could anyone confirm/deny? On the time element, I intend to make a serious attempt on the references, but have an important RL task to do over the next two days that'll slow me down. Winklethorpe 20:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've seen the double heading critique in the FAC but I haven't found it in the MOS. Morphh (talk) 3:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
              • Ah yes, it was someone on a FAC saying they didn't like it, rather than that it was in the MOS. To a certain extent I agree. In other news, I'm (hopefully) towards the end of referencing the article now. Winklethorpe (talk) 08:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), prose (1a), MoS issues (2). Marskell 14:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why has this been moved to FARC? To quote from above "The nomination should last two weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process." A look at the page history will show you that I've just spent the last 11 days moving the page from zero citations to 100, and I'm not quite done yet. To do this I've had to learn the tax from scratch. I've only just (as in yesterday) begun to address the prose issues, by printing the article out to mark up. Quite clearly it would be "useful to continue the process", as the task of referencing was so huge that it's taken up the whole two weeks.
The current premature move to FARC means that people will be commenting on the article before any of the prose concerns have been looked at. Please return it to review for, say, a week. Winklethorpe (talk) 10:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it should be moved back to FAR and given another week or so. - I'll work on it when I can. Morphh (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The move down here in no way precludes further work on the article. We just try to keep things on pace and I didn't see a close early consensus. Don't worry, it's another two weeks here. Just keep people updated how the work is going. Marskell 10:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there was no consensus for an early close - the article was clearly in need of significant work. My point was that the move appeared to violate the guideline "The nomination should last two weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process." If you considered that guideline and decided that the current case did not fit it, that's fine, just let me know your reasoning and I'll most likely accept it. Winklethorpe (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any way you slice it this has been a major improvement. Fantastic work, Winklethorpe. The most serious problem of citations has been remedied, so what's left is to improve the prose. I don't think the article is in removeable territory now anyway, but improvements in flow of the prose would be well appreciated. I'll see what I can add. - Taxman Talk 19:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments.
    • Tax and Corporate tax as See also in an article about tax ?? Can't those be worked into the text?
    • Terms like HMRC and HMSO are used throughout, but never defined or wikilinked (not everyone lives in the UK).
    • A whole lot of inconsistency in the formatting of footnotes. Please identify PDFs. Most of the websources have no last access date, and I'm surprised at how few of these tax documents have publication dates — is that accurate? References need extensive cleanup — they are mostly just blue links, with no publisher, date, author, last access date, etc. (See WP:CITE/ES)
    • Incorrect use of hyphens instead of mdash throughout — please see WP:DASH Also, incorrect use of hyphen in place of ndash on date ranges. Hyphens (-) join words. Ndash joins dates and ranges on numbers (–). Mdash is used as punctuation (—).
    • See also to a red link? If further explanation is needed, it should be provided. Life assurance companies are taxed using the above rate on shareholder profits and 20% on policy holder profits[75] (See also: I minus E basis)
  • SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to excuse my inexperience on a lot of these (in the sense of explaining them to me, rather than tolerating them).
  • See also - Tax is already in the article, so I guess I'll take it out. Corporate tax is a rather stubby more general article. I'll see if it'll go in somewhere.
  • part done - tax removed. A bit stuck on where to work the other in.
  • Now fully done
  • In the main article, HMRC is never used without HM Revenue and Customs having been used shortly before it - I made sure of that. Do you feel it would be appropriate to expand the HMRC's, or to do HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to introduce them? It's just the full title is very tedious to read all the time. HMSO is only used in the refs, so I'll wikilink it, and HMRC, in the refs - expanding it would just unnecessarily pad the refs, I feel.
  • It doesn't need to be on every ref; it just neeeds to be defined on its first occurrence. That is, the first time you use HM Revenue and Customs, follow it with (HMRC). And, what is HM ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "HM" is Her Majesty. Until she dies. At which point it's His Majesty. Which is why, unless they're being ultra formal, departments use HM. See [HM Revenue and Customs website] for an example. I know you might think it would be good to expand on it in an article, but think: at some point in a decade or so, we'd have to go and change every single Her Majesty. It doesn't bear thinking about. Winklethorpe (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • now done
  • Refs: I have a bit of a problem here. The lions share of the refs are to a HMRC manual, which lacks a named author (in fact, it will be multiple people within HMRC), or publication date, as they are "living" documents (as they like to put it), and so under constant revision as legislation, court cases, or policy changes come in. Publisher is HMRC, as cited. I've got "retrieved on" everything that's online and likely to change - is "last access date" the same thing? I modelled the refs on how I'd seen other FAs do them, as no cite template seemed appropriate (and I've used templates where possible; I guess "internal manual" isn't a common source), but I'm happy to change. I'm not sure how you mean about pdfs.
  • If they have no author or date, you need not supply one — I was just checking. For people on old computers, browsers, or Adobe Acrobat versions, it's helpful that you warn them of PDFs by including (PDF) after the article link. That way, dummies like me won't bomb out their computer while watching the ball game :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (PDF) done.
  • Dashes - I'll read up on those and fix them (and that one back there is probably wrong, eh?)
  • done (Where done = "I think I've got the hang of them")
  • Missed that "see also" - the original author seemed fond of things like that. I will fix.
  • done
On a very minor note, saying "not everyone lives in the UK" was a little off - unconsciously assuming the reader knows what you know is a mistake we all fall into. Other than that, if you can help me out with getting the references up to spec, then hopefully this will be an article saved. Were you content with the prose, or is that to come? Winklethorpe (talk) 22:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the prose rough going, but I wasn't focusing. I'll look again; nothing rose to the level of Remove. Well ... actually, what I found rough was that I wasn't sure the TOC reflected good article organization, but I'd need to study it more carefully. On topics like math, physics, and taxes, it helps to make an extra effort at clarity so as not to make the subject matter harder than it is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I've tried to trim the prose down where it was too wordy, but I've not done any serious rewriting - we'd need to find someone who really knew the field to rewrite without getting things wrong. I know what you mean about the structure. It does actually make sense as a structure you go through it, but there's probably a perfect way to organise it that I can't think of. Vast majority All of your other points dealt with as above. Winklethorpe (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove unless a copy-editor goes through it thoroughly. 1a and 1b at issue. Here are examples:
    • "Prior to it taking effect on"—yuck; exposed right at the top. "Had" in the next clause is redundant.
    • "with a single measure, corporation tax,"—Remove "measure,"; remove "many". Remove "currently". Insert "the' before "modernisation".
  • I felt the "currently" prevented it contradicting that the Finance Act 1965 created, and therefore governed, the tax. "Many" seemed appropriate, as it was many, but not all, rules (the point that it was more than simply a rebranding of income tax for corporations needs to be made, I think).
    • "the first major amendment to corporation tax saw it move to an imputation system from 1973 to 1999"—timeframe unclear.
    • "Problems for the tax"—bit loose; "for" for people. Remove "certain".
    • "wide scale reform"—hyphen required.
    • "tax law rewrite project"—does it have a proper title? Tony 02:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does indeed have a proper title. The Tax Law Rewrite project. Sorry, but the capacity of bureaucracy to give things really boring titles knows no bounds. You can check this by following the ref on the first mention.
I recently rewrote quite a lot of the lead to make it a more balanced summary, so the majority of what you have pointed out is my inexperienced work. It's possible that the rest of the article is better. I've certainly tried to chop out some of the wordiness I found through the article. Would you care to look further down than the lead? Other than that, I've addressed your specific points (except the one you just said "yuck" to), although I've made some comments above. I will try to summon a copyeditor. Winklethorpe (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is still in need of a lot of work. I just spent a lot of time trying to clean up the trainwreck of different formats for footnotes, and found many other things while in there. I may have fixed all the dates, but they were all over the place in terms of formatting and wikilinking. The References section is still a sloppy, mumble-jumble. The Budget is sometimes capped, sometimes not. There is unattributed opinion from a guest columnist here, suggesting that a POV review may be needed by someone familiar with the topic. A new set of eyes is needed to run through the entire article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well Sandy, thank you for your work on improving the article. However, I have to say I took umbrage at you describing the results of my hard work on adding 100 references to the article from scratch as a "trainwreck". Perhaps "inconsistant" or even "incorrect" would have conveyed your meaning whilst providing constructive criticism - I'm happy to fix anything that's pointed out to me. In fact, I said much the same thing in reply to your previous comments on the footnotes on 29th April. I see that, for example, you have changed my cite news of an article that appears in the Sunday Times print edition, which gave the url to the online archive along with the print details, to a cite web. If cite web is correct, then that's fine, but I made an honest judgement at the time about which template to use. In fact, as cite web is "specifically for web sites which are not news sources", I'm going to need cluing in on why cite web is appropriate here.
  • My sincerest apologies, Winklethorpe. I used that description because I had the impression citations had been added piecemeal over time by different editors using different styles, because of the red-linked dates, lack of accessdates, some missing info, etc. I'm really sorry for my rudeness.
  • On the cite web vs. cite news issue, perhaps you can help clear up a long-standing confusion ... another UK editor long ago changed my usage of cite news for bbc.co.uk articles to cite web, saying it was only an online version. If that Sunday Times article in fact does appear in print, then yes, it should be cite news, not cite web. Do you know if this is the situation with bbc.co.uk ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The BBC site has stories generated from reportage for bbc tv or radio, but the stories never appear in print elsewhere (caveat: the BBC print some monthly magazines, so that might not be quite true.) Timesonline, by contrast, has a combination of reprinted articles and custom content (there's a discreet little "From the Sunday Times" or "From Times Online" at the top of articles). I'd still call a bbc.co.uk article a news source, myself, but I suppose there's going to be a grey area as you move from the major media to minor websites.
  • As the references section has had little done apart from a little updating, I won't worry at you calling it "a sloppy, mumble-jumble". Any pointers?
  • I will have a crack at it
  • now done. The Finance Acts reference is still a bit messy, but as it's better than referencing 50 or so pieces of legislation individually, I've left it. The Legal & General link is broken and I can't get it back - it looks like they've deleted their older press releases from their website.
  • You appear not to like "e.g.". Fair enough, I'll change it. Personally I have no problem with it, and certainly wouldn’t consider it “sloppy”, as you do.
  • On the "unattributed opinion from a guest columnist", I'm not sure in what way it's unattributed? It's by an named member of parliament, writing an opinion piece in an established newspaper - nothing unusual there. It is used to reference a mention of criticism of a decision in the 1999 Budget that has been blamed for harming pension funds. The mention of the criticism was already in the article when I got to it, and so I went looking for an appropriate cite, which that seemed to be. I certainly didn't detect any serious POV in the article when I read it - there are a few mentions of criticisms here and there, but compared to the amount of noise companies make about every Budget, it's a fair reflection of the more notable episodes of controversy for the tax. If you'd like a new set of eyes to run through the article, it seems to me that you've already provided them.
  • The opinion should be attributed to that named member of parliament in the article, with something like "so-and-so said such-and-such" ... Since I'm not familiar with UK taxes, I can't really provide a POV check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I'll see how I can word it.
  • now done.

I added definitions of and the correct links to HMSO and HMRC to their first occurrence in the article; defining acronyms is good practice, and will help non-UK readers with the abbreviations. Please correct as needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know red links are not a bad thing, but a red link in the lead is different. If it's important enough to be mentioned in the lead, can't a stub be written for Finance Act 1965 ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More capitalization confusion:

  • As the UK's Tax Law Rewrite project[3] has proceeded with the modernisation of income tax, ...

It's capitalized in this article, but not capped in its own article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah right - the story there is that I capitalised it after a comment by Tony, but haven't reviewed the specific article yet. Tax Law Rewrite is the official title, and it was clear from Tony's comment that leaving it uncapped made it sound like a badly written description of the project (the ability of officialdom to come up with terrible titles is amazing). Winklethorpe (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Winklethorpe. I usually don't wade too deep into FARC, but here are some comments.
That's fine, this is my first time at FARC (or FA)!
    • I'm confused by the use of terminology here. "UK tax makes a distinction between revenue and capital. Neither term is formally defined; however, capital implies something of enduring benefit, revenue implies that it is normally ongoing expenditure." First, the introductory sentence of the article body could be more formal than "UK tax". "United Kingdom tax law"? Second, I don't know how you can refer to "revenue" as "expenditure". Whose revenue—the government's? Whose expenditure—a company's?
    • "For example, expenditure by a company on acquiring a new head office is capital". Similarly, how can an expenditure be capital? The asset is capital; the expenditure is a capital expenditure. If this is what you're going for, it seems either too informal or is giving the reader, like me, too much credit. –Outriggr § 23:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a case that while I understood the paragraph, if others have not, it needs to be changed. It looks like think the original author has done a too-swift switch in what they are talking about. I think they were trying not to use "income" as income is used for too many purposes, and so opted for "revenue", before perpetrating an number of other ambiguities. Anyway, I will ponder on how to rewrite it for that ever-tricky combo of accuracy and understandability. On your first point, it's less usual in the UK to refer to "tax law" than it seems to be in the US, but for clarity your suggestion will be better.
Thanks for taking the time to look, and please flag up anything else you see - my current motto is "will fix anything". Winklethorpe (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to add some context to that paragraph. I get the idea because it's similar to the distinction we have in the US between capitalized purchases and expensed ones. Anything with lasting value of a reasonably large size needs to be capitalized. The difficulty in the article is in using the word revenue to describe something that is an expense. Is "revenue" really the word the law and sources use for the concept? If not see what is most commonly used. - Taxman Talk 01:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the improvement. Going back to the sources, I find that corporation tax is charged on profits, which are defined as "income and chargeable gains". Chargeable gains are identical to capital gains, just renamed for corporation tax (literally, the legislation just says chargeable gains are anything that would be capital gains for an individual; I think sticking with capital is best here, as it's a more broadly understood term). Income has quite a specific meaning for UK tax (it's from "any trade, profession or vocation", plus various other sources that basicly cover everthing except capital gains), whereas its ordinary use is much broader, which is why I think the original author opted for "revenue". So would saying something like "The tax system in the United Kingdom makes a distinction between income and capital income" and so on, run into the problem that income usually has a broader definition? Winklethorpe (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we've got another long review here. Winklethorpe is working so we'll leave it open. But the phraseology here is often tortured, so it may still take a while. "Imputation system" needs defining in the intro. Marskell 05:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've now explained impution system as briefly as I could in the intro. If it's not clear, let me know. Winklethorpe (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I know this has already been brought up but "while revenue implies that it is normally an ongoing expenditure for something likely to be used for relatively short term consumption" is utterly counter-intuitive. Should it be something like "while revenue implies monies collected [can revenue be anything else?] that it is then allocated to ongoing, short term expenditures, particularly consumables." Or something like that? Marskell 13:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have found myself more tied up than expected, but I got perhaps a third of the way through the other day. I will try to finish the rest, but it may be a few more days. And then Buckingham Palace. And then Anne of Denmark. And then... -- ALoan (Talk) 15:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marskell has asked me to comment on here as to whether I'm committed to keeping going with this FAR, which of course I am. That said, I've run out of things to act on, I feel. I'm assuming that where I've dealt with comments above, the writers are satisfied with my improvements. If not, please bring them to my attention. It's clear that I personally can't bring the prose up to scratch, although I hope I've managed to cut some of the wordiness out already, so I'm hoping that with the help of other hands (and a big thank you to all those who have contributed), the prose issues will be satisfied.

Just to show my commitment, I'm going to have little-to-no wikipedia access for several days after tomorrow (it's a bank holiday weekend in the UK). Any issues raised will be deal with, however. Thanks, Winklethorpe (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note. I'm going to err on the side of keep with this one; these never-ending reviews need to be closed eventually. Winkle has indeed done is best to address everything brought to him, Sandy has OK'ed the refs, and the prose has seen improvement (and will hopefully see more when ALoan and Winkle get back to it). Marskell 09:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 06:28, 17 May 2007.

Ian Thorpe

Review commentary

Original nominator aware. Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian sports. Marskell 15:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although the FAR page recommends a waiting period of 3 months before putting an FA up for review, I feel this page has two points that need to be addressed:

  1. There are no images of Thorpe's face. This is an article about a highly notable person, yet I have no idea what he looks like. This is acceptable for a subject that cannot possibly be photographed, such as God, but not for a legitimate biography. The only picture is one so specific that it cannot be used for any purpose other than to demonstrate Thorpe's overbalancing.
  2. The article is extremely long. The article failed a GA because it was too long, and that issue still hasn't been addressed. The article contains so much extraneous information that no one would ever need, such as Thorpe's mass as a baby.
Well it is sourced, and encyclopedic; but it does make the article too long. I think such facts should be taken out. -- Rmrfstar 01:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other minor issues still exist, such as the lack of explanation regarding overbalancing, and that the lead has far too many citations. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is criterion 3 of WP:FACR, and this is a biographical article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does have a picture, although not of his face? I don't think this matters. We don't have free pics of Julius Caesar. Only drawings. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't like the structure (or lack thereof) and the resulting TOC. I really don't mind the lack of a free picture: he's photographed at at least one website in the "external links". -- Rmrfstar 01:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you check the pre MArch 25 structure before it was on the main page. It may be better that way. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just did, and I think it's a bit better because it doesn't impose the redundant category of "biography" over his whole career history. But both versions could use some organization that breaks up the excess material into more managable chunks with nested topics where appropriate... -- Rmrfstar 02:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I still believe that this is featured article quality. However, I do agree that there are some minor structural issues that could be addressed and solved. Does this need a FARC? No, in my opinion. Does this need some tweaking and discussion on the talk page? Yes. Daniel Bryant 03:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Quite frankly, I have never seen a featured article in such awful shape. The lack of photographs only serves to highlight the excessive length. The article is filled with detail that is not only beyond what an encyclopedia entry (as opposed to a biography) should be, it is also so heavily footnoted that I defy any reader to be able to sit down and actually read the entire thing at one sitting. I can't.
This article suffers from "featurism," a term I use to describe the process where writers go overboard to meet every single possible objection from those who comment on FACs. Such excessive sycophancy means qualities such as brevity, conciseness and overall good reading are sacrificed. In an insular process such as FAC, you get the same people making the same demands to the extent that any stylistic conceit is destroyed.
I'm appalled by the kitchen-sink nature of the footnotes (172! for a guy who hasn't hit 25 yet!). Where is the editorial discretion and parsimony if you have to footnote every web article you can find and add this to the article? This looks like an organized Google search with prose.
As to the lack of photos, with the high visibility Ian Thorpe has, wasn't there some way the authors could have requested donations from the multitude of fans out there who might have been at an event and taken a photo or two? Trust me, I have done this with a some of featured articles I authored and most folks you ask are delighted that you can use their photos to enhance the article. Alas, the insular nature of FAC and its demand for "no original research" wrongly militates against such requests even being considered. What a horrible, myopic view!
I want to be extremely clear about one thing: I do not fault the authors for these failings. They are writing the way they are being told to in order to get the Star. This is entirely a problem of process.
Due to these quality problems, this entry should certainly not be labeled "Featured Article." By the same token, the article should become the poster child for everything wrong with the Featured Article process. 67.149.103.119 14:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The entire article is the biography, and yet it's featured. This, in a biographical article, would be the same as a featured book article consisting only of a detailed synopsis of the book. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the massive blob of prose is not particularly well written. Take this sentence as an example: Thorpe promptly donated his A$25,000 bonus for being the first person to break a world record in the pool to charity. I had to read that three times to understand what it meant, and it doesn't even specify to which charity the donation was made. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am a newcomer to WP:FAR. I have just started weighing in at WP:FAC recently. Mostly, I contest citations on sports articles. I think in general we could do better in this area for sports claims, especially over the last 10 or 15 years where things are easily found on the internet. WRT Thorpe, I have several unsourced claims that I would contest. These are for claims up to 1998 in the article:
    "the youngest ever Pan Pacific medalist"
    "Thorpe went into the 400 m final ranked fourth in the world,"
    "Thorpe's improvement continued when he defeated world champion Klim in the 200 m freestyle in 1 min 47.24 s,"
    "He then claimed the 400 m freestyle title from Hackett and clocked 50.36 s in the 100 m freestyle."
    "Thorpe's first event was the 200 m freestyle, where he led throughout to record a time of 1 min 46.70 s, just one hundredth outside Giorgio Lamberti's world record."
    "Thorpe's run ended when a personal best of 50.21 s in the 100 m freestyle was only sufficient for fourth place, but he returned to victory with the 4 × 100 m freestyle relay team."
    "Thorpe left school at the end of year after completing Year 10."
    "His decision caused consternation amongst those who believed that concentrating on swimming alone would be detrimental, with Stephen Holland stating "If this kid just does swimming and nothing else, he won't last beyond the Sydney Olympics"."
    "Holland himself had broken world records since the age of 15 and was expected to win the 1500 m freestyle at the 1976 Montreal Olympics, but retired from the sport in despair after concentrating only on swimming and failing to win."
    "Thorpe disagreed, pointing to his informal search for knowledge using books and the internet, stating that "Swimming is a small part of my life"."
    "He eventually sat for his School Certificate on a flight to a FINA World Cup meet in 1999, meticulously supervised by former school teacher and Australian head coach Don Talbot." TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read the book. It's all in the same chapter. I do not need to cite the same thing 100 times. It is all covered by the book ref noted at the end of the paragraph. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to note the contrasting views above. One person says the article is footnoted to death; another has listed ten statements that he would like to see cited. This, in an article containing an astounding 200 inline citations. This is a fine example of "inline citations don't solve all our problems". So, either we begin to cite every sentence, or we reconstrue the problem. –Outriggr § 23:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I personally believe that internet era biographies should be quite heavily cited. It sounds astoundingly ridiculous, but articles like Thorpe could approach 1000 citation before citing all easily verified claims. The point is not whether the editor included a lot of citations, made a lot of edits, or worked hard. None of those points is contested. The point here is the 2nd and 3rd sentences at WP:V, which read
TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 23:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to note the contrasting views above. One person says the article is footnoted to death; another has listed ten statements that he would like to see cited. This, in an article containing an astounding 200 inline citations. This is a fine example of "inline citations don't solve all our problems". So, either we begin to cite every sentence, or we reconstrue the problem. –Outriggr § 23:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I may interject, a well-written encyclopedia entry should provide links to only the most relevant of information, including - but especially - quotations. The minutae people can take at face value and, if the article is seen as put together well, they will. Please don't forget as well that the article contains links to other articles within Wikipedia. People wanting more information about Olympic rules can look at the number of these other articles and find additional authority there. Or Google it. Also, there are often multiple footnotes(up to four) on who won what race. Who needs more than one, especially since they all say the same thing? One thing you always want to remember is this: the people on FAC who you are trying to go through the article to identify where more and more links should be placed are not the people you are trying to attract (and recall that most of those that vote support or oppose have, bizarrely, never even written a Featured Article). Your audience is the people who do go through to learn a little more about the athlete, check to see if their recollection about a particular outcome is correct, or in general find out what the athlete has been doing lately. 67.149.103.119 00:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I'd add after looking at the above request for ten more citations. IMHO, the person making this request for ten more citations wouldn't know what to do with them if he had them. As far as I can tell, he's simply trying to show his value to the discussion by picking out stuff 1) he found and we didn't and 2) the readers won't care about. (If they did care, why didn't anyone insert a cite when it was on the main page for 24 hours and hundreds of thousands were digging through it?) We're writing articles here. A good article where the author took the time to write well will be researched well and relied upon by others. You don't have to link to a weather report because your article says it was sunny. 67.149.103.119 00:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is reffed. I have seen things pas FAC recently where some things are not baked up by the refs in the same paragraph. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should add 2 things. I am not asking for 10 new citations. It is likely that many sentences are all backed up by a single reference later in a paragraph. It is not cited clearly however. Dearest 67.149.103.119, I am not showing off or something. I know what to do with citations. Look at my user page and you will see a lot of good well cited work. My main point with the citations is seen by my edits to Barry Bonds. I have been citing his 2007 season the way an internet generation accomplishment should be cited. I just feel that athletic accomplishment that are easily referenced over the internet should be cited like I am doing with Bond's 2007 season. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 04:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Comment Well Tony's citation requirements have been disputed in many FAC's and elsewhere recently. Work is going nicely, it still needs to be cut a little further I would cut some of the descriptions of the events in between the Olympics. On a different topic what's with all the sections in this FAR? It's getting a little confusing. I was almost ready to start a new section just to post a comment. Quadzilla99 14:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I have been convinced that I should tone down my request for expanded citation by Blnguyen. I am doing so for several reason:
  1. I am not an expert on swimming and thus can not compare the ease of citing it with the ease of citing the major sports with internet resources for accomplishments over the last ten years.
  2. Thorpe is an Australian athlete and again I am not familiar with the ease of citing such athletes via the web.
  3. This is my first FAR participation, and I am aware I might be better using different standards at FAR than I use at FAC although theoretically WP:WIAFA should apply to both.
  4. The article seems to be highly print sourced. In particular the sequences of sentences that I note above seem to be commonly sourced.
  5. This FAR seems to have more important concerns.
  6. Its be nice to Quadzilla99 day. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 00:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The dread print sources here are Hunter, Greg (2004). Ian Thorpe: The Biography. Sydney: MacMillan, 404. ISBN 1-4050-3632-X. Andrews, Malcolm (June 2000). Australia at the Olympics. ABC Books. ISBN 0-7333-0884-8. Talbot, Don; Ian Heads, Kevin Berry (2003). Talbot: Nothing But the Best. Lothian. ISBN 0-7344-0512-X.
  • Two biographies, and a history of the 2000 Olympics, all by respectable commercial publishers. This is, in general, better sourcing than the web, even the Sydney Morning Herald, can be expected to provide. Inter-Library Loan is recommended. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reserve the right to make more specific citation requests later or at FARC. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 00:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So apparently Ian Thorpe started a charity called Foundation for Youth. Even a thorough reader probably would not learn this from the article. It is mentioned only twice: Once in Personal life, in which the name of the charity is misspelled, and once in the external links. Shouldn't this have a good chunk of prose devoted to it? Shouldn't this have its own section? This is a perfect example of how the article is just a disorganized play-by-play recap of his career without any pertinent information. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 12:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Because if we described the charity in minute detail, it could be construed as fancruft. Although the thing bears his name, he doesn't run it on a day to day basis, so it is mostly patron work and naming rights. It certainly is less prominent than the number of times he has criticised WADA officials. So I don't think we should add more PR type fluffery about the statistics etc of this thing in great detail. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt people will think a charity section is fancruft. I learned more about the charity from the above paragraph than I did from the article. The article tends to flow like this: Major swim meet! Thorpe breaks records! Thorpe swims great, but doesn't break a record! Sneak in little factoids about his life outside of swimming. And then on to the next paragraph for the same thing. I find it repetitive and poorly structured. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 10:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that we must adhere to the undue weight clause in NPOV. If you do a google search for the Fountain for Yourh, almost all the hits are to his own website and that of associated charity alliances, so in the eyes of independent third parties, the other stuff like his business interests are more notable among independent observers. As I pointed out before, he is mostly a figurehead, unlike the other stuff, where he is treated as a pop-star and mobbed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fact checking
  • From Retirement: He was known for his trademark six-beat kick to power away to victory in the closing stages of races, attributed to his unusually large size 17 feet.[22] Source 22 does not mention his six-beat kick, nor does it attribute his endgame power to his size 17 feet.
    • Comment interfere Fixed this as well. The new article mentions the six beat kick, and says that the finishing burst is due to a six beat kick, which it attributes to his physical gifts - earlier it refers to his "flippers", so there is no doubt that the writer means his large feet. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From 2004 Summer Olympics: An attempted appeal, asserting that a noise had caused him to make his mistake, was dismissed, ending his chance to defend the 400 m Olympic title. This prompted widespread debate, with former swimmer Shane Gould asserting that the selection policy should be relaxed to maximise Australia's chances by selecting Thorpe, whilst Talbot, head coach Leigh Nugent and Kieren Perkins defended the selection policy. Public debate was also widespread, with Prime Minister of Australia John Howard describing the situation as a "tragedy".[114][115] Source 114 is an article from 2002 dicussing Thorpe's sexuality. Source 115 is relevant. Neither source mentions Prime Minister Howard or coach Leigh Nugent.
    • Comment interfere The book reference covers things in more detail than the webrefs. As below, the book ref at the end of para explains things. Do you want me to put it multiple times throughout the paragraph? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From Personal life: Known for his long-standing interest in fashion, he serves as an ambassador for Armani,[12] Source 12 is a summary of his career, with no mention of fashion or of Armani.
  • From '2002 Commonwealth...: Australia subsequently won the relay, with Thorpe overtaking Jason Lezak in the last 50 m as he had done at the previous Pan Pacific Championships in 1999.[94] Source 94 is about that event, but does not mention Lezak, the last 50 meters, or the 1999 event.
    • Comment interfere The book reference covers things in more detail than the webrefs. The section in the book which I only mentioned at the end of the paragraph covers everything more thoroughly than the Swiminfo. User:Taxman raised some concerns about relying on one ref, so I added webrefs for the individual reports. The chunk from Hunter at the end of the para mops up what is not covered by the rest of the webrefs. Do you want me to to add accompanying Hunter refs multiple times to accompany all the swiminfo refs so that it is replicated 5/6 times per paragraph to fully verify each sentence? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From 2004 Summer Olympics: Having achieved what had eluded him four years earlier, Thorpe showed more emotion, immediately tearing off his cap, punching the air and screaming.[127] Source 127 does not mention Thorpe's emotional state after the event, though it does have a picture of him with his arm extended.
  • Reference 52 is broken.
  • Reference 6 is incomplete.
  • First paragraph of National Debut is not referenced.
  • First paragraph of 2001 World Aquatics... is referenced only with reference 79, which simply does not adequately cover the entire paragraph.
        • Comment interfere I don't believe there is a paragraph with only one refrence. If you mean the bit about adding the 800m to his repertoire, it's not in the webref, but if people want, I can repaste the Hunter chapter five times within the paragraph instead of leaving it to the end. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First 10 sentences of 2003 World Aquatics... contains only one citation, reference 100, which does not even mention Thorpe. --Cryptic C62 · Talk
The "2004 Summer Olympics" cite has the right title, and presumably publication info, but the link is wrong. This link confirms the article, although published elsewhere. [3] Source 115 appears to be supporting the idea that public debate was widespread.
The "Personal life" cite is titled "Did you know", and sure enough, there's a little sidebar called "Did you know" containing the referenced fact. [4]
I'm not defending the article—Just Sayin'. –Outriggr § 23:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then the sources should be cited properly. --Cryptic C62 · Talk
WP:CITE#When_to_cite_sources says "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source" and talks about people's opinions etc. I have done this. WP:CITE does not say that I have to put in the same source multiple times in the same paragraph, but I can do so if you really need this. I don't read anything there to mandate anything about how many times I have to place the source in each time. Everything is sourced. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From User_talk:Blnguyen
I tend to agree, that WP:CITE does allow for one citation at the final sentence to cover an entire paragraph and the reader who wants to challenge such a citation really needs to read the reference provided before they can argue the toss. Garrie 06:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prose issues
  • From Early Life: he once topped the season's batting averages in the latter stages of his career ahead of former Australian captain. does not make sense.
  • From National Debut: Thorpe continued his good form at the National Age Championships a fortnight later fortnight is not a standard unit.
  • From 1998 World Aquatics...: after his sister Christina's brother-in-law to be became gravely ill with the disease. does this person not have a name?
  • From 1998 Commonwealth Games: Thorpe accelerated past Klim in the last 50 m to post a time that was more than a second faster than his effort in Perth. was Thorpe actually accelerating, or was he just going faster than Klim?
  • From 1998 Commonwealth Games: just 0.55 s slower than Kieren Perkins' 1994 mark (regarded by some as the greatest swim in history). blatant weaselry. who thinks Perkins' swim was the greatest ever?
  • From 1999 Pan Pacific...: where Thorpe broke Lamberti's nine-year-old world record in the 200 m freestyle, the oldest world record. was it the oldest (unbroken) world record, or the oldest (unbroken) swimming world record?
  • From 2000 Olympic Buildup: Although a test for EPO was developed in time for the games, no successful test for hGh was found. Clarify the meaning: (A)Although a test for EPO was developed in time for the games, there was no reliable test for hGh. (B)Although a test for EPO was developed in time for the games, Thorpe did not test positive for hGh.
  • From 2001 World Aquatics...: Thorpe arrived in Fukuoka under immense pressure, having been chosen by broadcaster TV Asahi as the marketing drawcard of the event with his face visible throughout the country. What?
  • From 2004 Summer Olympics...: In late March 2004 at the Australian Championships in Sydney, Thorpe lined up in the heats of the 400 m freestyle, but overbalanced whilst on the blocks and fell into the water, resulting in his disqualification. What is overbalancing? Is it rare, or fairly common? Is it an amateur mistake, or do professionals do it too? There is no article about it, and the source - reference 8 - does not elaborate on it, either.--Cryptic C62 · Talk
Pictures

I believe that the article is valid as far as picture goes, because as the FA criteria asks, it has a picture relevant to the subject. Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, hence the information is the most important thing. If you really want a picture, there is a link to some popups here, with pictures of him launching his fashion label and drink label, in case that can be passed off as a "historical event". Of course someone could say, well, that's what he would look like when he is wearing his underwear, but I personally came here to get info, not pictures. WP isn't a picture book. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would agree. The major concern I saw was the size and the work that has been done to address that thus far has been commendable. This should even be able to avoid FARC. Quadzilla99 04:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"but I personally came here to get info, not pictures". Well, if we're going to make this about what people want, here's a list of people who want more pictures:

  • Parthi commented "It needs more pictures to break up the monotony" in the FAC.
  • Mercenary2k commented "Need a better picture of Ian Thorpe as his face is covered with water" on the FAC. The image was replaced, and that image has since been removed.
  • Chickenfeed9 commented that the article "looks very bland without (images)" on the talk page.
  • Modest Genius sardonically commented "the only picture left in the article itself is of him falling over" on the talk page.
  • Cryptic C62 repeatedly commented that the article "is extremely long and boring without pictures" on the FAR.

Let's be honest. You (blnguyen) are attempting to defend the article's lack of pictures because you can't find a way to slip copyrighted images past the Free Use police. You wish the article had more pictures. Also, if you came here to "get info, not pictures" then why does Wikipedia have Featured Images? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update I managed to convince a flickr user to share a pic it could be cropped and used in the infobox. It's already been approved over at Commons, I just have to crop it and install it. Here's the pic, not great but will have to do. Quadzilla99 22:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update
  • Length - Is now 88k (was 105k), about a 17% pruning
  • Sectioning - I have cut the chronology into three main phases, teh early international career, the peak phase, and the not so good phase after he changed coaches and put a small overview of the phases at the start.
  • Citations - I believe it was fine as beforehand, and the few broken links have been fixed. Everything in a given paragragh is cited, if not full in the web-refs, then in the more detailed book ref at the bottom of each paragraph
  • Image - Noted above. If anybody is desperate, then try passing off the fashion launh as a "historical event" Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose - Errors fixed accordingly. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For clarity's sake, prose has been cut from 55 kb to 43 kb. Although it's 86kb total only 43 kb is prose. I'd think a little more could still be cut though personally. Quadzilla99 05:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think it's safely in the prose limit now. :) Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess we'll have to see what others say, I'd be neutral if FARC were now (which I know it's not), but I'd be leaning toward keeping. If we could cut a little more and get a pic we could avoid FARC altogether. Of course let's see what others say. Quadzilla99 15:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did this article *really* come to FAR because of 55KB prose and one image, or were there other issues? (B movie had 86KB prose.) There's a lot of confusion, arm waving and teen gnashing going on above (can any of us read without font changes, check marks, and sections which are taking over FAC and FAR these days?); Quadz, can you summarize the perceived issues ? I just checked the prose size, and it's fine. Don't know why there's no image. References are fine. Someone should resolve the image situation, and then tell us (without creating ten more sections) why this is at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tell you why. The article is on FAR because it's extremely long, estremely boring, not particularly well-written, and provides nothing more than a moment-by-moment replay of Thorpe's career with just occasional snippets into other aspects of his life. Just about the entire article could be schlorbed into a table of events and times, as that's just about all the article provides. I ask you if you have ever seen a featured article with the following structure:
    • Major Swim Meet #1: Provide stale explanation of every minute of the meet. One or two sentences about Ian Thorpe (person).
    • Major Swim Meet #2: Provide stale explanation of every minute of the meet. One or two sentences about Ian Thorpe (person).
    • Major Swim Meet #n: Provide stale explanation of every minute of the meet. One or two sentences about Ian Thorpe (person).
    • Foundation for Youth: Oh wait, this section doesn't exist. In fact, searching for 'foundation' with Ctrl+F yields two hits for Fred Hollows Foundation and one for Wikimedia Foundation.

Obviously, the answer is no. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the review reads to me as if you're bugged because there's few Fair Use pictures. If there are none, there are none; we don't judge articles based only on whether there are entertaining pictures (that would be a children's book). The last time I came across you and Rmrfstar working together, it was to upload *seriously* copyrighted pictures with incorrect Fair Use tags, so I'm wondering if you're not overly steamed about the images issue. I'm interested in hearing from seasoned reviewers (like Tony1 (talk · contribs) and Quadz) about the article issues, so I don't have to read through all that arm waving above. Tony1 had objections when the article passed FAC; he should look in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I left Tony a note; he's on light duty til May 4. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep bringing up legitimate prose issues as it seems they are being fixed rather well, but most of the rest of this reads like griping, and not usefully. I mean come on, no picture of his face? If there's no quality free image, there's not free image, so what. That's just not a legitimate reason to bring a FAR and certainly not a reason to rush one. Generally the article is in decent shape. - Taxman Talk 02:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I worked with a flickr user and got him to share a passable pic, it's in there. It's not great but it should be acceptable, so that's no longer an issue. Except for maybe some prose issues I don't see much left personally. Quadzilla99 03:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are images (3), length (4), citations (1c), and prose (1a). Marskell 08:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My only remaining concern is slight length issues but these aren't enough for removal to me. Quadzilla99 09:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per:
    • Unencyclopedic tone, such as "ball skills" and "topsy-turvy"
    • Awkward prose, such as "He was again named as Australian Swimmer of the Year, jointly with Hackett."
    • No mention of Foundation for Youth --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Foundation for Youth doesn't exist. Skjdf304 03:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whoops. I guess it's called Fountain for Youth. It is mentioned once in the prose and in the external links, which I feel is insufficient for a charity named after the man.
  • Keep Length issues can sometimes be problematic, but I don't think they're too much of a problem here. Cryptic C62's concerns are acknowledged, but aside from some minor tone and prose issues (which can be quickly fixed), I don't think it is necessary to delist this article. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've been watching this review for a few weeks now but not had anything much to say that wasn't already being said. I just re-read the article from top to bottom after having also done so when it went to the main-page a few months back. I feel that the concerns have now been adequately dealt with and whatever is left is trivial and overstated. This article should not be delisted. —Moondyne 02:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Nishkid - there's scope for improvement(as with any article) but this is easily FA material. Sarvagnya 03:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - this is major surgery where an aspirin would have sufficed. -- Y not? 03:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, it's FA standard now that there has been a lot of work done to it. Cryptic had a point to start with that this needed work, but it no longer requires anything to maintain FA anymore, and he should stop with the constant griping and acknowledge it as such. Per Taxman on May 4, as well. Daniel Bryant 05:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Nishkid. This is good FA material.Dineshkannambadi 11:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Nishkid and Moondyne summarised it perfectly. GizzaChat © 05:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 06:28, 17 May 2007.

Great Lakes Storm of 1913

Review commentary

Messages left at User talk:Brian0918, Lakes, and Meteorology. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested improvements listed at Talk:Great Lakes Storm of 1913/to do.

I didn't get the chance to review the article's content but noticed a major problem in the article. The article has basically no inline citations (violating 1c). —Anas talk? 15:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • First, the article does have inline citations where necessary. Second, 1c says inline citations are only necessary for quotations or controversial content (this article has stirred no controversy, AFAIK). I created this article from scratch and have watched every edit to it since. No vandalism or other degradation has occurred to the article; indeed, only about 80 edits have been made since it was featured on the main page over 2 years ago. David Brown, who wrote the book on this storm, personally reviewed the article and confirmed its factuality and comprehensiveness. I wrote this article basically by reading all of the sources and coming up with the most accurate and complete version of the events. As a result, inline citations are not always possible, but can be added easily enough where necessary. At best, this is a problem for the article's talk page. The important part is that the article does cite ALL of its sources. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-10 15:47Z
  • Comment: Brian, you need to relax. Remember that we're trying to review, improve and keep the article featured. I'm not trying to rid the article of its status. I see a lot of numbers and quotations that have no inline citations; that is my main concern. The article also has many one-line paragraphs, not something I'd like to see in a featured article. Let's try to keep this an FA. I'll offer my help if you are going to need it. —Anas talk? 16:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am relaxed. I simply like to add emphasis to the important points in my comments. Emphasis != shouting/rage/nonrelaxation. (Please AAGF) I see no one-line paragraphs. Which are you referring to, and how do you suggest they be changed? I prefer conciseness over length, but am willing to expand any deficits in coverage. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-10 16:21Z
      • There are a few out there which I think can be merged with other paragraphs. For example: "At 10:00 AM, Coast Guard stations and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Weather Bureau offices at Lake Superior ports raised white pennants above square red flags with black centers, indicating a storm warning with northwesterly winds."; "The greatest damage was done on the lakes. Major shipwrecks occurred on all but Lake Ontario, with most happening throughout southern and western Lake Huron." But again, this is not my biggest concern, I still recommend that inline citations (following "footnote fashion") are used, at least in places where numbers are mentioned and after quotations. —Anas talk? 16:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the suggestions. Are there any quotations lacking inline citations? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-10 16:56Z
        • Done: Merged together the suggested paragraphs. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-10 17:54Z
        • Done: Added ref for financial costs (as you requested on the todo page). — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-10 18:49Z
  • Comment: There are several inline citations in the article, e.g. "The weather forecast in The Detroit News called for "moderate to brisk" winds ..." (with the date being mentioned in the previous sentence). They might not follow the current footnote fashion, but they're there. And as Brian said, there has not been any evident controversy over any statements in the article (just look at the talk page), so criterion 1c is met by default. Having said that, there are a few minor points that might be worth tidying up. For instance, some of the wikilinking could be improved (I've made a start); there's an obsolete tag on Image:Storm-Warning-NW-Winds-Flags.png; and the prose could be tightened in places (e.g. "Personal accounts of lake masters were that ..." seems a bit indirect to me). -- Avenue 16:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This sentence in the lead section is not covered in the rest of the article: "The large loss of cargo, including coal, iron ore, and grain, meant short-term rising prices for consumer products throughout North America." Add to Aftermath section. It seems surprising that prices in Mexico would be affected, so this could do with a source. I'll add this to the To Do list. -- Avenue 00:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't find that source anymore. Most likely it's Brown's book, but I don't have it, and can only search through it on Amazon. I've reworded the statement to give specifics about the amount of lost cargo. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-11 14:02Z
  • Comments There's a problem with over-Wikilinking. See WP:CONTEXT. Example—The large loss of cargo, including coal, iron ore, and grain, meant short-term rising prices for consumer products throughout North America. Also, non-breaking hard spaces are needed between numbers and units of measurement; I did some as an example. Also, please see WP:GTL regarding the use of Seealso templates at the beginning of sections; See alsos are incorrectly listed at the bottom of sections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • News sources need article titles, dates, authors if available:
      • The Port Huron Times-Herald (Nov. 1913). various dates and pages.
    • See WP:QUOTE, and all direct quotes should be cited (e.g.; Keller and the next one.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the suggestions. The wikilinking is easy enough to reduce, as is the Seealsoing and the quote citing. As for the Port Huron Times-Herald sources, those will take more time. Several of the newspaper's issues from that month are online. And anyone wanting all the issues from that month can submit an ILL request at their library for the microfilm reel for Nov. 1913. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-10 16:56Z
      • Done: Added citations to the uncited quotes you mentioned. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-10 17:08Z
      • Done: Moved all the See alsos to the top of their sections, as you requested. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-10 17:12Z
        • Thanks! What is the Lake Carriers' Association report, 1913 and how/where does one find it? Also, don't forget the nbsp needed throughout. The MilHist group frequently mentions the problems inherent in casualty counts (which are often controversial or disputed in natural diseasters as well); those numbers should be cited to a source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done: Added source for LCA report. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-10 17:26Z
          • Done: It looks like all of the nbsp's have been added where necessary. Thanks for your help! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-10 17:59Z
          • Done: Reduce wikilinking; I think it's been reduced enough. Let me know of any other delinking that should be done. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-10 18:16Z
          • Done: Added source for casualty counts. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-10 18:42Z
          • Done: I clarified the reference for the newspaper, and added a link to a site with transcripts of the relevant articles. There are too many articles/authors to list in our article, though, so I think we'll have to stick with this general citation. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-10 19:57Z
  • Please add suggested improvements to Talk:Great Lakes Storm of 1913/to do. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-10 17:30Z
  • Comment Thumbnail images are not supposed to have pixel widths, it conflicts with user preferences. Jay32183 22:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, where does it say that? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:MOS#Images "* Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended: without specifying a size the width will be what the reader has specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers). However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width in order to enhance the readability and/or layout of an article. Cases where specific image width are considered appropriate include:
  • On images with extreme aspect ratios
  • When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts
  • When a small region of an image is considered relevant, but the image would lose its coherence when cropped to that region

Bear in mind that some users need to configure their systems to display large text. Forced large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult." The text is being squashed by the images in the aftermath section by forcing 350px and 250px respectively. Jay32183 18:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done I've removed the thumbnail resizings as requested. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-29 15:46Z

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is lack of citations (1c). Marskell 15:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A lot of work was done by Brian on this. I'm moving it down because it's been up a while and more work remains. A few notes:

  • Lengthy quotations sections are increasingly frowned upon as trivia. Incorporate the best into the text.
  • The lead is somewhat over-cited, while the body has very few. This inverts the usual structure.
  • The victims list definitely requires citations. Marskell 15:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This absurd! The article for no reason should be moved from FAR to FARC. All the requests here have been rapidly resolved, even the ones that do not cite FA criteria problems. As for your notes:
      1. The victims list already has the necessary inline citation.
      2. The lead's citations were added as requested; more people read the lead, so more citations are requested for the lead. Most of the citations in the full text are inline citations; and as 1c states: inline citations are only necessary for "quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged"; as all requests for citations have been resolved, there's no further need for inline citations - if you want to request another citation, feel free. The article does list all of its sources in the References section as required by 1c.
      3. The quotations are only a small segment of the article, and are not against any FA criteria, right? They do however help to illustrate the article better than any chronological account or diagram, so I think they're quite important to the article, and of interest to readers. If you think they should be trimmed down, that's fine, but they shouldn't cause a FA to be de-featured. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-26 16:00Z
    • Are you considering my edits to be vandalism now, since you've used the rollback button to undo my contesting of your move to FARC; why haven't you at least replied first? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-26 16:50Z
Brian, I'm about to but just lost my response in an edit conflict. Wait for it. Marskell 16:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, moving to FARC is a "no harm" process. It's two more weeks. Plenty of time for talking, and given that FAR is watched by a small group nothing will get accidentally defeatured. The FARC sections allows people to express keep or remove. We do it for every article unless there's a definite keep consensus early, and we ought to do it for this one. In fact, I'm thinking of posting at the top don't worry if it moves, as this has come up a few times. I'm going to move this again. I apologise for the rollback; I was going to comment immediately.
On the specifics:
  1. Noted. Sorry.
  2. This inverts the usual thinking on LEADs. Because the info is usually more general, it's less likely to need citing.
  3. No, the criteria do not specifically disallow quotations sections, but I'd suggest they're deprecated as they're rapidly disappearing. Like trivia sections they often violate 4. I'd by interested in third opinions on this score. Marskell 17:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving from Featured Article Review to Featured Article Removal Candidates gives someone who has worked hard on an article the impression that you are saying "We should now try to de-feature this article"; whether that was your intention, I don't know, but I don't see the reason to move it to FARC when all the mentioned problems have been resolved. My impression from the lead section of WP:FAR is that you only moved to FARC those articles that have unresolved problems: "The ideal outcome of the review period is to have concerns addressed and the review closed without progressing to the FARC list." As for your points: I only provided citations where people requested; whether it looks weird or not, I don't know. It doesn't go against FA criteria (which is the point of FAR/FARC, right?). I don't see any reason for removing those citations. As for quotes, I've already stated why I think they should stay, but I'm fine with moving them to wikiquote, for example. Is this article going against any FA criteria? If not, why is it being advanced from FAR to FARC??? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-26 17:25Z
One other note on the body. In practice, citations are usually demanded for statistics. There's a whole lot of ## mph stats here, so it would mean citing every other sentence, which we don't want. A couple of notes like "See Brown ## - ## for wind speeds on X day" would do. Marskell 17:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the change you're suggesting. Is someone contesting the numbers? Are you saying the numbers should be removed? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-26 17:26Z
OK, I understand that it can give the wrong impression, and I didn't mean to. Note the FARC period itself is never cut short if there's someone willing to work on it. Thus, the FAR to FARC move is basically procedural because the FAR page needs to keep moving (we've got thirty-six up, which is a lot), while the clincher is the final close. So it's basically no big deal; it just allows more time for people to come and comment. I've moved two hundred of these and we do need to be consistent about it. If all of the people who were active in the review period have clearly said "this can close," then it's closed without FARC. That hadn't happened here, it has been up for sixteen days, and there'd been no activity for nine.
On the numbers: by their nature statistics are challengeable and ought to be cited. I'm not suggesting removing them at all. As I say, one or two notes can easily handle it.
I'm also not suggesting removing cites from the lead. I'm wondering if the lead might be over-specific relative to the body and whether things might not move rather than be removed. Marskell 17:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just didn't understand what you wanted to cite. I guess you meant to place footnotes at the end of the paragraphs/sections for more information? As for the lead section citations, they are all for contested statements or numbers. It's not overly specific, since it's just summarizing the damages. I've merged some refs together so it's not as cluttered. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-26 17:43Z
Yes, at the end of paragraphs/sections. For November 9, for instance, you could have two summative notes pointing to page numbers for the path of the storm and the wind speeds/nature of the storm. As for the lead, I was thinking of filling it out myself, as it doesn't describe enough of what the body covers. But I'm checking out for now. Marskell 17:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done I've expanded the lead to list the aftermath/results of the human response to the storm. If you have any other requests, let me know. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-26 18:05Z
Done I've added the requested citations for the wind speeds and other figures for those dates. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-26 18:46Z
To be honest Marskell I'm not sure I understand how moving this from one place to another on the same page keeps things moving. And your argument, which basically amounts to saying that the shift from FAR to FARC is irrelevant, doesn't hold a lot of water. The major problem with this move is that by putting it here you are saying it is ready for final evaluation. And since someone is still working on it, it is likely that any evaluations made here will shortly become invalid -- anyone who does take the time to comment is quite possibly wasting their time. The point is, there is very little point moving an article to FARC if you expect any significant amount of further work to be done on it. Why ask people to make a keep/remove decision on a version of the article that will shortly be overwritten? Clarification -- this doesn't necessarily apply in this case although it might be helpful to ask Brian how it is coming before advancing the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be helpful. If you'd like to contact all the original nominators before things get moved to FARC, let me know. Day 13 would be the right time to do it.
On the specifics here: well done, Brian. I've argued (often with limited success) that summative footnotes, rather than a footnote every two lines, is the way to approach these 1c debates. I think this article is now a good example of doing this right. On the lead, I just added two sentences, mentioning Huron and Nov 9. Hope that's the right amount of ummph.
That leaves the quotations section. I'm still very iffy and hope for more feedback. Marskell 22:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much contacting the original nominator as contacting people who are working on the article to see how it is progressing. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes. As I say, if you're volunteering, give me a ding-a-ling. Marskell 22:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per 1a and 1c. Article has lack of citations and also the "Quotations" section is nothing but a trumped up "Trivia" section. LuciferMorgan 11:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't be absurd. 1c says inline citations are only necessary for quotations, contested content, or likely-contested content. Are you contesting any of the content? If so, let me know which sentences you contest, and I'll stick a normally-unnecessary inline citation next to it. I can say with certainty that the References section has every citation for every single word in the article. So, for you to immediately go straight to "Remove!" without any previous discussion shows a lack of interest on your part to improve the quality of the article, which is the entire point of Wikipedia. As for the quotations, I'll move them to wikiquote, but I don't see how 1a covers quotations in the way you claim. The article prose is excellent, and I was surprised by the number of positive comments I got regarding the quality and engagement of the article, which is exactly what 1a says is necessary. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-29 15:15Z
      • Done Quotations moved to Wikiquote. As for the citations, the article cites all of its sources under References, and as is required by 1c, all quotations, contested and likely-contested content have inline citations, so 1c is satisfied. If you believe otherwise, let me know which contested/likely-contested content you believe needs inline citations, and I'll get right on it. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-29 15:27Z
  • Comments There are still month-day dates that aren't wikilinked. Where did the mph–kph conversions come from —they suffer from a lot of rounding error. There is a template somewhere on Wiki that does the conversion. The exact data cited in the sources should be used, and converted accurately. There is still an awful lot of uncited hard data. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The months/dates were delinked as requested in the original FAC. They can be relinked easily enough, but what does this have to do with Featured Article Criteria? All of the hard data is cited under References, or inline citations at the end of each paragraph. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 00:50Z
  • Given that there so many ## mph stats and only one book, line-by-line citing seemed silly; I asked Brian for summative notes, and these have been provided. Looking more closely, a few more suggestions:
    • Quotes from the newspapers ought to take specific cites.
    • The Cause section needs a cite. It's a neat little geography lesson; point us to some pages.
    • The paragraph beginning "In retrospect..." could be read as OR without a cite.
    • There are a half dozen refs but only Brown in the notes. Are there any large bits taken from elsewhere? Marskell 20:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The rest of the references are used to back up/verify claims made in Brown. As I've said, I wrote the article by reading all of the sources, and coming to a general conclusion about what happened (although the most weight was given to Brown); this is the way articles should be written, but too often people just google for random factoids and build an article from that... in the end they end up with one huge piece of OR. I think I've satisfied your concerns. Let me know if you have any more. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 14:31Z
Anyhow, we're in good shape here. Marskell 20:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I concur with Sandy here, and think this article isn't in good shape, but I welcome comments from others who have yet to comment. LuciferMorgan 21:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where did she say that? We shouldn't speak in generalities anyhow. This is broadly a single book FA. We've seen these before (eg. Moe Berg recently). I don't have reason to mistrust these if we can trust the primary editor, and Brian is working quickly to address things. LEAD is good (The odd "In its legacy..." just caught me though); nice pace; good but not excessive specifics. If there are structural problems that you think make it not in good shape, explain them. Marskell 22:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's not in good shape? What parts? If you can't provide any useful commentary, it just looks like you're out to delist FA's. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 00:50Z
Can we please stick to the article? Plainly criticising me personally with comments like "Don't be absurd", "looks like you're out to delist FA's" and "shows a lack of interest on your part to improve the quality of the article" isn't a means of achieving co-operation on saving this FARC. Working in a healthier environment is though. LuciferMorgan 10:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Let's stick to the article. You can start by telling me what's not in good shape? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 12:11Z
  • Brian, you've worked hard on this article, and it's admirable. So it's natural that you're a little defensive when faced with criticism. But please cool it; nothing is served by heated emotion in this room. WRT 1a, I find that much of the prose reads very well, but there are glitches. Why not get someone else who's good at copy-editing and likes the topic to give it a thorough run-through? At the tope, we shouldn't be finding things like "over-turning" (no hyphen). More subtle improvements can be made, too: "to ever hit the lakes" better as "ever to hit the lakes" (and I'm not an anti-split-infinitive person). "The era's weather reports"—sounds like paleohistory. Remove "In its legacy". Pluralise "response". "This added heat postpones the Arctic outbreak in the region"—"outbreak" is normally dramatic; here, a gradual process is at issue, isn't it? These are just a few examples of why the whole text needs treatment. Worth it, because it's a good article overall. Tony 13:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, I'm not in "heated emotion"; I've simply placed emphasis around unanswered questions. Second, I'm fine with criticism. I'm not find with drive-by-voting. Criticism that is unactionable is not criticism. As I said already, I was surprised by the number of compliments I got regarding the prose. I'll fix any suggestions you have, but I'm confident that overall, the article text is well-written. The suggestions you've made thus far do not constitute a need to delist the article - do you agree? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 13:25Z
    • Done I've made your requested changes. For future reference, these changes were minor enough that you could've made them yourself without dispute. Your generalization of a few minor quibbles in the lead section to "the whole article needs treatment" is obviously not correct. I'll be happy to make any changes you request, but when the article has gotten multiple compliments specifically about the prose, a claim that the article is poorly written will need to be specific. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 13:34Z
    • I've gone through the article and made a few tweaks. I didn't see any obvious problems. Let me know if you find any. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 15:23Z
You've missed the point: those were examples of issues that occur throughout the text, and not intended to be fixed as an end in themselves. That is why I didn't fix them myself, as you suggested I might have done. They're not trivial. I'd appreciate it if your response hadn't been defensive and confrontational ("First, I'm not ...") You use the word "dispute"—Did I dispute something? My suggestion stands: another editor should be brought in to collaborate on polishing the prose. My comments are the basis of an issue that could be made actionable; I didn't feel that it was necessary, but if you're in a confrontational mood, we can change that. And making personal criticisms (drive-by voting, etc) is unpleasant, unwelcome, and inappropriate here. Tony 03:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the record, the drive by voting was solely due to your attitude of criticising people who criticise the article. If you hadn't gone out of your way to criticise others I would've gotten involved earlier. You said you aren't fine with drive by voting - well I'd like you to know I am 110% not fine with being criticised for no apparent reason either. LuciferMorgan 15:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for clearing that up. So, we can disregard your "drive by vote"? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 16:01Z
          • Yeah that's fine. I will fully explain my vote shortly (ie. give examples etc.), which'll be tonight. Of course, you're free to decide whether you feel my reasons are adequate or inadequate - if you disagree with them, then we can agree to disagree. LuciferMorgan 16:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • If they are simple changes, I would suggest just making them yourself, which will save us both a lot of time. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 16:47Z
  • Comment I've been watching this FAR for a few weeks now, and it seems that the only thing being done here is quabbling about references and problems with the prose. I must repeat Brian's sentiments that references should only be cited inline if there is controversial content, and only a few references per section should be fine.
    That said, I do believe the prose could use a once-over and a copyedit. I will do this in a few days when I have time, unless someone else would like to take care of it in the mean time. -RunningOnBrains 18:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article was given several once-overs and thorough copyedits when it first went through FAC, and the content hasn't really changed since then (I've watched every edit to the page, and it's not a very popular topic, so it doesn't attract editors or controversy). If you have any immediate suggestions, let me know. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 18:30Z
LuciferMorgan's concerns

From the November 11 Cleveland Plain Dealer:

"Cleveland lay in white and mighty solitude, mute and deaf to the outside world, a city of lonesome snowiness, storm-swept from end to end, when the violence of the two-day blizzard lessened late yesterday afternoon." "Take it all in all — the depth of the snowfall, the tremendous wind, the amount of damage done and the total unpreparedness of the people—I think it is safe to say that the present storm is the worst experienced in Cleveland during the whole forty-three years the Weather Bureau has been established in the city." — William H. Alexander, Cleveland's official observer

This is a direct quotation, and WP:CITE says "You should always add a citation when quoting published material." I don't have access to published material on the topic, so I cannot add a citation to this myself. LuciferMorgan 20:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Woops, I missed that one. Added a source. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 20:32Z

The weather forecast in The Detroit News called for "moderate to brisk" winds for the Great Lakes, with occasional rains Thursday night or Friday for the upper lakes (except on southern Lake Huron), and fair to unsettled conditions for the lower lakes.

Since this is a quotation, this should also be cited. LuciferMorgan 20:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done I missed that one too. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 20:59Z

This proved to be gravely unfortunate for the Great Lakes region, as the storm would have the better part of a day to build up hurricane forces before the Bureau headquarters in Washington, D.C., would have detailed information.

I agree with the above definitely, but it is an observation. An observation has to come from a reliable source. WP:CITE says "make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion." LuciferMorgan 22:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are observations, and there are obvious statements. Every article doesn't have to prove that 1+1=2 whenever writing a mathematical equation. Such statements are a given. The same is the case here. It is obvious that the storm had a better part of a day to build up before the Bureau HQ would have information, and it is also obvious that this would be unfortunate for the people in the region. Example statements such as the one you quote are a necessity for writing an engaging article, rather than a series of lifeless, boring factoids. However, I believe those words can be sourced, so I'll see if I can add a proper citation. I don't think that this alone should be enough grounds for delisting an FA. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 23:16Z
I've just picked out ones where WP:CITE is not actually vague iin the matter. There are other statements I could ask for citation for, but this would be me and my interpration of WP:CITE (which is rather vague in explaining itself in my opinion). LuciferMorgan 00:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can't use the word "unfortunate" without a citation. It's a judgement. All judgements need citations to show that they are not original research. Jay32183 02:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's called writing prose. If we are out to deliver engaging and interesting content, we have to do more than just regurgitate factoids. All well-written articles have a certain amount of judgments like this. I'll find the proper source and rewording tomorrow. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-01 02:53Z
Yes, you can use the word "unfortunate" without a citation if it's unlikely to be challenged—we're supposed to use original prose. Marskell 11:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's just been challenged twice Marskell, by me and Jay, so "unlikely" isn't the case here is it? LuciferMorgan 11:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The validity of that statement hasn't been challenged; it's only been suggested that we're not allowed to say such things, which isn't true. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-01 12:48Z
The statement hasn't been challenged because no credible reason why it might be wrong or misleading has been provided. And I doubt one will be, unless you want to suggest that the gap was "fortunate." Marskell 12:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been challenged twice and with credible reason Marskell. Also you can doubt whatever you wish - after all, we all know what you intend to do given your comments on this FARC don't we? You've made it explicitly clear you intend keeping this no matter how many credible reasons are given, and "credible / not" is according to your own interpretation. I don't want any further involvement in this biased FARC, especially when me, Jay and Sandy (who said "There is still an awful lot of uncited hard data") have expressed 1. c. problems while Tony has expressed 1. a. problems. But when the person who closes FARC dismisses everyone's issue with the article, what can us humble non admins do? Nothing. A sad state of affairs indeed. LuciferMorgan 16:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you very much Lucifer. See you around. Marskell 19:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LM, if Marskell has made errors on closings (and I don't think he has, although I did get after him about Microsoft :-), I'd much rather see someone who errs on the side of keeping an article than delisting it. Removing someone's hard-earned star shouldn't be done easily; if there's doubt or controversy, I'd say it's almost always best to err in favor of the article, and leave it for another day. If an article truly has issues, it will surely be back. I record my concerns on FARs to leave a record for future editors who might want to improve certain aspects. I think FAR could quickly get into deep trouble if our closing admins were perceived as being too trigger happy. It's only an article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not closing articles I was concerned about, but rather everyone's concerns getting brushed aside by the person who closes FAR articles in this specific FARC - I prefer it when Marskell doesn't comment and remains independent until it's keep / save time, and not feeling as though consensus is irrelevant. LuciferMorgan 02:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you've got me. I've always believed consensus is irrelevant. Why do I contact Tony on his talk? Simply for appearances' sake—I think his comments are rubbish and I ignore them. Similarly, I only collaborate with Sandy to make it look like I care. I don't actually think she knows what she's talking about, and given that I've already decided how I'm going to close I ignore her as well. The same logic applies to contacting editors on their talk, segmenting FAR and FARC, and my various status comments. It's all a ruse to make it seem like consensus matters to me, when in truth I'm drunk with power and get a secret thrill from brushing aside comments. Marskell 07:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What credible reasons have not been adequately addressed? You have to be more specific; what is not being cited, what problems are there with the prose? Just saying "1c and 1a are not satisfied" is useless and counterproductive. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-01 16:28Z
Lucifer, so far as I know you are free to close FARs (preferably those in which you have not participated). Historically anyone has been able to close these discussions, regardless of whether they are an admin. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Historically, only three people have regularly done it--Jeffrey G. for a year, and Joel and I for a year. I think it would be a very bad idea to throw it open, as has been detailed on FAR talk. But then I would say that; you can always raise another thread there. Marskell 18:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've certainly done it within the past two years, so that's simply not true. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said "regularly." I don't believe there has been single close by anyone but Joel or I for ten months; I can't really speak for '05, though. Anyhow, this is getting side-tracked. We can talk about it on WT:FAR, if you like. Marskell 18:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd welcome a discussion on the talk page. If "anyone" can start closing FARs, then anyone can close FACs, and then we've got a mess on our hands. Every time this comes up on talk, the consensus is the same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Raul closes FACs because it was agreed that he would be the sole closer; there has been no such agreement for this process. If you feel that such an agreement would be productive you are welcome to suggest it; all in all I agree that it would probably be better discussed on talk. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there has; we could certainly discuss further on talk, but the outcome would likely be the same. Marskell and Joelr31 close FARs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While me and Marskell disagree sometimes, I'm of the opinion he and Joel should remain the FAR closers. I have nothing against anyone here or anything, but I'm not going to contribute to this specific FARC as I've already had one block notice - I don't wish for the trouble. Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan 21:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done I've reworded the contested bit to more closely match the reference, and added a proper inline citation, although entirely unnecessary in my opinion. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-01 16:44Z
  • Very happy for Tim and Joel to remain the predominant closers within an open system. If someone else closes in a way that appears problematic, the argument is that we have experts here, so why didn't you consult/warn/leave it to them? Tony 00:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had a go at that ugly opening (in terms of formatting). The date-range gobledygook is another reason for ignoring WP's broken down, outmoded system of autoformatting, which is still conflated with the linking system and won't allow date ranges. I now advise people not to date-link. I don't care what the MoS gasses on about. My rebuttal would be: fix it!

Which would you prefer:

November 7–10, 1913

or

November 7, 1913, to November 10, 1913

I'll put up with US date formatting to avoid the clutter and blue spattering; it's easier for all readers.

In the opening para, I've removed a few links and the ugly bolding, and what a difference it makes:

ORIGINAL

The Great Lakes Storm of 1913, historically referred to as the "Big Blow," the "Freshwater Fury," or the "White Hurricane," was a blizzard with hurricane-force winds that devastated the Great Lakes basin in the United States Midwest and the Canadian province of Ontario from November 7, 1913, to November 10, 1913. The storm was most powerful on November 9, battering and overturning ships on four of the five Great Lakes, particularly Lake Huron. Deceptive lulls in the storm and the slow pace of weather reports contributed to the storm's destructiveness.

NEW

The Great Lakes Storm of 1913, historically referred to as the "Big Blow", the "Freshwater Fury" or the "White Hurricane", was a blizzard with hurricane-force winds that devastated the Great Lakes basin in the United States Midwest and the Canadian province of Ontario from November 7–10, 1913. The storm was most powerful on November 9, battering and overturning ships on four of the five Great Lakes, particularly Lake Huron. Deceptive lulls in the storm and the slow pace of weather reports contributed to the storm's destructiveness.

I suppose I'll support the retention of this FA, after the excessive linking throughout the article is removed. Why "streetcar", "power" (piped to "electric power"—gee, I didn't know what that was) and "autumn"? There are lots, and they dilute the valuable links. Tony

  • Even though wikilinking is not against any featured article criteria, I've unlinked the words you've requested. If you find any more, please make a request here, or be bold and make the change yourself. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-17 01:20Z
reprise
  • Retain. The citations are sufficient, and the article has been refreshed to meet all other criteria by a number of us ("us" means "Wikipedia editors", not "people with an attachment to the article"). –Outriggr § 05:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also was able to verify a few Brown citations using "Amazon online reader". –Outriggr § 06:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's how I've been verifying everything from Brown. I had the book out through the library before, when I actually wrote the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-17 13:02Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 06:28, 17 May 2007.

Jim Thorpe

Review commentary

Messages left on User_talk:Jeronimo, Olympics, and Baseball --Miskwito 04:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Messages left at Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Indigenous peoples of NA, and NFL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fails 1(c), and probably 1(a), 1(d) and 2.

I don't think the prose is necessarily 'brilliant' or even compelling in some places:

  • "As a result, Thorpe did not handle his brother's death very well, and ran away from school on several occasions. Hiram Thorpe then sent Jim to what is now known as Haskell Indian Nations University in Lawrence, Kansas, so that his son would not run away again."

In others, it reads too much like a sympathetic book written on Thorpe, rather than an encylcopedia article:

  • "Unfortunately every square inch of the film has been lost to time. One of the ironies of Thorpe's life is that no footage exists of him in his athletic prime."
  • "It was not Thorpe's first try at baseball, as would soon become known to the rest of the world."

Which brings us to 1d, neutrality. Section titles such as "A rising star", "An Olympic hero", and "Declared a professional" are not NPOV, nor, I think, is writing like "In October 1982, the IOC Executive Committee approved Thorpe's reinstatement. In an unusual ruling, however, they declared that Thorpe was now co-champion with Bie and Wieslander, even though both athletes had always said they considered Thorpe to be the only champion. In a ceremony on January 18, 1983, two of Thorpe's children, Gale and Bill, were presented with commemorative medals. (The original medals had both ended up in museums, but were stolen and are still missing.)"

With regards to criterion 2, the "Legacy" section in particular is poorly-formatted, and basically proseline. The most serious problem with the article, though, is that it's barely referenced at all. "Legends" and quotes aren't cited (e.g., "Legend has it that, when awarding Thorpe his prize, King Gustav said, "You, sir, are the greatest athlete in the world," to which Thorpe replied, "Thanks, King.""), but neither are almost all other claims, including his claimed Meskwaki name, or very specific data (e.g., "In his lackluster career, he amassed 91 runs scored, 82 runs batted in and a .252 batting average over 289 games."). By current standards, this wouldn't even be close to a GA, let alone a featured article. --Miskwito 03:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—"compelling, even brilliant" is a subjective term that we should throw out the door in favor of "professional writing", which is less subjective. With that said, I agree that the prose needs work. The article has a case of the yo-yo effect; some areas are too formal, and others areas are excessively informal. If anyone is interested in working on this article, I recommend taking a look at User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. — Deckiller 00:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), prose (1a), neutrality (1d), and formatting (2). Marskell 11:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not familiar with the FARC process yet, so I will just add these comments rather than oppose or support (I am not sure whether I can really add new objections or not at this stage).
  • I think that the article fails 1(c) because the major Thorpe biographies listed in the "Further reading" are not used as sources for the article. This makes me question the article's comprehensiveness (1b) and accuracy. It is odd to me that those biographies and others published about Thorpe would not be the basis of the article.
  • One significant omission from the article seems to be a discussion of race. It is hard to believe that race was never an issue in Thorpe's life.
  • I agree that the prose (1a) needs improvement. Quadzilla99 asked me to copyedit this article (which is how I discovered it), but I am not prepared to invest time copyediting an article that may need to be radically revised. (Sorry!)
  • 2(a) The lead is not a summary of the article.

Again, I would say that my most serious concern is that the sources used here are perhaps not the best choices. While in and of themselves not necessarily questionable, a patchwork of websites and reference entries is not going to give the kind of detail that a biography will. I think that the editors should use the biographies since they are available (unless for some reason, they feel these biographies are unreliable). Awadewit 21:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well I wouldn't say it's automatically lacking in certain areas because the bios weren't used, I used the best sources I could come up with on the notice I had. I'm fairly sure the original editors used the biographies to write the article (they're no longer around). It probably should deal with race relations more, also it needs copy-editing so I'm remove as of now. I tried my best to help out but I've exhausted my energy reserves. It's a shame though considering the importance of the figure. Quadzilla99 21:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Prose still needs some work, but I think that can be addressed by keeping it on the LOCE list and moving it from the FAR/FARC section to the proofreading section. Every other concern is addressed. Quadzilla99 09:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 08:02, 14 May 2007.

Boston, Massachusetts

Original nominator aware. Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boston and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Massachusetts. Marskell 12:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Additional message at Cities. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A huge portion of this article lacks sources and is not verifiable, so I don't think it meets the featured article requirements.--Sefringle 05:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Problem solved--Sefringle 07:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Also has minor issues with WP:LEAD (too short), and there are no dashes in the measurements at a quick glance. Quadzilla99 04:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant non-breaking spaces, there weren't as many as I thought. I fixed the ones I saw. Quadzilla99 01:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lead was expanded also. Quadzilla99 01:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I went through the article and added citations to several passages (my rule of thumb is to cite anything that could be seen as controversial or anything that mentions rankings. One cannot end up citing every sentence in the article). If you think citations are still needed, can you add such notations in the article? As for the introduction, I will address it as soon as possible. I am not sure what is meant by the "dashes in the measurements." Can someone clarify this? PentawingTalk 23:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. It's so frustrating to see References where half are first name last name and half are last name, first name. Consistency? Polish it - it's an FA ! Found similar with date formatting; if you wikilink the date parameter in the cite template, dates will show in a consistent format rather than the varying formats used by different editors. On the other hand, it's a pleasure to see a city article that doesn't have the typical External link farm. Why is 1700s wikilinked? See WP:MOSNUM and WP:CONTEXT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article is better than it was when it first passed FA. Well sourced, organized, and (IMO) minimally boostering. Keep.--Loodog 02:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The demographics section still lacks sources, except for the first paragraph.--Sefringle 02:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that still needs attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found and inserted the citations for the demographics section (which all came from the US Census Bureau). PentawingTalk 23:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just corrected some WP:LAYOUT problems, but there is still a navigational template in the middle of the article. Has anyone asked Sefringle if s/he is now happy with the level of citations? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made some other minor corrections to the layout. As for the navigational template, did you meant the government infobox (it seems to be a product of the WikiProject Massachusetts)? Should that be removed? Also, I left a message with Sefringle about the citations on May 4. He should be responding soon... PentawingTalk 14:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The very last paragraph of the article still needs a citation, but that is about it.--Sefringle 05:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisified now. I withdraw my nomination; unless someone else has some other problems with the article.--Sefringle 02:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was kept 07:49, 2 May 2007.

Doctor Who missing episodes

Review commentary

Messages left at User talk:Khaosworks, England and Doctor Who. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While this still seems to be a quite well written comprehensive article, it has just 3 inline citations (plus one note) hence violating 1 c).--Konstable 13:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the references are from external book sources, as you can see from the bottom of the page, so the sheer number of inline citations does not matter, as the references are quite clear. Anything else? Smomo 17:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there aren't enough specific inline citations for all the facts presented in the article's prose. While book citations are nice, they need to be more specific, i.e. what book (and possibly which page number) the sources come from for each fact presented. To cite all the necessary stuff could take a while. While I would like to help, I don't have enough time at the moment. For anyone who takes on this job, I would reccomend the site of the Doctor Who Restoration Team, which contains plenty of information on the restorations and conditions of episodes for citations. Green451 17:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "References" don't provide page numbers, so to be considered to cover 1c they would have to do so. Harvard referencing or inline citations usually cover 1c. LuciferMorgan 19:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to provide Harvard-style citations with page numbers in the next week — I've been quite busy in real life lately, but I'll try to make some time for this. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have a go at some of this in the next few days too. Angmering 01:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok cool. I prefer inline citation personally, but up to you whichever you wish to use. LuciferMorgan 14:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd let you know that I have begun citing this article — I've only started the job, and there's still a lot more needs doing, but I thought I'd reassure you that work is being done on it. Angmering 13:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My invisible hat tips off to you :) LuciferMorgan 19:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article now has 82 footnotes tied to 40 separate references. I don't know if this satisfies the review yet, but I have dropped User:Konstable a line on his talk page asking if his concerns are being satisfied, and I await a reply. Angmering 13:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said your books etc. are 160 miles away at present? Well, if you make a pledge to add specific page numbers when they're at hand I'd be very happy. Criterion 1. c. has definitely been met anyway, and congratulations to you. LuciferMorgan 16:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For two of the magazines and one book I was working from web versions, yes, but I cited the print versions because they look much better as cites. Still the same text content, though. I can certainly add the specific page numbers next time I'm back in Sussex, probably next month sometime, although I have asked on the project talk page if anybody else can supply them sooner. Angmering 16:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds cool. LuciferMorgan 15:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, sorry I have been off-wiki for a while due to real life. I think the citation is working quite well now. I don't have any further concerns with it.--Konstable 04:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is citations (1c).

Comment: People seemed happy, but I thought I'd move it to get official comments on status as it's been up a while. Marskell 11:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was kept 06:11, 28 April 2007.

James I of England

Messages left at Emsworth, Bio, Royalty, UK notice board, Ireland, Scotland, England, LGBT, and Calvinism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An old (2004) featured article on a King of England. Compared to other Kings of England featured articles I've read, this one is badly organised and flabby. Lots of the information in different sections (templates, infoboxes, ancestors, successors, predecessors, dynasty) overlaps and is not presented in context (compare the succession boxes with the paragraph I wrote here). Possibly the article has expanded in an untidy and uncontrolled manner since it was promoted and just needs tightening up again. The summary and lead section should be merged and expanded. The painting gallery of descendents is nice, but probably excessive. Many of the sections are single paragraphs and need to be expanded. Oh, and inline citations, of course... Carcharoth 02:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that descendants gallery is nice at all. See my comment on talk. It's quite a recent addition, I suspect. This article has really become a mess. I could reference most of it from books on my shelf, but it needs a total rewrite and I'm just too committed on other articles at the moment. However, I'll try to do a little bit here and there because we mustn't allow this important king not to have a featured article. qp10qp 04:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The lead is short and doesn't summarize the article. The summary section shouldn't exist because the lead is supposed to summarize the article. There are lots of stubby sections, including a one sentence section. There are vast amounts of text uncited, including quotations. Jay32183 04:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the bibliography to "Further Reading" because we don't know which books provided which info. I've started a ref section and will add three standard biogs there and then chuck in some notes based on them. The existing notes are largely ramshackle internet ephemera, which I'll kick out for something better when I come to them. I'm going to start reffing from the top, so that other people can join in in an orderly fashion. If several of us get stuck in, we can sort this blighter pretty quickly. qp10qp 15:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to be improving nicely, in my opinion. I hope you don't mind if I just watch from the sidelines and make the odd contribution here or there, as I don't have the books you are referring to. I might try and expand the context using material from other articles (eg. He was x years old when such and such an event took place, etc), and making clear his relationships to Elizabeth, Mary, and the other people in his life. He does seem like an interesting king, and I agree with Qp10qp that we should try and bring this article up to scratch. Carcharoth 19:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could copy edit in my wake. The prose is not very good. On the whole, I am leaving that as it is for the time being, because if I copy edit and ref at the same time, I'll get bogged down. At the moment I'm only changing the text where I feel it drifts away from historical accuracy. I'm somewhat over-noting at the moment, just to give other editors an idea of what I'm up to. (Basically, to judge by its assumptions, this article could have been written thirty years ago, so I am adding a layer of recent scholarship, which has tended to revise James's reputation considerably.) qp10qp 21:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're doing fine as it is. I'm going to stand back and watch in awe! :-) Carcharoth 02:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I seem to have slipped from just reffing into reffing and rewriting, because a more complex text is required once we get into parliaments and Catholicism. I'm about half through now, which doesn't mean all is satisfactory in the first half (the politics of James's last fifteen years in Scotland aren't much mentioned, for example; I'll go back to that after I've finished my bulldozing and ref-abrication spree). I thought there'd be loads of us rushing to the aid of England's most interesting monarch (I wouldn't say Britain's—his mum takes that biscuit), but still. qp10qp 12:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No rushing to his aid, as that would disturb you. :-) I have put a few questions on the talk page. As for his poor ol' Mam, she isn't featured... Carcharoth 13:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - shall we close this FAR now? The article is nearly completely referenced except for the birth and death dates of the children, and the ancestor table. One question I have is how to mark this massive improvement and citation labour in the article milestones template. Is there a way to note there that it went to FAR, was improved, and remains a featured article? Plus linking to the new and updated version for any future releases? Carcharoth 13:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The bot that updates FAC closures also updates FAR/FARC closures. If people are still working on the article based on concerns raised here then we should leave the review open. Articles don't get removed when this much work is being done. When those editors feel they are finished, they should leave a note here and request that reviewers judge the new state of the article. Jay32183 18:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the article and, with Carcharoth, addressed the issues:

An old (2004) featured article on a King of England. Compared to other Kings of England featured articles I've read, this one is badly organised and flabby.

  • Reorganised. Flab cut. The article is now longer but with strong material added.
Update: I have been shipping parts of the article out into Wikipedia: Summary style articles. For the purpose, I created James I of England and the English Parliament and James I of England and religious issues, and I have substantially added to Spanish Match and Thomas Overbury as well as decanting some material into Gunpowder Plot. I still have some more bits and pieces to farm out, though nothing major. I would point out that though the article stands at about 60 kb, compared to about 44kb when this FAR was called, the readable prose is now about the same (I just counted the surface prose [not counting notes, booklists etc. but including infobox and side words] at 4,562 words, compared to 4,627 words on April 10. So the basic article is somewhat the same in length. qp10qp 04:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of the information in different sections (templates, infoboxes, ancestors, successors, predecessors, dynasty) overlaps and is not presented in context.

  • Lots of this cut. Other parts rationalised, for example the Stuart dynasty box and repetitions.

Possibly the article has expanded in an untidy and uncontrolled manner since it was promoted and just needs tightening up again.

  • Tightened up. Random additions cut.

The summary and lead section should be merged and expanded.

  • Done.

The painting gallery of descendents is nice, but probably excessive.

  • Removed.

Many of the sections are single paragraphs and need to be expanded.

  • Addressed. Paragraphs are now carefully focussed and relate to the overall structure of the article.

Oh, and inline citations, of course...

  • Article now fully referenced, with inline citations.

Please add any further points and they will be addressed in short order.

I will continue to edit the article in order to rectify minor omissions and nuance the referencing using more specialist sources. I intend to move some material to daughter articles to make it shorter. But please don't mistake these edits for continuing work on the FAR. I now believe this article is worthy again of its FA status, but I leave that decision to the reviewers. qp10qp 10:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If you haven't restored FA status, then you're really close. The article would pass a GAC quite quickly, and definitely make A-class if the relevant projects had reviews for that. If I were a primary editor of this article, I'd say "Nitpickers welcome!" Jay32183 17:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status: So people are happy here? At a glance, I'd actually suggest the lead is a bit over-cited... Marskell 10:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly note 7 and 8 could be removed because the points they reference aren't very controversial. But the other seven notes in the lead address thorny questions that are by no means as straightforward as they look (the usual principle of leaving notes until the main body is unhelpful here because people have tended to edit the statements in the lead the most). My reading of the labyrinthine archives is that most of these points have been the subject of long, ill-informed debates (but read the comments of user:JKenney which are spot on throughout—whether he's a professional, I don't know, but he speaks like a historian). For this reason, I felt it necessary to nail these statements in place; otherwise the potential for renewed deterioration in this article is enormous. qp10qp 14:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the things being cited in the lead have a history of being contraversial on Wikipedia, then I would leave them cited. Preventing edit wars is one of the listed reasons to cite sources. Jay32183 16:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What happens, and we've even had a little of this since the FAR began, is that people edit on the basis of their own POVs. So, for example, they may change wording to give pre-eminence to one of James's kingdoms over another, or they may fuss over words like "union". And these matters are indeed complex. For example, James proclaimed himself "King of Great Britain", and so some people think that therefore he was King of Great Britain, and that a so-called "union of the crowns" took place not only by proclamation but by statute in 1603. In fact, the term "union of the crowns" is problematic (our article on the subject is, in effect, a sustained explanation of why such a union did not take place). The technical term for what took place is a "personal union", and that is now referenced and will help repel those who think that might be the same thing as the union of crowns, which was only a royal policy. One king wore three crowns, but despite his own proclamations, those three crowns remained separate.
The mere mention of the fact that James succeeded Elizabeth invites messy explanations of how he came to inherit, almost certain to be misleading. Tight referencing will now refer that question to good sources. The sentence on majority took ages to research and word craftily, because that was a gradual and often contradictory process. There has been a tendency also for editors to assume that James's problems with Parliament led to those of Charles, and this is a long-established and acceptable view: but it has been repeatedly modified by historians in the last fifteen years, so now both views are set out in the lead antithetically, with references. Editors have also wanted the "wisest fool in Christendom" in as a strong and famous one-liner for the lead; but there's much more to that than meets the eye, too, which the careful wording and referencing of it now indicates. All the references are intended to hold the present balanced and informed interpretations in place against any future editor who arrives, armed with a "little knowledge" but without references, seeking, perhaps in all good faith, to tilt the article back into one-sided interpretations. qp10qp 22:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, thanks all. So people don't feel we need FARC then? Marskell 08:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like anyone's very bothered, to be honest. A FARC might at least winkle a vote or two out, and maybe some objections, but colleague Carcharoth and I are pretty determined to meet all objections and prevent this beast from losing its FA status, so there's only ever going to be one result. qp10qp 16:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling is that the article is now fully cited, there are no image problems, and the new sub-articles have improved the focus and flow of the article. Prose looks great to me, but it is not my forte. I don't think we really need an FARC this time. Jay32183 18:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, my initial concerns, stated at the start of this Featured Article review process, have been more than adequately addressed. I agree that nothing further is needed here. Carcharoth 23:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

DNA

Article is no longer a featured article.

(This article has been the subject of a dispute which won't be resolved in the short-term due to wikiegos.) The article is incomplete: DNA#More_on_DNA_replication -- Stewart Adcock 20:56, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Agreed. -- Emsworth 22:54, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove it till the edit wars end. It is completely outlandish that we should feature an article that's being protected! A truly great way of showing Wikipedia at its best, no? The situation is so bad that it may be best to take it up on WikiEN-l to ask for immediate action. Dandrake 23:23, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

Removed status

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

The article was removed 07:45, 10 April 2007.

Chemical synapse

Review commentary

Messages left at 168... and Molecular and Cellular Biology. LuciferMorgan 17:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Message left at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine Announcements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed in May 2006 here. Parker007 brought this article to my attention, and I agree that it needs some work to get back to featured article quality. I'm concerned that an article of this length is not comprehensive; specifically, it lacks any historical information about the discovery of chemical synapses, and each section is only one paragraph long. It was also a very poor read for me since the jargon used is poorly (if at all) defined. There are very few inline citations too. I know science articles have their own guidelines for that, but I don't see why the citations can't be of the same quality as those in Proteasome. ShadowHalo 07:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to state that the section "Anatomy and physiology" is in horrible condition and I removed 2 sentences and left this message on the talk page of the article:

Second Sentence

  • The biological membrane of the two cells side each other across a slender gap, the narrowness of which enables signalling neurotransmitters to pass rapidly from one cell to the other by diffusion. This gap, which is about 20 nm wide, is known as the synaptic cleft.

Third sentence

  • Such synapses are asymmetric both in structure and in how they operate.
--Parker007 20:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've mostly reverted to the version from before this review started, saving some minor changes. Basically all edits had reduced article quality. To Parker: (1) The two cells talked about in the previous sentence. (2) The prototypical synapses that have been the whole topic of the section thus far. I really don't see how you would have trouble with this, nor do I see how simply deleting the sentence is helpful. That said, the article could use some work. It doesn't appear, for instance, to treat metabotropic receptors, instead discussing NT receptors only in terms of ion channels. In general there is an awful lot to say as this is a pretty fundamental article for neurobiology. On the plus side, inline citations do not appear to be a serious problem; this is all pretty fundamental and unlikely to be challenged. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The two cells talked about in the previous sentence. So can you name the cells? Because it is very ambiguous. --Parker007 04:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC) (2) The prototypical synapses that have been the whole topic of the section thus far. What is a prototypical synapse? --Parker007 05:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A prototypical synapse is a synapse that is prototypical, that is model. I have changed the term to archetypal to make this clearer. The two cells are any two cells at a synapse, I am not sure what you mean by naming them. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to have some quantitative information e.g. the statistical distribution of the number of synapses per brain cell in the brains. (JRi)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b), and citations (1c). Marskell 11:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 12:25, 14 April 2007.

Architecture of Btrieve

Review commentary

Talk messages left at Ta bu shi da yu and Computer science. LuciferMorgan 17:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very simply, this was made an FA almost two years ago (21 1/2 months, to be exact). It contains zero footnotes/citations and only six references, along with no external links. This is the only real problem I see with the article (I have no idea what Btrieve is or how it works, so I can't really say if it's well-written, but it looks comprehensive enough and NPOV), but it's a pretty severe problem for an article that's supposedly of Featured quality. -- Kicking222 18:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kicking, per the FAR instructions above, would you mind notifying the original article author/nominator and the WikiProjects listed on the article talk page, with {{subst:FARMessage|Architecture of Btrieve }}~~~~ Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I already did notify the nominator last night. Sorry for not mentioning that. Here it is, five minutes after I posted this FAR. As for the WikiProject, I just left a message on the talk page of WPCompSci. -- Kicking222 20:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my own defence, this was a FA at a time when footnoting wasn't really a requirement of FA. I did think that things weren't going to be removed due to footnoting issues. However, all the material for this article is in the references section. Perhaps that could be taken into consideration here? The information is good. Btrieve, incidently, is a database, which is what is stated in the lead section. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this; adding footnotes with the exact pages where one should look for the facts stated in this articles (which are undisputed and uncontroversial) in the documents mentioned in the references sections wouldn't hurt, but is far from essential. Both Btrieve and Architecture of Btrieve are quite short by today's FA standards, perhaps the should be merged? —Ruud 22:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the time, the article was about 50KB or so. I think that's a little large. Best to keep split, but then again I'm biased :-) Ta bu shi da yu 07:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is citations (1c). Marskell 10:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 12:25, 14 April 2007.

Commodore 64

Review commentary

Talk messages left at DanielNuyu and Video games. LuciferMorgan 02:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original FAC page.

Well written article. Cman 19:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, unless I'm missing something this article is currently a featured article ?!?! Dr pda 20:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it was a feature article back in 2005. Cman 20:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you want this featured article to go under review? See WP:FAR. CloudNine 21:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrongly listed at FAC, but moved to FAR by myself per WP:BOLD. Now it's here, what criteria does Cman feel is at fault? LuciferMorgan 21:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At quick glance, perhaps only 5 inline citations, a picture without a source, and a gallery (which isn't used anymore)?--Clyde (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't think it was Cman's intention to have this at FAR. Rather I think the intention was to have it appear on the main page again. So far no article has ever appeared on the main page twice, and it's not likely to happen in the near future. FAs are being produced faster than one per day, so there is no shortage. Gimmetrow 23:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well this'll end up on FAR sooner or later regardless - fails a few criteria points. I think it should stay here to be honest. LuciferMorgan 23:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine, if you will be taking responsibility for this FAR nomination. Gimmetrow 23:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Me? I'm not taking responsibility for anything at FAR other than my own FAR nominations after recent FAR events. LuciferMorgan 23:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what that encompasses, but I could help.--Clyde (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I have the knowledge or drive to handle the major work this thing needs to stay FA on my own (I certainly know the work amount in an FA). Drop some messages, see who comes. I know it fails 1(c), 3, and maybe 1(a).--Clyde (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that although it came here via a strange route, it does need to be here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If all reviews by the FAR regulars is going to be in checklist fashion, then we'll have to make sure that those checklists are applied correctly. FAR is not about footnote counting, so please produce some detailed and constructive criticism. And don't do it by simply adding random fact tags that simply amount to "I don't believe this but I have no counterarguments for my doubts". As far as I'm concerned it's a mild form of WP:POINT-making. Try to show some commitment to your task as reviewers and produce reasonable doubt or justification for the blanket accusations of "not enough inlines". Peter Isotalo 12:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I kind of take offense to that. I've never worked in a FAR before, and whenever I read about them, they always start by listing the criteria that the article fails. This came here in a weird fashion, so I was under the impression that needed to be done. The reason why I thought this was short on citations is because many FAs around now have at least 1 citation per paragraph. In this case, history has only two, and there are zero in hardware or software. There is a group of references at the end that need to be integrated, which might help take care of the lack of citations. According to you, I can't help the citation problem by adding fact tags (it's violating WP:POINT apparently), so I guess we'll have to wait for someone who knows a lot about the Commodore 64 to come around and specifically tell us what needs to be citied. I don't understand, stuff like "Due to its advanced graphics and sound, the C64 is often credited with starting the computer subculture known as the demoscene (see Commodore 64 demos)." probably needs a fact tag. There is enough stuff like that in there that it wouldn't have to be random. Oh, and by the way, I doubt there will be much "commitment" or "reasonable doubt", since there is no one who wants to see this burn unless it's improved, and there's no one who really wants to save it.--Clyde (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A good first step would be eliminating the gallery of fair use images, it violates the fair use criteria. Jay32183 00:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Should the article have KiB or kB? At the time of promotion it had kB, and this was the common use during the period this article is about. Gimmetrow 16:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd prefer KiB to avoid confusion. Most people will assume the modern usage of kB. Jay32183 20:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article was only converted to KiB in early March. I would prefer kB for historical computers, but as long it stays with KiB (no "kibinybbles" please), it's probably tolerable. The fair use image for the game doesn't seem justified; the other images appear to be PD or freely licensed. Gimmetrow 05:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), images (3), and prose (1a). Marskell 13:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove While images have been removed and some terminology has been changed, nothing is being done regarding inline citations; there are currently 6. If work gets done please notify me or if I'm away and it get's a significant amount of citations disregard my comments. Aaron Bowen 20:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 09:39, 13 April 2007.

Torchic

Review commentary

Messages left at HighwayCello, Video games, Nintendo, and Pokemon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has horrible sources. It fails WP:N and (1c) of the FA criteria. Some references don't even back up the claims made. There are some references that don't mention the subject at all. User:A_Man_In_Black has highlighted some of the problems Here on the article's talk page. Funpika 01:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My commentary from talk, in toto:

This article is pathetically sourced, and seems to fail WP:N miserably. I was looking at the references closely, and they don't stand up to scrutiny.

Some highlights:

  • Many of the cited references don't even back up the claims made. For example, take the reference to [5]; this isn't cited as a source that Combusken is a flying Pokémon; it's cited as a source that it isn't a flying Pokémon. WTF?
  • The claim of the origin of the name, a debatable linguistic analysis, is sourced to a Pokémon fansite.
  • Reference #3 is directly to a Japanese-English dictionary, which makes no reference to Torchic at all.
  • At least a third of the references (I gave up counting) are to poorly-written, not-at-all-analytical anime episode summaries on Serebii.
  • The references to Gamespy, IGN, and Gamespot don't mention Torchic at all.
  • The article is laden with references to primary sources for facts of questionable importance. How are any of the toys important? Nobody has seen fit to comment on them but Hasbro. How is the recall important? The only party to comment is the recalling party.

Additionally, this article doesn't have a single word on the creative process that led to the creation of Torchic, nor a single word of sourced analysis or critical reception.

I'm not sure if this is FA quality. I'm not sure if this is GA quality. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThat creation point is unnecessary. And references need to be interpreted carefully as they might not be the citation for an entire statement, maybe only the last part. I added episode templates for the anime paragraphs, so it's time we stop questioning Serebii's quality and continue improving Torchic.

I have erased all the citations that are being manipulated for the sake of stating misconceptions and asserting vague facts like the flying type Torchic and Bulbasaur's seed. I also feel that the toys section is needed.

Talking about etymology, Pokedream is the only site that provides it. I don't mind if that citation is removed, but what is the debatable linguistics in torch + chick = Torchic? There is no dispute possible about the name unlike that of Lugia or Milotic, right? Vikrant Phadkay 13:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to the comment about the article's notability - notability is not a consideration for the FA process. We inherently presume that all articles nominated are notable (FAC and FAR are not AFD and should not attempt to replicate its function). So that criticism is irrelevant. Raul654 06:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing that the subject isn't notable, but that its sources don't allow for any sort of useful explanation of the importance of this subject. Would you not agree that an article that fails to explain how the subject of the article is important isn't a comprehensive article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the problems should be fixable. If there isn't any analysis in the anime or manga sections then the Serebii refs can be replaced by citing the episodes and issues directly. The comprehensiveness problem will probably be the hardest issue to tackle. Will there actually be sources about the creation or reception of Torchic, or any Pokemon other than Pikachu. This doesn't hold a candle to some of the other featured articles on fictional characters. Jay32183 04:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't solve the problem that this article is completely lacking in critical analysis from reliable sources, just the fact that Serebii isn't a great way to cite things. I don't think Torchic can actually support a comprehensive article; this is filled out with inane, empty fragments of fictional stories or settings. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree. I'd just like to push WP:PCP away from using Serebii as much as possible. Jay32183 04:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually wondered about the reliability of Serebii before, given that I had been misled before in their gaming sections. I guess the issue hasn't died down yet. Hbdragon88 04:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, every discussion seems to go....
  • Hey, is Serebii really a reliable source? It's run by one person, often has long-uncorrected errors, is a fansite, often doesn't update pages, etc.
    • So what else are we going to use?
      • ...
Thread gets archived
We need to actually do something about this, this time. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know. That error totally screwed up my Gardevoir. I stopped EV training halfway before it would have completed (as I was under the impression that they would be doubled), so I have a personal vendetta against that place. (Fortunately, those EV reducing berries in Emerald fixed that problem). Hbdragon88 05:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
let's keep discussion of serebii to a minimum - only what is pertinent to the article, we can discuss it further at the project page. For a rebuttal, if we were to guage accuracy with the amount of content that serebii covers (450+ anime epiguides; 3 advanced pokedexes for RBYGSC(251 pokemon), RSEFrLg(386), DP(493); 2 attackdexes (354 and 467); several detailed pages on game mechanics; complete item lists; walkthroughs and strategy guides for 29 games; not to mention the detailed lists on manga, movies, and the TCG) their error rate is probably as low as wikipedia's and wikipedia's is reportedly lower than Brittanica's and the errors eventually get fixed. There are several other issues, like this one that i brought up on Highway's talk page, which was never fixed. I guess he was trying to quote serebii epiguides to say that the show promotes people liking it because of its attractiveness, but the real arguable claim, "...Torchic's popularity is partially due to its aesthetic appeal." is completely unsourced. In fact, a comparison is made to the previous fire starter (no Stephen King jokes) Charmander and the source isn't the one making the link, i think it is meant to establish the fact that Charmander's popularity has to due with aesthetic appeal, but that source is just some personal website gallery of Charmander merchandise. At least the Hasbro stuff is from a more legitimate website. Of course this is only one example. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 05:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um. Serebii isn't a reliable source not just because of the errors, but because of the source of those errors. Serebii is full of mistakes because it's one guy's fansite. It's not even close to independently reviewed. It's just not a reliable source.
It doesn't help that this article's relatively best references are to a fansite noted for being somewhat flakey among Pokémon fans. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The last spur was meant in jest, of course I'm not going to want to revoke Torchic's FA status merely because Serebii gave me incorrect game guide info (they're unrelated). But there are other outstanding issues with Serebii. AMIB is willing to argue them. I'm just in the background. Hbdragon88 07:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Serebii is a self-published source, therfore it fails to be a reliable source. The claims that nothing else could be used doesn't matter because if there isn't a reliable source then Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on it. Jay32183 18:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I picked a couple of Serebii citations at random. The first one: Synopsis of Pokémon Adventures manga; Chapter 183. "VS. Mightyena" Serebii.net. URL accessed 13 May 2006. -- shouldn't this be citing the the manga directly? There seem to be quite a few citations of this type. The second: Bulbasaur Pokédex entry - "A seed was planted on its back at birth. The plants sprouts and grows with this Pokémon." Serebii.net. URL accessed 5 July 2006. -- I don't see that quote on that page. Even if Serebii were a reliable source, there are still issues here. Side note: citation 6 is broken. Pagrashtak 19:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When no analysis is being performed then citing manga, anime, or the video games directly is perfectly acceptable. The lack of analysis may keep the article from being comprehensive, but that's no reason not to cite the most reliable source available. Jay32183 21:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With no analysis whatsoever, this article's prose is far from brilliant. It merely slaps together trivial scraps of plot and setting. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be noted that a lot of things can be cited directly from the appropriate media - episode guides are a backing, but seeing as to their source, and some inaccuracies that could come in that source, it's best we stick to simply citing the media. Since Torchic is full of citations that could be attributed to media, that too, should be rectified. And, agreed with AMIB. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 09:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth is all this happening?
  • Keep for sure - The article has been provided with all possible sources and if we keep questioning their reliability, the project will never get another FA and we'll rather lose this one and the other one too!

Never shall the official site give us episode guides, game guides, manga guides etc. So eventually either the project fails in its aims because of one criterion. Then why not introduce another two citations at all places where Serebii can't be relied on? Criticism is easy, after all!

The Internet has 1 billion web pages and none of them is 100% reliable; they are all 99.99999999.......%. Still those who don't rely can glide across Google and locate and compare many more sites. Or best is to play the game and clarify all the so-called doubts.

And all the minor problems with a few sources can be rectified with ease or removed presuming them as OR. There's absolutely no need to dethrone the article for that. Vikrant Phadkay 12:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about this is, if Torchic continues to fail to meet the requirements (as it has been doing even since its nomination) its position here should no longer be held. It fails attribution, the article itself isn't so well-written, and writing compatible sections isn't going to happen like magic. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 12:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On that note, it was bad enough that when it appeared on the front page, editors immediately and consistently picked on its citation problems. Not very good at all. And this isn't a vote yet; it's a discussion to address the shortcomings that need to be addressed before we all either feel it's still eligible or whether we need to bring it up for removal. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 12:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder, the internet is not the only resource. Serebii is not reliable by definition because it is a fan run website. The article's worst shortcoming is it's comprehensiveness, meaning the article is incomplete. There is no discussion of creation or reaction, which is required when discussing a fictional character. Jay32183 18:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns is quality of citations (1c). Marskell 10:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article appears to additionally fail "comprehensive" (1b), as suggested in discussion. Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 21:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no out of universe information. How was the character created? Cosplay? How was the pokemon received by critics? I suggest looking at Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. If you can find translated interviews from Japanese magazines (which is about as reliable as we can get due to these topics being from Japan, translation reliabilities aside; work with what you can for the subject at hand, because people will understand if you can't exactly find a new york times interview, heh) or secondary analyses that in turn cite sources, then 1b will be met. If not even a borderline reliable/self-published source (which may be fine in relation to this subject) can be found with out of universe information, then this needs to be transwikied, then compressed and merged into a article about this generation of Pokemon. I don't have a problem with most the sources being used, to be honest; it's the fact that if you're using this level of sources (which is probably quite accurate in relation to this subject), why not find out of universe material at least on this level?
  • Prose issues throughout.
  • 1c. Some of the sources are just plain unreliable, like fansites. Usually, the only things good from fansites are sourced analyses with an author and contact, and interviews with contact information or sources (were they taken from a magazine? if no source is provided and its a fan-run interview, I recommend not using it to be safe). We must be careful when using fansites. — Deckiller 03:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Number 14 is good. It's the over reliance on websites that's causing the problem in this article. Jay32183 20:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: That's not a valid grounds for declaring Remove; note 14 is to a magazine article. It's correctly sourced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, I admit it is idiotic reason for deletion. But my vote is still remove, per the rest of remove voters.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlazikenMaster (talk • contribs) 18:18, April 10, 2007[6]
    • It is theoretically possible that there might be a way to improve the citations. However, that would require a rethink of the entire method of sourcing Pokemon articles, so it's not some trivial matter that can be fixed fast enough to keep it a FA. -Amarkov moo! 15:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove due to source issues. Pagrashtak 23:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think I need to point out that a lack of reliable sources does not excuse a lack of comprehensiveness. That does mean that certain articles can never be FAs, and we may need to reconsider whether they should have been their own articles in the first place. Jay32183 18:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Completely fails to meet 1a, and is not really meeting 1b or 1c, either. More than anything, I would ask any supporter of the article remaining an FA to read a really high-quality FA (look at Joan of Arc for just one example) and compare the quality of prose. Oh man, this article is not all that interesting, it's not altogether informative, and it's maybe, maybe a GA. But certainly not an FA. Sanity will prevail. (Phadkay, your efforts to improve the article are appreciated and useful and helpful, regardless of whether or not the article remains an FA. Nicely done.) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 12:25, 14 April 2007.

Caulfield Grammar School

Review commentary

Talk messages left at Harro5, Schools and Australia. LuciferMorgan 02:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original FAC shows indecision:

This article passed in 2005, when standard for articles was a lot lower than it is now. It currently does not meet FA criteria.

  • 1a) It does not contain brilliant prose. Some paragraphs are two sentences long. Some of the grammer may be questionable. A thorough copyedit is required.
  • 1b) Leadership program is not mentioned. Extra-curricular academic opportunities are forgotten. Information on school philosophy, motto, song, past achievements, mission etc. are not given.
  • 1c) This is the biggest problem. Half of the article is unsourced. A featured article shouldn't have [citation needed] tags lying around everywhere.
  • 1d) The article contains a very pro-Caulfield point of view. For example: "Five debates are held each year, and Caulfield teams debate against other Melbourne schools - both independent and government schools - on various current interest topics. Debaters in Year 12 compete in the A-Grade division, many having begun in the Year 9 D-Grade and been involved in all four divisions of the DAV competition." It gives a feeling of experience and strength in debating when this is quite the norm in all schools in Australia.
  • 2a) The lead doesn't summarize the topic. Mentions of the fee and of the school mission statement are not made in the rest of the article. Two paragraphs of the lead are unimportant and don't belong there.
  • 2b) Very minor but the history seems awkwardly sorted into ToC.
  • 3) More images might be nice.

Those are my views. Sfdasfr 02:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sfdasfr, per the FAR instructions above, pls notify the original article author/nominator and the WikiProjects listed on the article talk page, with {{subst:FARMessage|Caulfield Grammar School}}~~~~ Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They have been notified. Sfdasfr 02:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Lucifer (just thinking it's time we started prompting nominators to do this, per instructions.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah you have a point. Perhaps we can instruct them to do so and give them two days before we take action ourself? LuciferMorgan 21:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will do it next time. Sfdasfr 05:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. LuciferMorgan 09:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the main contributor to this article, but am currently not able to edit very much. (Hint: Great Firewall of China). I will do what I can to address any concerns, but need more specifics from the original comments. Harro5 02:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe most of my comments are fairly specific. I have added cn tags in places in which the comments are not verifiable. The school uniform is unsourced but I'm being lax there because it's harder to find a source for. There are numerous other completely sunsourced sections. There is pro-Caulfield POV in places. The VCE section is POV and unsourced. The Nanjing campus section is POV and unsourced. A major copyedit would do well. The article isn't deserving of FA status in current times. Sfdasfr 04:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No-one at all is working on this article and the problems have still not been addressed. Should we go to FARC?? Sfdasfr 06:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b), citations (1c), and POV (1d). Marskell 13:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 12:25, 14 April 2007.

Beverage-can stove

Review commentary

Talk messages left at Sj and Backpacking. LuciferMorgan 17:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found this one while going through hiking-equipment articles for the newly-created backpacking project. Approved back in the days of looser standards. Well-illustrated but sorely lacking in citations. I as surprised to see the gold star; it would not be approved now. Can it be fixed or do we have to remove it? Daniel Case 03:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is probably as comprehensive as it needs to be, however it is listy and comprised of stubby sections and paragraphs. Ceoil 21:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), stub sections etc. (2). Marskell 10:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't pass GA as it isn't well referenced etc. LuciferMorgan 04:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GA?! Not even as a joke!--Yannismarou 09:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 09:39, 13 April 2007.

Éire

Review commentary

Talk messages left at Ireland and Countries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1a, prose is not brilliant, in my opinion the most obvious example of this is over usage of parentheses.
  • 1c, very light on inline citations, and has dubious statements, some of which have already been questioned on the talk page.
  • 1d, although possible not an issue, POV has been brought up on the talk page
  • 2a, lead section is too long, especially considering this article is smaller than most featured articles
  • 2b/c, 5 headings and no subheadings, heading names include the title of the article, also section sizes vary widely
  • 3, only 3 images, one of which violates fair use

On a side note, this article was featured an indeterminate but long time ago and has no FAC page. Vicarious 13:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I add the following:

  • 1a: footnotes: the Browne/MacBride and Lenihan footnotes are chatty (and utterly irrelevant).
  • 1b: there is no mention of:
    • the fact that many foreigners mistakenly think that Éire is the official name of the country in all languages, and that many Irish people hate to see/hear "Éire" used as such in English, French, etc, and may even view such usage as egregious ignorance or a calculated snub. There was an amount of contentious and uncited assertion along these lines (see Talk page), now reduced to the inadequate "Since 1949, the term Republic of Ireland has generally been used in preference to Éire, when speaking English."
    • other etymological theories besides the etiological "Ériu"
  • 3: the map of Ireland serves no purpose in this article other than decoration.
  • 4: aaaaaggghhhh! I get the impression the article was written with much youthful enthusiasm in the early days of Wikipedia and crammed with various goodies to get it up to what passed for Featured Article status then, and has since been left to twist in the wind while other articles covering similar ground have caught up and overtaken it. It seems originally to have served as "History of the Irish state from 1937 to 1949". A grossly misleading infobox to that effect survived until 3 weeks ago. Most of what is still there belongs on another article. Éire should be about the Irish word Éire, its etymology, official and unofficial usage and meanings; even if it covered that far more comprehensively than now, I doubt there would be enough substance for FA status. The entire Éire#From Éire to the Republic of Ireland section should be removed from Éire and merged with Republic of Ireland Act and/or Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949. There is also overlap with Names of the Irish state, British Isles (terminology)#Ireland_2 and Constitution of Ireland#Historical origins. A co-ordinated reworking of all these would certainly help; at the end of that daunting task, I think Éire will be left with very little content.

I think there is no hope of this article regaining FA status any time soon. jnestorius(talk) 23:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Its unfortunate but a majority of the article should be merged into the Republic of Ireland Act. The text is blatantly partisan (see treatment of both Costello &, oh dear..."the controversial" Noel Browne). Prose is weak in places: "in front of an affronted Costello". Ceoil 20:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Progress is unlikely, propose a move to FARC and a merge with Republic of Ireland Act, which when neutralised will be a very strong article. Ceoil 20:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you mean merge the relevant section(s)? We still need a separate article about the word Éire. jnestorius(talk) 23:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, yes, I mean those sections only. Ceoil 14:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), citations (1c), LEAD (2a), TOC and sections (2b&c), and images (3). Marskell 10:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 13:22, 9 April 2007.

History of Alaska

Review commentary

Messages left at the article's talk page and Wikispork --Miskwito 00:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Messages left at History, United States, and U.S. states. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fails 1c; there are very few inline citations. A number of reliable print references are cited at the bottom of the page, however, so I think the main task is just indicating which statements in the article itself come from which reference source. Otherwise, the article seems excellent. --Miskwito 00:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Numbers and units of measurement must have a non-breaking hard space between them. Is it "The Department of Alaska" or "Department of Alaska"? (Pls see WP:MSH). Full dates (Month day, year) should be wikilinked; some are not. Footnotes should include publisher in all cases, author and publication date when available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sooooo...15 days later, and nothing changed. I don't have any Alaska-related reference works to dig through for citations myself (nor does the topic really interest me enough that I'd be able to focus on doing that for very long). I'm not sure who decides when to change this to a FARC, though...? Or if that's appropriate yet, since hardly anyone has weighed in? --Miskwito 04:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am absolutely 100% against removing this article. Soapy 05:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, do you have a reason? The problem is that the article is simply not well-cited. For example, the Spain's attempts at colonization section (seven paragraphs) doesn't have a single in-line citation. In fact, very few sections have more than one or two in-line citations (by which I really mean <ref> tags--of which the entire article has a total of 15), if they have any at all. Of the 17 sections, I count seven with no references cited (including five in a row, beginning with Spain's attempts at colonozation through District of Alaska). Russian Alaska (eleven paragraphs long) has only three references cited--one in the first paragraph, one in the second, and one in the sixth. And it goes on like this. I don't think it's necessary for an article to cite every single sentence to be FA-class, but this is pretty unacceptable, in my view. --Miskwito 05:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that there is not enough citation but that should not mean deletion/removal of this article. It needs to grow, not be torn down. Wikipedia has enough problems with editors vandalizing (not you) and deleting articles. In my opinion you are only adding to the problem, not solving it, and you seem to be in a hurry to remove it. That got me looking at your contributions to see if there was a clue as to why. I saw mostly Native American articles you have edited and I can't help but think there is an underlining issue at stake here for you. I am sorry for what seems like a personal attack. I am just being honest in my thoughts.

It's just sickening what Wikipedia has become in a short amount of time. There are far more important problems in Wikiland to worry about than deleting an article that lacks citations. Very recently I had to abandon the Alaska article and several others because I just could not keep up with the vandals that attack literally by the hour. This is a problem I would like to see you and others sink their teeth into, not trying to delete articles that just need help. No, I won't take the time to work on this article as I already have other pressing projects, but I admit the history of Alaska is very important to me and I would like to see this article stay around. If you still feel the need to delete then go ahead. I have done my best to get a hold of Wikipedia about the main problems of vandalism but have never heard a word from them. I was invited to come to Wikipedia a few years ago but I resisted because I knew the problems it had at that time would only get worse if left unchecked. That prediction has come true and Wikipedia still won't fix the problem. All it would take is a mandatory sign-in to edit an article but Wikipedia won't implement it. One by one the articles I watched and edited have become more of a burden than a joy and one by one I opt to abandon them due to daily having to fix the vandalism. Vandalism is not a problem on this article but I guess perhaps I will stop watching it as well because I just don't want to be there when you actually delete it. Wiki can ignore the problems but that does not make them go away. Lastly, I want to report that a couple of weeks ago my daughter's high school history teacher announced to his classes that he will no longer accept Wikipedia as a reliable source of information on their projects. Vandalism is to blame not lack of citation. That about sums things up. I apologize for digressing. Soapy 23:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think people might be misunderstanding what a Featured Article Review is...this isn't the same thing as nominating the article for deletion. I definitely, definitely don't want the article deleted! What its purpose is is to try to fix some potential problems with the article, and if that isn't done, then to have a discussion on whether the article's status as a "Featured Article" should be removed. It would still exist, and it could still be renominated to be a FA in the future. I'm sorry for any misunderstandings. --Miskwito 22:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Miskwito, I apologize to you. I mistakenly saw you as just wanting to destroy rather than build. I went to the Far page again and see now that I was mistaken with their definition. Wiki needs to clarify that page better. They also left out what becomes of an article once it is removed from Featured Article status. Does it become a Stub? Soapy 00:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowy, don't worry. The page isn't turned into a stub, deleted, or in any other way altered. It may lose the little star in the corner, but that's all. Of course, if improvements occur it can also keep the star. Marskell 09:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), and formatting issues (2). Marskell 09:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 10:33, 28 April 2007.

Supreme Court of the United States

Review commentary

Messages left at User talk:Lord Emsworth, United States, Law, Politics, and U.S. Supreme Court cases. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several issues: 1a) Some areas are a bit disorganized, such as "Quarters"; this section is very short and lacks general information on the structure of the building. 1c) There are only 5 inline citations for a moderately large article. 3) The seal at the top is corrupted, and should be replaced. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with everything you said. Let's see if anyone responds. Maybe if I have time I'll track down some of the people who helped make it an FA and notify them. Aaron Bowen 19:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I edited some sections for clarity, but I don't want to be the final arbiter of the entire article because some of it, particularly the historical sections, are outside my area of expertise. ---Axios023 03:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. See also needs attention, per WP:LAYOUT. Important articles should be incorporated in the text where possible, minimizing See also. External links should be pruned per WP:EL and WP:NOT. References are incompletely formatted and have no recognizable consistent bibliographic style. All web sources should have publisher, last access date, and author/pub date where available. Quotes section has one quote—could be worked into the text. Dashes are used incorrectly—see WP:DASH. Templates (e.g.; further information) are employed mid-section—see WP:LAYOUT. The current membership table is unsightly, with one long column last. Mixed reference styles—some inline, others cite.php. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are organization (2), citations (1c), and images (3). Marskell 09:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations (not footnotes) are a problem here. I'd also like to see a copy-edit, which shouldn't take long. Here are examples in the lead of easy-to-fix problems:
    • "United States" occurs three times in the opening, short sentence; reword the middle occurrence.
    • "Each term consists of alternating two week intervals. During the first interval, the court is in session ('sitting') and hears cases, and during the second interval, the court is recessed to consider and write opinions on cases it has heard." Hyphen for "two week". Remove "and hears cases" as obvious. Lots of "ands", so use a semicolon after "cases" instead. Better structure.
    • Ungainly repetition: "the Court's caseload. The court's".

It's worth fixing. Tony 00:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was removed 08:09, 2 April 2007.

ATLAS experiment

Review commentary

Original author aware. Message left at Physics. LuciferMorgan 23:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has no inline citations and only a few references so it fails 1(c) of the Featured article criteria.

Atomic1609 13:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Concerned — I'm concerned that the primary editors won't (or are no longer) around to work on this article. Plus, the article has fewer than 50 edits in the last year and a half, so it's going to be quite an interesting development. Once I see some interest, I'll provide some ideas. — Deckiller 13:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll fix it, but I can't do it quickly. I was the largest contributor to the article, and I have a strong interest in keeping it in good shape. However, I have little time for Wikipedia at the moment, and my interests and obligations on Wikipedia are considerably broader than they once were, so I can't fix it immediately. I do hope that nobody is proposing to remove the FA status in the meantime? -- SCZenz 13:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If work is being done, time can be extended. LuciferMorgan 13:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I don't understand why one would make it a requirement to have a lot of inline citations just for the sake of having a lot of inline citations. In this case a few citations e.g. to the ATLAS manual, is more than enough. This article is about an extremely technical subject and explains it to interested lay persons. This means that 99% of what is written is, from the technical point of view, trivial and there are then no appropriate citations for that.
E.g. when mentioning the Standard Model, it is not appropriate to give an inline citation to original journal articles on this topic. To understand such journal articles requires years of study and it would thus not be helpful as they cannot be used for verifiability purposes by lay persons. Count Iblis 23:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, it's appropriate to link, paragraph-by-paragraph, to the section of the ATLAS TDR that is applicable to that paragraph. Note also that the article reflects in many cases details that have changed since the TDR was published; it's quite reasonable to expect that those facts be cited in particular. -- SCZenz 09:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citation sufficiency and formatting (1c). Marskell 14:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. I did what I could on referencess and footnotes. Work seems stalled, there are 1a and 1c issues. For example, there is a single-sentence paragraph hanging in Background (which is an unencylopedic section heading): Particles that are produced in accelerators must also be observed, and this is the task of particle detectors. And there are broad statements without attribution: Due to this violation of "naturalness" most particle physicists believe it is possible that the Standard Model will break down at energies beyond the current energy frontier of about one TeV (set at the Tevatron). Also: If the Higgs boson is not discovered by ATLAS, it is expected that another mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking that explains the same phenomena, such as technicolour, will be discovered. There is so little to do to meet FA standards here; it's a shame it hasn't been done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per Sandy and 1a. This is a subject I am not very familiar with, so I won't be much of a help. The lead is at least a paragraph too long per WP:LEAD, and there are some redundancies, such as "in order" to and "a variety of different", and perhaps "many different".— Deckiller 03:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 07:55, 5 April 2007.

Robert Oppenheimer

Review commentary

Original author aware. Messages left at Biography and Physics. LuciferMorgan 03:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm proposing a review of Robert Oppenheimer's featured status because I don't think it meets the Featured article criteria, specifically 1c (sourcing) and 1d (neutrality). With regards to sourcing, there are entire sections (several paragraphs long) that are without citations. I'm not saying there needs to be a ref tag every other sentence, but sections like #Security hearings, regarding the more controversial events of his life, certainly need to cite their sources. That section is also clearly not neutral in its defense of Oppenheimer against the government, and will need a touchup to make sure the sides are represented equally. Finally, the #Legacy section is mostly unreferenced, and contains hints of original research. Other thoughts? Picaroon 21:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can add references without difficulty, but in any case, there is no neutrality issue re: the government side of things, it is a very solid account of how it is depicted in the relevant scholarly literature. I suspect things look un-neutral to you, or like original research, because you are not familiar with the relevant literature, but in any case I can add more citations if that is desired. I see a total of one sentence with a "citation needed" tag though so it might help if you determined which of the things you think need to be referenced. Large sections don't have footnotes, correct, but that is because they are very general and well-known and the information can frankly be found in any of the large-scale biographies of Oppenheimer referenced at the bottom. --Fastfission 04:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went through, btw, and added a few extra references for most everything that stuck out to me as needing one. Feel free to add fact tags to anything you want further references for, it is quite easy to for someone who knows the literature to do and there are a number of us who edit the article. --Fastfission 16:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am unfamiliar with the literature; if I was familiar with the books cited, I'd have been able to fix up the parts I disagree with myself and remove the things which are more the views of the various Wikipedians than concrete, attributable facts found in books. However, as I'm unfamiliar with the literature (and don't want to make major changes in a way that might wreck the article in the view of somone knowledgeable like yourself), I can only say that things like the very first sentence of #Legacy stand out as a synthesis of opinions towards him. While these attitudes themselves are certainly sourcable, is the sentence "Robert Oppenheimer's life is usually seen to highlight a number of cultural and historical trends in the transformation of science from the 1920s through the 1950s" attributable to a source? Other things I wonder about sources for are "As a cultured, intellectual, theoretical physicist who became a disciplined military organizer, Oppenheimer represented the shift away from the idea that scientists had their "head in the clouds" and that knowledge on such previously esoteric subjects as the composition of the atomic nucleus had no "real-world" applications" and "When Oppenheimer was ejected from his position of political influence in 1954, he symbolized for many the folly of scientists thinking they could control how others would use their research. Oppenheimer has been seen as symbolizing the dilemmas involving the moral responsibility of the scientist in the nuclear world."
With regards to the neutrality of the #Security hearings section: as someone who knows little about Oppenheimer, I come across with the view that the elements in the government were cruel and revenge-driven. The opinion of scientists who supported Oppenheimer is presented, but I don't see anything about contemporary opinions from supporters of Hoover's stance. Granted, this may be because McCarthyism is out of fashion, but has there really been no one looking back on the hearings with the opinion the government did the right thing? Picaroon 21:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, these ideas are attributable to sources. Historians and scholars can be quiet synthetic you know -- none of the language used in the article is at all uncommon to historical accounts; if you want perfunctory references then just let me know and I'll add them in. The literature is in fact full of such comments -- any of the introductions to the biographies of Oppenheimer contain the statements you ask about up there. Are there individual sources? No -- these are statements about Oppenheimer which are common to many of the books cited in the article, including but not limited to the volumes by Bird & Sherwin, Carson & Hollinger, Schweber, and McMillan.
I've never read anything relevant (i.e. not just crazy) that thinks the government did the right thing. As for it being revenge-driven, that's pretty much the case. The article gives all the weight to the government story that there is: that Oppenheimer was inconsistent, that he sometimes lied to security officials, that he had previous left-wing connections, that his stance on the H-bomb was not as hawkish as Strauss and Teller would have liked. In the end that's all the government side adds up to. As the article states in that section his security clearance would have expired in days anyway; it is well-established in the historical scholarship (see, i.e. the McMillan book) that the case against Oppenheimer was formulated by a number of either bitter (Strauss) or unstable (Borden) individuals who were just trying to tarnish his reputation because they disagreed with his personal and political opinions. Oppenheimer was, of course, no saint, but the article points that out with candor you would not find in most popular writings (try reading anything else about Oppenheimer from a more "mainstream" source and you'll see how relatively sober our article is; it doesn't make him out to be a martyr and in fact offers rather critical discussion of the "martyr" designation).
I don't want to say just that you don't know what you're talking about, but I do want to urge that this is an article which has been gone over pretty carefully by a number of people, one of which (myself) is what I would call a certified academic expert on the topic. It is actually a far more balanced and perceptive article than you would likely find on the internet, steering quite clear of hagiography (which is what one normally finds in the case of Oppenheimer).
Anyway, if you want more references, or you want some of the specific statements to be converted into quotes from others, that's fine with me, just mark the passages you want and I'll substitute them. I don't think this needs a FAR though. --Fastfission 00:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not a person who tends to inflate their knowledge of a subject - I make no secret that I'm no expert on Oppenheimer, or, in fact, even remotely knowledgeable about related subjects like the Manhattan Project, Hoover, and McCarthyism - I do think my observations have been things that would've snagged this had it been an FA nowadays, and were consistent with the guidelines laid out in Featured article criteria. Opinions that are widely held and facts that are widely acknowledged in the physics community still need be clearly sourced and attributabed to sources for lay-people, like me and the rest of the general audience who reads the article. The several passages mentioned above are things I'd appreciate it if you could dredge up citations for, as is the '"wounded animal"' sentence at the beginning of #Final years - does the tourist brochure cited really say that? (And no, I'm not going to quibble about whether the tourist brochure is a reliable source, even though I suspect it isn't!) If you'd like me to withdraw this request and list the specific things I'm wondering about on the article talk page instead, I'm open to doing so. Picaroon 00:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well I'm happy to provide references, as I said. Some are quick and easy, some require a bit of selection of something which is indicative of the general trends summarized, but it's not a hard thing to do. --Fastfission 23:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Footnotes need a lot of cleanup of formatting. I started, but there's a lot to do. Book references would be easier to follow if they were listed last name of author first, alphabetically, and then only referred to in the Footnotes with Author (year), p. and a page number. Page numbers aren't given on most book refs in the Notes. Is "Non-scientific by Oppenheimer" supposed to be listed in References, or should that be a Works section? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it would be nice if it were standardized though I think this is a minor quibble and not worth really going over as part of a FAR. --Fastfission 23:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • More: em-dashes should be used consistently (space around them or not). There is unattributed opinion and quotes—example: Many people thought that Oppenheimer's discoveries and research were not commensurate with his inherent abilities and talents. Weasly unattributed statements;—example: Some scientists and historians have speculated ... Book sources don't have page numbers. Full dates need to be wiki-linked. Tony or Deckiller might want to look at the prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and POV (1d). Marskell 08:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove unless the prose is fixed. It's mostly well-written, so is worth the effort to attain professional standards. Here are random examples from the top of why a copy-edit throughout is required. I suppose this alone is not enough to require removal, but it should be added to other reasons, if they are not addressed.
    • There are many links, most of high value. That is why an attempt should be made to delink the trivial ones, such as "English", "New York City", "Europe", "chemistry" and "horseback riding". The page looks very messy and is unnecessarily hard to read spattered with that much blue. Why is one "1953" linked?
    • "Oppenheimer was known for being a quick study"?
    • "citing it later as one of the most influential books to shape his philosophy of life"—Bit excessive; try: "citing it later as one of the books that shaped his philosophy of life".
    • "was encouraged to go to Europe for future study"—not past study?
    • "eminent but aging J.J. Thomson"—I wonder why the ageing thing is relevant; I'm ageing too.
    • "Ph.D." then "Ph. D."—Why not get rid of those dots, anyway?
    • "at the young age of 22"—Remove "young".
    • A few stubby paragraphs that impose unnecessary chopiness on the text. Tony 23:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per citation needed tags and prose glitches. These prose deficiencies may influence the POV problems as well. POV often boils down to excessive and flowery adjective use. — Deckiller 03:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove, 1a and 1c. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per 1a and 1c. Jay32183 20:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per above. LuciferMorgan 22:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per 1c, unless citations are provided.--Yannismarou 12:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 09:39, 13 April 2007.

John Major

Review commentary

Brilliant prose promotion. Messages left at Bio, UK notice board, Politics, and Political figures. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is full of loads on unsourced statements and has only a few references! NO Feature article should have a statement like "By the 1997 general election Major had come to be seen as an unfashionable, ineffectual and grey figure unable to control an increasingly divided and sleaze-ridden party." Not only should this phrase be reworded but the article status should be changed. Its a B class at least. It definately needs to go through a review process and needs improving. Other examples include unsources quotes e.g. "when the curtain falls, it is time to get off the stage". Similar examples include:

Major's recent low-profile political career was disrupted by the revelation in September 2002 that, prior to his promotion to the Cabinet, Major had had a four-year extramarital affair with a fellow MP, Edwina Currie. Commentators were quick to refer to Major's previous "Back to Basics" platform to throw charges of hypocrisy. Max Hastings in his book Editor in 2002 also commented on Sarah Hogg, a colleague at The Daily Telegraph, "Sarah knew Major intimately, in a way none of the rest of us did".

There is a lot of stuff here, just in the one above paragraph that would support its review. I would argue that the article does not meet FA criteria any more. This is because it is

  • 1.) Not Well written, the prose is not good, the article is fragmented.
  • 2.) The article is not "Factually accurate" - there are loads of unsourced statements, only two references to any of his comprehensive biographies or those about his government and there are no page numbers!). LordHarris 23:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There were two seperate honours section! Have merged the two, needs a few references though. Also removed the see also category (as only had a link to Majors cabinets) and moved that to the PM section of the article. Have tidied up some of the last sections, moved the wiki link to the end and put them together. Ive also removed the ridiculous speculation (unsources) that John Major was the PM in Harry Potter! Ive also edited the introduction to introduce Major and his PMship better, as well as summarise in reference to the above comment.LordHarris 17:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have done a bit of a tidy to media representation section, as well as a few references and a quote box. Ive picked up a biography of Major from the library, will try to add some references over the coming days. Some help in the review on references would be most appreciated. LordHarris 18:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added about 10 more references from news sites to his 'since leaving office' section. There were two '1997 defeat' sections and have merged those into one, making it flow until the after office section. Ive added some citation needed facts as well.LordHarris 19:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have tried to improve, but its still several grades away from being an FA. We need more users to try and tidy up the article + provide references. Definately think this needs to go to FARC at this rate. LordHarris 18:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Full dates are not wikilinked when they should be, and solo years are linked when they shouldn't be. The footnotes are a wreck of blue linked URL's; they need to include title, publisher, last access date, and author, publication date when available, presented in a standard biblio format. (cite templates can be used if editors don't know how to format refs; see WP:CITE/ES). It's surprising that very few book sources are used. There are punctuation errors and numerous cite tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how this is a featured article. Poorly referenced with many uncited sentences and sections. You can't trust it as it seems it's written from one person's point of view. Citations would solve this - or more of them.There could be more images or relevance, references are not cited in the correct format. Nowhere near a FA, but I will try and help. Whataboutbob 21:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are factual accuracy and citations (1c), POV statements (1d), and prose (1a). Marskell 10:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 07:45, 10 April 2007.

Presuppositional apologetics

Review commentary

Messages left at Jwrosenzweig, Religion, and Christianity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the primary contributors to this article, I don't think it meets current FA standards. In particular, it doesn't cite its sources. --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a minor contributor to the article, I deferred to Flex's expertise throughout my work there, so I won't disagree fully. But, Flex, I wonder if we shouldn't simply decide what needs citations and add them, rather than decertifying and recertifying the article? Certainly it's informative, and accurate as far as I can tell, and there are a few citations (although I admit more could be added). Anyhow, if we are going to de-FA for this reason, maybe some kind of list should be made of what, specifically, needs citation so that it's clear what work is ahead? Jwrosenzweig 01:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for making it fit the current FA criteria and keeping it an FA, which would certainly mean adding the sources of which you speak. However, I have my hands full working on other articles at the moment (trying to get Christianity and alcohol to GA and then to FA). So if that can't be done in relatively short order by someone other than me, I tend to think it should be demoted for now. Making a list of what needs to be sourced, as you suggest, would be a good first step and would allow multiple people to contribute to the improvement effort. --Flex (talk|contribs) 01:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, some fact tags were there already, and I added an exhaustive list of my own. In my opinion, some of these tags may be a little unnecessary, but resolving them would prevent any allegation that a key piece of information is unsourced. Sadly, I lack expertise to track sources for many of these topics. Here is the list, as described by me:

  1. the basic definition of PA
  2. its origins and current use in Reformed churches
  3. the "key discriminator" of PA from other types of apologetics
  4. PA criticisms of the "block house" method
  5. the evidentialist conclusion about the Bible
  6. the central idea of the Van Tilian argument
  7. a quotation of C.S. Lewis
  8. two paraphrases of Van Til and Bahnsen in a parenthetic remark
  9. a paraphrase from Romans
  10. Frame's perspective on the Holy Spirit
  11. Clark's axiomatic approach,
  12. Clark's translation of John 1:1
  13. Clark's allowance of competing worldviews,
  14. the distinction between Van Til and Clark
  15. Clark's dismissal of Thomistic arguments,
  16. the allegation of circular reasoning
  17. the beliefs of Van Tilians about presuppositions
  18. the Van Tilian approach to fideism
  19. a defense of the concept of circular argument
  20. Clarkians' reliance on the axioms of Scripture,
  21. the unbeliever's demonstration of the truth of theism
  22. the use of evidence to argue in "broader circles" by Van Tilians.

Daunting, I know. All of these are currently marked with fact tags, and appear in the order I have listed them, should any of my descriptions be confusing or vague. I will copy this list also to the article's talk page. I guess we need volunteers to help resolve these questions. Anyone? Jwrosenzweig 01:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lead section should say something very briefly about the history of the subject e.g. when it started. Andries 21:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is citing sources (1c). Marskell 11:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 19:31, 8 April 2007.

Suzanne Lenglen

Review commentary

Messages left at Jeronimo, Biography and France. LuciferMorgan 18:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some inline references I have added. What I find missing in the article is mention of her influence on women tennis in terms of style, dressing sense and her media darling image. STTW (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), and LEAD (2a). Marskell 09:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 03:50, 21 April 2007.

Seabiscuit

Review commentary

Message left at GWO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Messages left at Seabiscuit and Thoroughbred racing.

Doesn't satisfy 1(c). One source, and for something that barely matters in the article. Doesn't really satisfy 1(a) either. Jerichi~Profile~Talk~ 15:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jerichi. We don't "sup", "opp", "rm" or "kp" at this point. We try for a couple weeks of commentary, and hopefully improvements, and then move the review to FARC. Marskell 16:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. I'm a little new to the Featured Article area; I tend to work more around the GA area. Jerichi~Profile~Talk~ 19:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is citations (1c), and prose (1a). Marskell 08:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, wait, prose is needed. Sjones23 20:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added "citation needed" tags to various places where applicable. Anything else? Sjones23 20:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 08:05, 27 April 2007.

Invasion

Review commentary

Messages left at MilHist and Kafziel. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel really terrible listing an article for FAR, but it's a learning experience as I've never done it before. Well, basically I think the article isn't quite up to FA standards. It's close, but I think the criteria back then is different to the very high standards now. Well, the bottom of the list feels a bit listy, with a very short description of a select group of invasion examples. The see also section is in the wrong place (I'd do it myself, but I thought I'd leave it for now to show the article's state...) On top of that, it is a lot shorter than one would hope for a large topic such as this. Other minor stuff is there, but over all I think the article needs a big expansion & removal from the listy elements (Maybe a larger section on the invasions?). I have no intentions of removing the article's status, merely hoping for it to get a makeover. Thanks Spawn Man 11:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spawnman, can you please notify any relevant WikiProjects (usually listed on the talk page) and original author (usually on the FAC) with {{subst:FARMessage|Invasion}}? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did actually (forgot author though). Thanks for making me feel like a newb again who doesn't know how to edit on here.... :( Spawn Man 23:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry — I didn't mean to do that :-) Just trying to get more nominators to do that work, as it's so tiring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sefringle, please don't declare "remove" unless/until it's moved down to FARC. Tony 23:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are lists and sectioning (2), comprehensiveness (1b), and prose (1a). Marskell 07:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove—significant issues with excessive headings and mini-sections. Refs aren't a major issue, but the prose needs a massage (an example: "There are many different methods by which an invasion can take place, each method having arguments both in their favor and against.") — Deckiller 00:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per above reasoning. LuciferMorgan 18:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove as for Tyler's reasoning. 1a's a problem, too; take the opener: "An invasion is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of conquering territory, or altering the established government." Strictly speaking (and we should be strict about the exposed openings), the first clause is ungrammatical—there's a possessive–gerund issue (nominal group possessive plus gerund ("entering"); "the entering by ..." is required. Why a comma after "territory"? Tony 23:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Per Deckiller.--Yannismarou 13:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 17:18, 1 April 2007.

Richard O'Connor

Review commentary

R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) informed via email. Messages left at Leithp, Biography and MilHist. LuciferMorgan 16:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Message left at UK notice board. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fails 1c, as there are zero inline citations. Seems pretty well-written, not sure if it fails anything else yet though, hence sending it here.--Wizardman 16:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Rather, I'd like it to be looked at and possibly delisted because it fails 1d with it's POV language. Let's ignore 1c during the debate (to prevent more people quitting) and just concentrate on 1d.--Wizardman 15:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ghost on Cite-countitis

The whole point of this wondrous review process, as I understand it, should be to see if an article's QUALITY has declined over time. It hasn't. Except for some minor, mostly positive, additions/corrections it is essentially the same as when it appeared on the mainpage on Boxing day 2005. Go on, check the history and see. The only major thing which has changed since then has been the tumor-like growth of citation-countitis. When I wrote the bulk of this article, inline cites were not a writ in stone requirement...they were a suggestion and stylistic choice. But over time more and more started suggesting and doing it that it became derigueur...almost to the point now that many FAs and FACs suffer from deriguer-mortis due to over-citation. Is it really necessary for Half-Life 2 to have over 5 dozen cites?! Some Pokemon articles have even more! So Quality here now means verifiability which means cite-counts...all else has become secondary. Overtime this means all Wiki-FAs will read like a bunch of Ibids, which no one really wrote and no one really wants to read either. It is unfair to apply new standards to old FA's unless the quality has notably and drastically decayed. This is clearly not the case here. Wikipedia is not an academic institution nor a professional journal, nor should it put up the pretense that it is in anyway. Requiring every sentence in every FA to be cited will not make the project better, nor improve its notorious reputation for inaccuracy and mediocrity.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 15:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I was reading through the LHCMA online source and was disturbed to find that the prose of the "Early life and the First World War" section in the Wikipedia article adheres quite closely to the LHCMA text. Compare, for example:
    • LHCMA: "Richard Nugent O'Connor was born in Srinigar, Kashmir in India on 21 August 1889"
    • WP: "O'Connor was born in Srinagar, Kashmir, India, on August 21, 1889."
    • LHCMA: "He was posted to Colchester in January 1910 where he attended a signalling and musketry course. During 1911 to 1912, the battalion was stationed in Malta, with O'Connor as Regimental Signal Officer."
    • WP: "In January 1910, the battalion was posted to Colchester, where he received signals and rifle training. It was then stationed in Malta from 1911 to 1912 where O'Connor served as Regimental Signals Officer."
    • LHCMA: "O'Connor's early service during World War I included periods as Signal Officer of 22 Brigade in 7 Division; Captain, in command of 7 Division Signal Company; and Brigade Major in 91 Brigade, 7 Division. In February 1915 he was awarded the Military Cross, and in March of that year saw service in the Battle of Arras, and attacks on Bullecourt."
    • WP: "During World War I, O'Connor served as Signals Officer of 22 Brigade in the 7th Division and captain, in command of 7th Division's Signals Company and brevet brigade major in 91 Brigade, 7th Division. He was awarded the Military Cross in February 1915. In March of that year he saw action at Arras and Bullecourt."
    • LHCMA: "In June 1917, O'Connor was appointed temporary Lt Col and commander of 2 Infantry Battalion in the Honourable Artillery Company, as part of 7 Division, and was awarded the DSO."
    • WP: "O'Connor was awarded the DSO and appointed brevet lieutenant-colonel in command of 1st Infantry Battalion of the Honourable Artillery Company, part of the 7th Division, in June 1917."
    • LHCMA: "The Division was transferred in November that year to the Italian Front, near the River Piave, for operations against Austrian forces. In late October 1918, O'Connor was directed to capture the island of Grave di Papadopoli on the River Piave. The operation was successfully carried out by 2 Battalion between 24 and 27 October, and O'Connor was awarded the Italian Silver Medal of Honour and a Bar to his DSO."
    • WP: "In November, the division was transferred to the Italian Front at the River Piave to assist the Italians against Austro-Hungarian forces. In late October 1918, O'Connor was directed to capture the island of Grave di Papadopoli on the Piave River. This mission was successfully accomplished by 2nd Battalion, and O'Connor was awarded the Italian Silver Medal of Honour along with a bar to add to his DSO."
    • LHCMA: "O'Connor worked alongside Maj Gen B L Montgomery, Commander of 8 Division, to monitor and control areas of unrest between the Arab and Jewish communities.
    • WP (Inter-War years): "It was here he worked alongside Major-General Bernard Montgomery, commander of the 8th Division, to try to quell unrest between the Jewish and Arab communities."
    • LHCMA: "In August 1939, 7 (later 6) Division was transferred to the fortress at Mersa Matruh, Egypt where O'Connor was concerned with the defences of the area in view of the massed forces of the Italian Tenth Army over the border in Libya."
    • WP (Inter-War years): "In August 1939, 7th Division was transferred to the fortress at Mersa Matruh, Egypt, where O'Connor was concerned with defending the area against a potential attack from the massed forces of the Italian Tenth Army over the border in Libya."
  • Although there are certain tweaks to the phrasing, this basically amounts to plagiarism (this is why citing sources is essential!). Much of the rest of the article diverges from the LHCMA summary format and goes into much greater detail. However, it would be a good idea to check the WP article against the print sources (to which I don't have access) for possible plagiarism as well. Gzkn 08:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The information you say is plagiarism. looks to me like reporting of basuc facts, which can only be written in so many different ways, for instance:
    • LHCMA: "Richard Nugent O'Connor was born in Srinigar, Kashmir in India on 21 August 1889"
    • WP: "O'Connor was born in Srinagar, Kashmir, India, on August 21, 1889."

I don't see how that could be written in any other way - would "While crying lustily [1] on the 21st day of August 1889 [2], in the little known [3] town of Srinigar located [4] in Kashmir a province of India, the small, pink but beautifully formed [5], Richard Nugent O'Connor made his first joyous appearance into the world" be any better of more encyclopedic? I think the same could be said of the other points you have found. There is a limit to readable encycloped phraseology of basic facts. Giano 09:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, I certainly agree that it would be hard to write his birth in any other way. But I fail to see how taken as a whole, this doesn't constitute plagiarism. If you had submitted this as a college paper, you'd be kicked out. If you wrote this up and published this in the real world, you'd be fired by your editor. Gzkn 09:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Damn I wish I'd used that opening Giano! And thank you for giving me the first genuine laugh I've had on here in many moons:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 15:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is my understanding that plagiarism isn't the problem for wikipedia that copyvio is - In fact, really as all we do is report what secondary sources tell us - all of wikipedia is plagiarism. Copyright violation is another matter. You cannot copyright facts, only verbiage - so if you've included the same facts and changed the verbiage then you're ok (I'm no lawyer, but this is how I understand the law). This article seems to sail a bit close to the wind on the verbiage and there are sentence clauses which need looking at, but the author has obviously gone to the trouble of rewording most of the sentences. --Joopercoopers 11:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, plagiarism isn't reporting what secondary sources say; it's reporting it using the same or very similar phrasing (see here for a good example of paraphrasing that is OK and paraphrasing that is not OK), which is what is done here. Also, I'm not sure where it's stated that plagiarism is OK in Wikipedia. If Wikipedia allows plagiarism in articles, that policy/guideline surely needs to be changed. Gzkn 11:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that site includes the phrase plagiarism is: "any facts, statistics, graphs, drawings—any pieces of information—that are not common knowledge." In that case when writing about the obscure people and subjects I write about - I can't even ref an obscure fact to a particular reference book - because I didn't discover the fact, and as "own research" is banned - looks like half the pages on wikipedia are going to have to be deleted for plagiarism. C'mon we need to get real here Giano 11:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't you just, y'know, cite where you got the fact from? Plagiarsm doesn't refer merely to taking things from other sources; that's perfectly fine. It's only when you take things from other sources and don't credit them that it becomes a problem. Kirill Lokshin 12:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gzkn, I don't dispute this article has been plagiarised, I don't think it's a good idea, but as far as I'm aware there's nothing to prevent plagiarism on wikipedia - the policy relates to copyright violation. That's a nice link you provide for any student wanting to know how not to fall foul of a university/college/shool's rules - but wikipedia is neither of these. In any event the article says authors need to be cited if they are paraphrased - I see the reference is provided as no.1 in the references section. We just need to decide whether or not the prose constitutes copyright infringement. --Joopercoopers 12:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So if we just cited that website for those chunks of text, are we getting somewhere? And Giano, I find it how you're so adamant about refs not beign a big deal when you could certainly take care of that as well. That's onyl plaigarism currently due to no citations, is it still plaigiarism if we add them in? Probably not. I think I opened a can of worms on this FAR...--Wizardman 15:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the issue of prose, which doesn't look to be a problem anyway, there's no need to cite this material to avoid plagiarism, of all things. The items you identify, like the guy's birthdate and military appointments, are obvious common knowledge. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't flatter yourself too much...all you've really done is start another tempest in a teapot...an all too common sin of late round these parts. Still, I hope it works out for you and your IRC buddies let you into the cabal for performing this lil service for them. You deserve eachother.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 15:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article very badly needs inline citations. It doesn't look like it should be a problem article, since there are books listed at the end. Anyone interested in the subject should be able to cite it. Jay32183 01:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyone interested in actually checking those sources should read them. Since you're assigning this task to other editors, I assume you haven't done as much. So what possessed you to assume that there are claims in the article that are controversial or difficult to verify? Not mere footnote counting, I hope. If you want to question fact statements you should have a good reason to do so. Blaming the lack of individual page citations without a specific reason to do so is not constructive criticism. Peter Isotalo 15:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any claim that isn't made to a specific source, which is every claim in this article, is difficult to verify. The general reader should not be expected to read all of every book on a subject just to make sure the article is correct. I do not count inline citations, but this article isn't even close to "Good Article".This article either gets citations or gets removed, end of story. Jay32183 00:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Jay, I'd like you to consider something if you'd indulge me. If I pointed you to page 36 of a book where a particular sentence said erm ".........Jay vanquished all of his enemies, ate their livers and would regularly play football with their heads before retiring to bed with his supermodel harem" but page 35 had said something like "The pattern of imperial defeat and humiliation stands in stark contrast to the propaganda of the day, which held that" page turns to 36 "Jay vanquished........" - This is probably an extreme example, but makes my point - pages in sources need to be read in context, what comes before and after, affects what is written in the text and often whole pages cannot be read in isolation. WP:ATT and WP:CITE only ask that sources be reliable and facts verifiable, not that we should feed verifiers with page numbers that might not tell the whole picture. --Joopercoopers 11:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Which is why you would need to cite the page numbers for all of the information, not just some of it. The example you give shows one part of that being cited and the rest uncited. I would now have the ability to verify that statement without reading all of every book listed as a source. This is a general purpose encyclopedia; every user needs to be able to verify any random fact without doing an independant research project. Otherwise there is no point for anyone to actually use Wikipedia. By the way, the only way for the amount of citation this article currently has to meet FA standards would be to make the Tropical cyclones project to stop making articles, because they always use citations to the level the FAR and FARC regulars expect. Jay32183 18:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not really. What I was suggesting is that pointing to specific page numbers might not necessarily be the panacea you think it is. Statements in sources often require context and for the purposes of verification, that context might be the entire book (horror of horrors!). Theses are established from premises and then tested - to dip into that at an arbitrary point might misrepresent the thrust of the book and so the whole purpose of citation - ie. verifiability is lost - the easy quick fix you seem to want is flawed. Anyway, thorough inline citations are simply not policy - why are you arbitrarily deciding that because a defacto standard has emerged from a small group of editors that are encamped at FAC and FARC that this is consensus of the community regarding policy? The policy wording is woolly I'll readily admit, the where necessary needs some definition, but blanket citations certainly aren't the spiriti of the policy. regards --Joopercoopers 23:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • It does not matter how you rationalize it. The fact that this article has a significant portion of uncited text means it does not represent Wikipedia's best work. Either add citations or stop complaining that people are upset that they aren't there. As I've said in previous FARs and FARC, all arguments against adding inline citation boil down to laziness. The article can't be feautured and have people claiming that the article does not need to be held to the same standard that all the other articles are held to. Jay32183 00:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Sigh, please read the policy 'complemented by inline citations where appropriate'. Wikipedias best work is thus not contingent, as you maintain, on inline citations. It does matter how things are rationalised, but you clearly haven't bothered to read or comprehend anything I've written if you can characterise it as an argument for laziness. Sticking you fingers in your ears and singing 'la la la' is no way to debate. --Joopercoopers 00:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Jay, you do have a lot of nerve in trying to brand anyone who requests a specification as being lazy. I think we need to be blunt about this: ¡¡¡M0aR N0tZ0RS!!! isn't amendable regardless how hysterical other FA authors are about footnoting. Go read up on the topic and get back to us when you can specify reasonable doubts. / Peter Isotalo 00:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • If inline citations are not added I will vote "remove" when this article goes to FARC. If there is not consensus to keep then the article will be removed from featured status. I am very familiar with FA criteria, anyone suggesting this article meets FA standards is clearly not. There are five complete sections that are uncited, which is ubsurd to consider for FA status. You should probably know that arguing against adding inline citations has never once saved an article, but adding inline citations has saved many. All FAs need to be held to the same standard. I can not be bullied into anything. This article flat out fails WP:ATT, because five sections of text are not at all attributed to reliable sources. If the infomation were harmful to the article or to Wikipedia as a whole I would delete it outright. There isn't anything harmful, but that doesn't mean it meets FA standards. Jay32183 01:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Ok, well your position is clearly entrenched (and strident!). But you should realise that consensus is not unanimity and it would be a terrible shame if this article lost its status. --Joopercoopers 01:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • It will be a shame if this article lost its status, which is why citations should be added. Don't kid yourself, it is one or the other. Consensus is not does not need to be unanimous, but one editor saying "this is a significant problem" out weighs a million editors saying "I like it". Jay32183 01:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • So then please point to that which you think is unverifiable or from an unreliable source. Your assertion that every user needs to be able to verify any random fact without doing an independant research project is a misrepresentation of the policy and so you just saying 'I don't like it' and I'd like to implement a different policy should also be discounted. --Joopercoopers 01:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (removing indent for spacing) Generally, any statement containing a number, including a date, should have an inline citation. I can get a lot pickier than that after this first step is taken care of. It's not worth the effort to add fact tags if I know no one will add citations. Jay32183 03:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So the verifiability of an article is judged by what individual editors think is a fact rather than what actually is a fact? I'm pretty sure that if you had taken the time and effort to do research, just like the article author(s), and explained why you thought certain statements had to have a citation, you'd probably have gotten a few of your requests granted by now. Or at least a good explanation as to why they would be unnecessary or even inappropriate. But you've already decided on your course of action. Hell, you're even telling us you're not going to specify your criticism properly until the FARC and that you're seeing this as punitive bureaucratic maneuver, rather than a review of article quality. That "any statement containing a numer, including, a date" has to be cited by default is patently ridiculous and results only in layout disasters. It makes a mockery out of proper citation formats and serves only to add the illusion of increased verifiability. Peter Isotalo 11:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • To your first question, yes. WP:ATT and WP:V both state this quite clearly. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true". When I write articles I add citations as I go, I don't wait for people to tell me they're missing. After a few times of not doing that, every Wikipedia editor learns that or leaves the project. If none of the military history specialists are going to work on this then I will absolutely decide "remove" when it comes time for FARC, which will happen because no one is working on adding the citations. If your problem with cite.php really is a "layout nightmare" then I suggest you leave Wikipedia to work on a paper encyclopedia. Jay32183 18:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for sharing your views with us Jay. Although those are views not peculiar to us all, I note that yours is only one vote towards acheiving concensus. I very much hope Peter does not follow your suggestion and leave as he is a valued editor here. Giano 18:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • When I originally put this up for FAR, I did it to see the consensus on where and when the 1c criteria should be applied, as well as if this article needs it to stay at FA status. I didn't intend for the war that it's turning out to be, with people threatening to quit. I mean, I've seen users who tag one-sentence stubs as unreferenced and whine that those need citations (which is going way too far), so I've seen the whole scale of ref necessity. I'm contemplating pullign this off of FAR just because it's clear that nothing's going to change on this article.--Wizardman 18:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • One editor the author has quit, and it has just been suggested another does too because he does not agree with Jay. Quite a lot us do not agree with what goes on down here but we have no intention of quitting, no matter how hot it is made for us and the articles we edit. Giano 18:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • If an editor quit because he or she refuses to use inline citations then good, it is beneficial to Wikipedia as a whole. If this article were not yet an FA and you submitted it to GAC it would fail. The article is at best B-class, I'm not even nit-picking yet; I only do that to A-class articles that already passed GA or an article with the people defending willing to do work. This discussion is showing that the primary editors of the article do not care to bring this article up to FA standards and would rather bring FA standards down to this article. That always results in removing the article from FA status. Giano it is seriously time to put up or shut up. Do the work or stop defending the article, because you are only wasting everyone's time with this piece of trash article that blantantly fails WP:ATT an official Wikipeida policy. Jay32183 19:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are the one who feels strongly that the work needs doing, so I suggest you prove your worth here, and do it. Giano 19:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not have the expertise in military history to do this article justice. The article will be much better off if it is improved by some one who is actually interested and fully understands the subject matter. In addition, if FAR regulars fixed every article that came through here, none of us would have time to do anything else. It's not really your unwillingness to do the work that bothers me, it's your blind defense of this article as if it actually meets FA standards that bothers me. The article doesn't meet FA standards and you need to accept that. It would be great if all articles were FAs, but it quality not quantity so we need to have strict quality standards or the overall quality of Wikipedia degrades. Jay32183 19:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • My God... Get off that high horse and get realistic. There are no bloody FA reviewer privileges. You don't have the right to put down other people's work just because you feel like it or because it fails to please an extremely specific form of article referencing. Especially not when openly and shamelessly admitting to complete ignorance of the topic. We're protesting because we think that the FA requirements have become so narrowly defined that even a perfectly good article like this can be demoted by people who don't take article reviews seriously. Now if you want to put your money where your mouth is, why don't you come and try your fine skillz as a FA reviewer on the article I've recently nominated for an FAC? It's called medieval cuisine and is over 40k long and has less than 30 footnotes. Some paragraphs don't even have a citations... Scandalous! So let's put your sense of what FAC consensus really is to the test. C'mon. I dare ya. Don't forget to add a few lines to your objection about what a terrible burden my contributions to English Wikipedia have been. I'm sure you'll be quite the rabble-rouser! Peter Isotalo 20:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are flat out wrong that this article is anywhere close to FA standards. If the next words you say are not "I will start adding citations" or "I will find some who can add citations" or "This article needs a lot of work" then you need to stop talking all together. Defending this article is a bad idea. Your opinion of the FA criteria is irrelevant. This article meeting the FA criteria is the only thing that matters in this discussion. Like I said put up or shut up. You cannnot defend an article you have no intention of improving. I'm not nitpicking, I'm not counting citations. I don't care how many there are. I see numbers in the prose with no citations, which is a violation not only of Wikipedia policy and FA standards but of the Military History Project guidelines. I don't care what you opinion of me is, and I will continue to treat all articles that come through FAR in the same manner regardless of what you or anyone else, including Jimbo, says. Featured Article status is completely meaningless if the reviewers are not hardasses. So quit your whining. Jay32183 21:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Since you're combining all that attitude with overt ignorance of the topic I'd say you're actually being nothing but a smartass. And I'm certainly not whining. I just asked to receive the full brunt of your hardassness at an FAC of an article that you indirectly consider a threat to Wikipedia (after all, I wrote it). Just be careful. You might very well look like nothing but a dumbass... Peter Isotalo 21:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ghost on plagarism charges

The other night I was on my way to thank Gzkn for adding cites to Sir Richard...I, briefly, thought the old wiki-spirit of we're all in this together had not completely died off. Then I saw why, he took the time and effort. Not to try and help a fellow contributor, nor to maintain a featured article, but as part of an effort to smear me with the tar of plagarism. Well chuck me in a Turkish prison and call me Essjay!
So this is what it comes down to...lying and fraud are rewarded here, while honest, good-faith contributors are slandered and persecuted. I recieved no monetary rewards or fame for writing most of this article. I merely donated my time and efforts to try and help the project and do some justice to one of the forgotten heroes of the Second World War. Instead my reward is getting wrongly accused of fucking plagarism! Let me ask you this, Gz, since you are such an self-proclaimed expert on the subject, and probably as close to being professional copy-editor in real-life as I'm a candidate for pope; If I were a smart lil plagarist, then why did I list and link the Liddell Hart Centre at the top of the reference section? That is a rather dumb thing to do eh. Moreover, if I had plagarized this article, wouldn't it had been brought up on FAC or when it appeared on the mainpage or otherwise long before now? That would make all those who read and reviewed it as big of an idiot as me wouldn't it? Unless, of course, there was no plargarism and you don't really understand the meaning of the word or have your own, personal, twisted, definition. I did change the wording and I did give my sources, just not in a form that the anal, pinheads who are running this project into the ground now demand (see above). Last I checked that's not plagarism, unless the godkings of the day have adopted some obscure new policy on it. And last I checked, Wikipedia is no more a publication than the writing on a chalkboard, an Etch A Sketch, or the graffiti on a restroom wall.
Wikiland has become a through-the-looking glass Bizarro World, where lying, fraud and destroying the work and reputations of others is not only tolerated but rewarded. Fortunately, I still live in meatspace, where I've been spending a lot more happy time since the culture of this community turned sour. Out here in the real world, plargarism is a pretty damn serious charge. One you'd better be prepared to back up in court, unless you want to face counter-charges of slander and libel. This is one of many reasons why I keep a pair of meat-eating attorneys on retainer. I might discuss this matter with them and decide how to proceed should this witchhunt bullshit clusterfuck of a process continue in such a manner. We could probably make a good case for mental stress and emotional pain and suffering as well. One of the many advantages of living in a college town (one which, incidentally does not allow Wikipedia to be cited as a reference source) I also happen to know a lot of professors with real, not wiki, degrees who would gladly testify in my favor, especially in light of recent events.
Now if you wish to construe this as a violation of WP:LEGAL and use it as an excuse to block/ban me or delete my account here...go for it. It will not make me any less inclined to seek a legal remedy should myself and my consul deem it necessary. If you wish to de-list and de-feature Sir Richard, then go ahead. I no longer wish to have my name, or even my initials and pseudonym, associated with this project. I'm quite sure Sir Richard would feel likewise.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 15:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, making legal threats isn't looked on kindly in Wikipedia, and certainly won't get you anywhere, as the page you pointed to kind of highlights. Secondly, just because one user accuses you of plagiarism (their page claims they have left Wikipedia) doesn't really mean anything. (I've seen far less civil claims made, and generally it makes the accuser look worse than the accused, believe me.) Defend yourself from such claims if you must, but really, giving oxygen to things allows them to breathe and sometimes it's better allowing them to die a natural death instead - let's face it, most people really don't care what Person X thinks of Person Y, and in fact, if anyone's still reading at this point they're pretty determined. Thirdly, FA conditions *have* changed since 2005. The bar has understandably raised as the community has grown - what was the best the community could do in 2005 can be bettered now, just as Olympic records set 20 years ago no longer matter in most sports. The whole point of FAR with those old articles is to get those articles to meet the new standards. This should not be difficult, and should be entirely possible to achieve in a civil manner. Otherwise, we lose two or three good contributors, or at best, they hate each other and won't work together again, and nobody benefits - neither the contributors, nor the project. Orderinchaos78 10:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the garbage spurted by Jay in this review? He actually considers the article writer lazy because he's not providing him with random and completely unspecified citations. There's not a single valid counter-argument of fact in the entire review! That's what most of the recent "raised standards" have lead to; run-of-the-mill ignorance being passed of as qualified and constructive criticism. Ghost has a very good reason to be upset about this careless, unqualified and overly pedantic review.
Peter Isotalo 11:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unacceptable

Above, I notice Jay32183 declaring that "this article either gets citations or gets removed, end of story", and that "all arguments against adding inline citation boil down to laziness"; advising Peter Isotalo to leave the project; gloating that Ghost has left it; and telling Giano to "do the work or stop defending the article, because you are only wasting everyone's time with this piece of trash article". I have two things to say to Jay:

  • 1) Please take a look at the current version of the criteria--it doesn't say "where appropriate" any longer, and what it should say instead is being discussed at the Featured article criteria page—I hope everybody noticed Joopercoopers mentioning it above. It's surely of interest to anybody editing WP:FAR.
  • 2) Please don't be so rude. Telling people (let alone a fine FA editor like Peter Isotalo) that it would be a good thing if they left the project is completely unacceptable. Bishonen | talk 21:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Gosh, I only noticed this disaster area today. Another FA writer gone; another FA critic gone. Can we please try to stop eating each other?

I completely disagree with a number of statements that Jay32183 has made above:

"This article either gets citations or gets removed, end of story"
No, that is not how this process works. We discuss the article, some changes might be made, and then determine consensus.
"every user needs to be able to verify any random fact without doing an independant research project"
No, you should expect any direct quotations (yes, they should be cited) or facts that are "likely to be challenged" to be cited (i.e. inline citations "where appropriate") - are you aware of any?
"Otherwise there is no point for anyone to actually use Wikipedia"
Of course there is - an editor has read the sources, decided what is important, and written the article - that is why you read any encyclopedia rather than resorting directly to the primary and secondary sources.
"all arguments against adding inline citation boil down to laziness"
What an insult to the careful editors who spend time and trouble deciding which facts have to be cited and which don't, to create an article that is appropriately cited and also not littered with distracting superscript footnotes or parentheses.
"The article can't be feautured and have people claiming that the article does not need to be held to the same standard that all the other articles are held to"
I would suggest that the standard is not what you (and many other people) think it is.
"If there is not consensus to keep then the article will be removed from featured status"
No, it will only be removed if there is consensus to remove it. That is how this page has always worked.
"If there is not consensus to keep then the article will be removed from featured status"
No. That is not how the process works. (Are you familiar with recent FAR/FARC discussions on similar articles? This conversation is not new.)
"one editor saying "this is a significant problem" out weighs a million editors saying "I like it"."
No. This suggests that you are not aware of how FAR/FARC works.
"any statement containing a number, including a date, should have an inline citation"
What, "William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066"? "1+1=2"? "Half of 10 is 5"?
"every Wikipedia editor learns [to add citations as they write] or leaves the project"
<raises hand> I have written a substantial number of articles without adding citations as I write, and I am still here. Are you inviting me to find the door?
"If your problem with cite.php really is a "layout nightmare" then I suggest you leave Wikipedia to work on a paper encyclopedia"
Harvard citations, or indeed any other form of citation, is jsut as valid as cite.php. As it happens, I rather like cite.php, where it is appropriate, but it has its place.
"If an editor quit because he or she refuses to use inline citations then good, it is beneficial to Wikipedia as a whole"
What an outrageous statement. Are you seriously telling me that we are better off in the absence of the creators of featured content from before a requirement for appropriate inline citations was added to WP:WIAFA? If only editors of the calibre of Lord Emsworth and Filiocht were still active.
"This discussion is showing that the primary editors of the article do not care to bring this article up to FA standards and would rather bring FA standards down to this article. That always results in removing the article from FA status."
Well, the author and several others think that this article meets the featured article criteria, or at least does not fail the criteria to the extent that you are claiming (I think Kirill Lokshin has made some good points below, but it is notable that he is not demanding citations of every number, date, fact, dot, comma, jot and tittle).
"You cannnot defend an article you have no intention of improving."
Just watch. You clearly feel able to attack an article you have no intention of improving.
"I'm not counting citations. I don't care how many there are."
Really? I thought you were complaining that there were not enough?

As for the jibe that this is a "this piece of trash article" - well, honestly. Compare this article to what you see after hitting the random article button. Trash? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I maintain all of those statements. If you can't accept that, too bad. I can provide further explanation if you are confused, but everything I said is 100% true. Jay32183 19:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think ALoan is confused at all, perhaps as an editor who makes frequent main space edits perhaps he feels a greater empathy and understanding for an article and its author than you do and as such is better placed to comment than you are. You seem to delight in telling respected contributing editors they are not needed, but your own writing [8]seems to show a certain lack of experience. Please when addressing such editors in the future could you adopt a more polite tone. Thank you Giano 19:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You maintain that they are all 100% true? So FAR operates by some process other than consensus? [how exactly?] Every statement in every article needs a footnote? [no] All authors who oppose carpet-bombing of footnotes are lazy? [no] Everyone who does not like cite.php should leave? [no] Every editor must comply with the current vogue for footnotes, or leave? [no]
Perhaps you should explain further, because I must be "confused". -- ALoan (Talk) 19:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For one burden of evidence falls on those trying to add or keep, not those trying to remove. FAR does operate on consensus, but unlike RM and no consesnus is not maintain the current situation, because to be an FA requires consensus in the first place. All encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source, which no one can confirm unless it is attributed. I'm practically quoting WP:ATT and WP:V which is weird since I've been told I've never read them. I feel insulted being told to take a more polite tone with "respected" editors, since editors who do not wish to cite their sources deserve no respect as an editor becuase they are completely unreliable, regardless of how much respect they deserve as people. Jay32183 20:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad we agree that FAR (and FARC) operate on consensus. Now, the question is, what happens if there is no consensus? I will gladly be corrected, but, in the past, in cases where there has been no consensus, the status quo ante has prevailed - that is, articles that are featured remain so. The purpose of a FAR is to examine an article and determine, by consensus, whether its featured status should be stripped or not (the point being that, to be "featured" in the first place, it had to obtain near-unanimity at FAC in the first place). FAR is not FAC; neither is FARC.

I am not sure if legalistic concepts like the "burden of evidence" are helpful, but there is clearly an initial burden on those seeking to remove a an article's "featured" status to identify areas where an article fails to meet the featured article criteria - an evidential burden, if you will. The question is then whether those objections are justified or not, and what should be done about them.

I hope you will agree that, as is apparent, there is a legitimate dispute regarding the extent to which inline citations are required to provide verifiability and attribution. This article clearly has sources, and I have no reason to doubt that the sources support the text; indeed, I have yet to see anyone saying that the text is wrong (quite the opposite: some are saying that the text follows some sources too closely). What is the purpose of inline citations, in this case? To demonstrate that the editor has read the sources?

I don't see how describing an article like this as "trash", or calling editors who disagree with you "lazy", or telling them to leave, helps very much. Nor do I see much support for your rather extreme position that every jot and tittle requires a specific citation. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My assessment of this article stands. It has five sections of unattributed text. That text either needs to be attributed or deleted. Here is a direct quote from WP:ATT: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material." Jay32183 20:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Jay, let's get started on deleting 90% of Wikipedia. Where would you like to begin? Biennial plant is as good a place as any. After wiping that one out (except for the last sentence, it's got a footnote), you could do Analgesic. Keep working on your uncited text deletions until you get blocked. You'll no doubt defend yourself as the paragon of the WP:ATT policy, but you'll also have gone completely over the edge. There are a lot of excellent editors here expressing concern with your black and white approach, and I agree with them. FAR/C is declining because of this blindfolded approach in which editors with no substantive article commentary keep a) nominating fine articles, and b) pushing their favorite policy outside of any context (citation policy does have a context). I have followed this FAR with (sad) interest, and even though we've seen two editors leave during this FAR (one for reasons I can't assume, but...), you're still going with this "my way or the highway" talk. You're only decreasing the chance of having anyone improve this article, as I doubt they'd want their contributions to be seen as placating you. If this comes off as offensive, I only intend it to be as offensive as your comments here, summarized by ALoan above. –Outriggr § 03:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking FAs here. They have to be perfect, which means everything is cited, no excuses. Jay32183 03:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who ever said that FAs have to be perfect? WP:WIAFA makes no such demand - just that it "exemplifies our very best work" - and, as Wikipedia:The perfect article, says that it "may not be attainable". Kindly nominate any one FA that you think is perfect, and I will give you a list of faults (although hopefully only minor ones) as long as your arm.

Thank you for your quotation from WP:ATT. It may help to remember that policies and guidelines are descriptive, derived from community consensus, not impose in a prescriptive manner, and that they should be read purposively, not in a legalistic manner. This quotation is quite a good example of what someone else said above - like any quotation, it needs to be read it in context:

Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material.

"The material" here clearly refers back to the "material" mentioned in the previous sentence, being "quotations and ... any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". I agree, quotations should be specifically cited, as should material that is "likely to be challenged" (these are occasions when it is "appropriate" to add specific citations). But I still don't see which statements in this article you think are "likely to be" challenged - what evidence do you have that any of them are wrong? You have simply traduced the whole article.

And I still don't understand how you can maintain that all of those statements above are 100% correct. Perhaps that was just a rhetorical flourish, but I don't think it helps the discussion. I find the opinion that editors who don't agree with you should leave particularly offensive. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's perhaps best if we leave Jay to find his way back to earth on his own; our help is clearly unwelcome. Can we satisfy Kirril's concerns without Ghost and are they all reasonable? --Joopercoopers 10:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the thing you guys. Five sections of unattributed text is unacceptable in an FA. Kirill pointed out several sentences that need citations because they are pure speculation without them. I don't care if a statement is likely to be challenged. I did mention before that I was deleting the information because it was unharmful, but that does not excuse your unwillingness to cite the article. The only excuse I've seen you guys give for not wanting to add them is that it will clutter up the page. If you guys really think that being pretty is more important than being well sourced then there is something seriously wrong with you. Why can't you guys accept that the article needs work. I'd have added fact tags if there was some one here willing to take them seriously. I will admit that this isn't the worst article to come through here and that this article is sourced well enough to pass AFD with flying colors. Read some of the hurricane and tropical cyclone articles, then you'll see how inline citations are supposed to be used. You also need to remember that "surprising" does not just refer to "I assumed the opposite of that was true" but also to "I didn't know that at all". I'm sure if you asked a bunch of random people about details in this article one of the most common responces would be "Who's Richard O'Conner?" especially after leaving the UK. Don't forget that the US, Canada, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand all speak English and have as much right to know where the information is coming from as those in the UK. Be careful about what you deem "common knowledge", just because you knew it doesn't mean anyone else did. Jay32183 18:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have one more crack at this for you....."Five sections of unattributed text is unacceptable in an FA" is simply incorrect, 'citations where appropriate' is the policy it is quite possible that citations are not appropriate in those five sections. Running around wikipedia, making up your own rules against consensus is starting to look like disruption - you might want to consider this policy though "Users who aggressively and repeatedly violate fundamental policies may be blocked if there is a consensus among uninvolved users that it is necessary" from WP:BLOCK. But as you don't seem interested in reading WP:ATT I don't imagine the blocking policy is any more chastening to your zeal. --Joopercoopers 19:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop accusing me of having not read WP:ATT. The reason the "where appropriate" is being removed is so people stop whining when they're told to add them, that's the biggest problem with discussions like this. You never realize this discussion has happened many times and the people saying citations are not necessary have lost everytime because their points are in direct contradiction with policy. Most of the things you're telling me I am wrong about are written directly in WP:ATT, WP:V and WP:NOR. This article is written as orignal research and does not maintain a neutral point of view, simply because it is uncited. I'm glad you don't work for a journal, cause you'd have been fired for presenting this attitude to your fact checkers. There are zero valid reasons to be against adding citations. Did you know people can be blocked for continually adding material without citing sources? Jay32183 19:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are all there - present and correct - what you are arguing about are the special instances when the text says something so surprising that we need to be sure it is accurate. In those circumstances, it is appropriate to add citations to ease the fact checking process, otherwise - read the reference work. --Joopercoopers 20:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look JC you are wasting your time here now Jay is just being facetious. The page is now referenced to and beyond the standards required. Please stop banging your head against a brick wall. The reasons given for nominating this page here have been more than met. I'm now looking for other motives here - I can't imagine there are any but there does seem to be a vindictive air about the place, but then there always has been at FARC. Giano 20:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is still no where near the standards for GA. FA is stricter than GA. You need citations in those five sections. Still, no valid reason has been given as to why the article does not need citations. Jay32183 20:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Getting back on track

As enjoyable as the general philosophical debate here may be for some of the participants, why don't we get back to discussing the specifics of the article? ;-)

Ignoring, even, the question of citing statistics (although, broadly speaking, there's rarely such a thing as an undisputed casualty count), the article has a serious problem with presenting subjective qualitative judgements and opinions as fact, omitting even the expedient of citing them to the specific historians who are presumably their source. Some of the more flagrant examples:

  • "Though arguably one of the finest generals of WWII, O'Connor's modest, unassuming manner has caused historians to overlook him in favour of more flamboyant figures."
Kirill, I'll see what I can do to satisfy your concerns tonight regarding this, but I'm of the opinion that citations should be provided where the article is likely to surprise the average adult reader. Given that the online reference says "The life of O'Connor is usefully described in The 'Forgotten Victor' by John Baynes" I think it's reasonable to assume this statement is correct. --Joopercoopers 10:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Yet for demonstrating a dignity, courage and character which extended well beyond the battlefield,..."
Reworded
  • "The British, however, were better trained, better led, had (for the most part) better weapons and equipment and greater mobility."
  • "O'Connor intended to use all these advantages to the utmost."
  • "What followed was a masterpiece of manoeuvre, concentration of forces, firepower, and combined arms."
  • "a remarkable military achievement and a true British blitzkrieg."
  • "he responded in his usual modest, unassuming manner, 'I suppose one could characterise it as a complete victory.'" (an uncited quote, to boot)
  • "In a grand strategic sense, however, the victory of Operation Compass was not yet complete."
  • "a formidable foe under a commander whose brilliance, resourcefulness, and daring would prove a worthy match"
  • "a virtual Club Med for senior allied prisoners"
  • "O'Connor proved more than up to the task"
  • "Such actions, if taken, might have bypassed the main German defences which had bogged down XXX Corps, and could have salvaged Market Garden, saved thousands of lives and shortened the war in Europe by weeks or months."

(Avoiding things such as these is essentially the thrust of point 4 of WP:MILHIST#CITE, for anyone that cares; but I would hope that the problem is obvious even without reference to any formal guideline.)

The article is at some points more hagiography (even if, perhaps, justified hagiography) than serious encyclopedic assessment. It may indeed be that the consensus of historians on the topic is that O'Connor was a great military genius; but, even if it is, the reader really has no way of knowing that the opinions given in the article are those of actual historians if this is not indicated explicitly in the text. Kirill Lokshin 21:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think Jay it may be a good idea if you forget the FARC pages for a while, and returned to basics etc. You will find some useful advice and information here [9]. You semed to be very confused over what constitutes a good page, or even what is currently meeting the criteria for a FA. I can't fix this page, because it is not my subject and I have never edited it. You are obviously far more wise and more caring about it than me, so when you have brushed up on criteria etc I'm sure you will be able to do a fine job in making meet your own exacting standards. Good luck. Giano 22:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What constitutes a good page is debatable, wouldn't everyone agree? LuciferMorgan 22:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree to that, LuciferMorgan, and hope we can return the focus to the problematic statements that Kirill pointed out above. Instead of attacking each other. Jay32183 23:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please come up with some detailed criticism of your own from now on, Jay. You going "what he said!" after all those remarkably insolent invectives (even though you hadn't said a peep about any of the points raised by Kirill) doesn't exactly smooth things over. Peter Isotalo 23:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did say I would go into more detail after you cited all the statistical information, which includes dates. You shouldn't need me to point you to it. Kirill's assessment is just a starting point as well. If that doesn't get done there's no point in delving deeper. Now stop attacking me and either work on the article or help others find what parts of the article need work. Jay32183 23:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:KETTLE, Jay. That being said, Kirill makes a great point, I'd say forget about the citations and let's concentrate on that language first.--Wizardman 23:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Kirill makes a curious point, I just wonder where the page has changed since Kirill made this comment here [10] and if he felt it was so awful why not say so then instead of making it a featured article over on his War Portal. Giano 10:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The portal's featured article queue isn't meant to second-guess the featured article process; if an article achieves FA status, it's eligible to get put into the queue, regardless of my personal opinion of it. This article had just recently been promoted at the time I made that comment. (And, of course, the general attitude concerning inline citations was a bit different then, due in part to the difficulty in actually setting up footnotes correctly before cite.php was introduced.)
But you weren't asking just out of idle curiosity, were you? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 12:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wording is a little unusual in places, "cut a swath" is ok, but "gobbling up strongpoint after strongpoint ". Can strongpoints be gobbled? Could do with citations for paragraphs like:
    "In two months, the XIII Corps/Western Desert Force had advanced over 800 miles (1,300 km), destroyed an entire Italian army of ten divisions, taken over 130,000 prisoners, 400 tanks and 1,292 guns at the cost of 500 killed and 1,373 wounded - a remarkable military achievement and a true British blitzkrieg."
    - Francis Tyers · 08:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind such wording if it was made clear that it is the opinion of a historian and for this reason a direct quote from a source. As far as citation goes, the problem is not about citing everything, but using page numbers to cite at every spot of the article. If you do want to verify the statements in an article you usually have to read the complete chapter, except for numbers and direct quotes. I suggest to add some references at the end of each chapter where it is listed which chapters of the books in the bibliography can be used to verify the presented information. This boils the whole footnoting issue down to a requirement of 25 notes. Wandalstouring 13:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns were lack of citations (1c) and POV language (1d). Marskell 11:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 17:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove no actions being taken to remedy problems with 1c and 1d. Jay32183 17:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Even ignoring 1c, no attempt was made to remedy 1d (except for adding an accuracy disputed tag...)--Wizardman 18:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not going to bother voicing further opinions here, presumably this is an example of giving "FACers a dreaded fright" as described by the regulars here [11] Anyone currently with a page on FAC should take note because "Mark my words; January through March 2007 (Tony's absence) will be key FA nom dates for future FARs ".................yuk! I think I shall go back upstairs and stay there. Giano 23:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove, unless citations are added.--Yannismarou 14:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold your horses I'm going to have a go at proofreading the article tonight and see if I can smooth out the glorifying passages, but we certainly have not had any proper discussion as to how the article is in violation of 1c. Could the editors voting to remove because of lack of citations please specify their demands? What fact statements are in doubt and why? Peter Isotalo 16:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are {{fact}} tags in the article. They were there before this moved from FAR to FARC. Jay32183 19:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't suppose anyone has a reason to contest either the quotes of figures (that for some reason are seen as harder facts than those written without digits) other than not being aware of them before reading the article. Except for quotes, there doesn't seem to be an overall pattern in the citation requests. At least not tat I've been able to discern. Peter Isotalo 22:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've made some adjustments and smoothed out or removed the last of the questionable wordings. I don't think it's fair to say that 1d is an issue anymore. As for citations, I'm fairly distressed at how bluntly they've been handled. Sandy's somewhat random addition of fact tags just before the FARC wasn't particularly smooth consider that the FAR was filled with so much mudslinging and off-track pedantry. In fact, the only editor voting to remove who has actually produced more than "what he said"-criticism is Wizardman. Peter Isotalo 08:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have already addressed 1d and I have signaled my willingness to work on the perceived lack of citations, so I would like to see those objecting to meet me halfway and motivate their doubts. Sandy has tagged a lot of random facts, Jay has only produced over-generalized and belligerent bluster about wanting de-star any FA that doesn't have as many footnotes as he's used to, and the rest of you (except Wizard) are really just adding "what they said"-votes. Again, there has been little or no constructive discussion during the course of this review. Peter Isotalo 13:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Sandy wants to defeature any article that does not have the volume of footnotes which is demanded for the current FACs, and I agree with that. I don't understand what you want us to do in terms of the citations. The deficiency is clear here: Any assessment in the article should be cited; this is what happens with all the currently promoted FAs. Old FAs like this one must reach the current standards. Otherwise, we have FAs with double standatds: the old and the new ones. Do you want to add tags throughout the article wherever I think they are needed? I am afraid they are everywhere needed. And the only solution is to add the missing citations. At least, that is what I did, when two other FAs were endangered, and I worked adding citations (among other things) trying to save them.--Yannismarou 16:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Sandy wants to defeature any article that does not have the volume of footnotes which is demanded for the current FACs, and I agree with that. — HUH? Whoa !!!! No, that's not the case at all. I don't look for a certain density or volume of footnotes at all in articles I review, nor have I ever supported that notion. I am out of time today on a slow dialup, and just saw this comment. I will get back to this review over the weekend, or as soon as I can. Without double checking the article today, I recall that I tagged specific examples of items that need to be cited (although I doubt that I tagged everything; I usually tag only samples). I recall direct quotes, opinions without attribution, and other items highlighted per Kirill as failing 2. There may be more; I'll check this weekend or sooner if I can get back online. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'm starting to realize more of the problem now. The inline citations really came aboard in later 2005 (before I ever joined), yet this was an FA in 2004. However, we have to hold it to these standards, and that means inline citations. Without them, it we were to want to confirm a sentence, we'd have to go through all the books listed to find out if it's fact or not, the inline citations make this a far easier task. We don't do it because we think the article's fake, we do it for easier researching and referencing.
Now, as for 1c, I added a couple fact tags myself in. I'll explain why I added them to try and show you guys the reason for them. First off, the sentence "O'Connor was now forced to hold the line at El Agheila with a single understrength division, negligible air cover and over-extended supply lines." How do we know the air cover ws negligible, and the supply lines overextended? Certainly it is located in one of the books, but if it can be cited directly from one of them, then it proves the statement, as opposed to WP:AGF. Another one was, "The two while returning to safety after a night reconnaissance mission were captured by a German patrol on April 7, 1941, mostly due to Neame driving the wrong way." Okay, how do we know Neame was driving the wrong way? Maybe he was driving the right way. But if it's right from one of the books, then we can say, "okay, he was in fact driving the wrong way". I think this explains everything.--Wizardman 17:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, how do you know that he died in 1981, that he was in charge of the Experimental Brigade or that he fled from captivity in 1943? This still strikes me as being random stabs with the primary intent of simply racking up an unspecified number of footnotes.
Peter Isotalo 23:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is still uncited text, not the number of citations. Jay32183 04:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly.--Yannismarou 07:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so if I cite the passages currently tagged, you'll consider the article referenced enough?
Peter Isotalo 07:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jay32183 says that "The problem is still uncited text, not the number of citations". Firstly, if the number is not important, then perhaps only a handful of citations (of whatever form: footnotes, parenthetical, whatever) would be the appropriate number in a particular case such as this one - even, in some cases, none. Secondly, the "problem" is not uncited text, per se: as Peter Isotalo says, it is determining which points it would be appropriate to support with a citation.
More worryingly, Yannismarou says that "Sandy wants to defeature any article that does not have the volume of footnotes" - volume of footnotes? Volume?!? Of footnotes??!!?? Per litre, perhaps? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on! Let's not play with words! It is clear what I mean, and irony does not help. Per substance ALoan! Cite what should be cited, and the article will not lose its star. Instead of exchanging arguments here, do that and save the article. At least, that is what I did, when I defended tow articles in FAR. It is that simple!--Yannismarou 21:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you haven't done so here, so I don't think you're entitled to wag your late-coming finger at us. And I have worked on improving the article. I'm just making sure that we pin down what needs to be cited and why so I won't become some Sisyphus of the League of Footnote Counters.
Peter Isotalo 08:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, I am not obliged to improve the article. I am here as a reviewer. This is the role I chose and I am entitled to do so. You are here also as a reviewer and a defender of the article. Good! It is also your right to do so! And I am not wagging any of my fingers at you or anybody else! I just present arguments. And I am happy you won't become a Sisyphus of footnote counting; but I also hope that this article will not be sacrificed like Tantalus' child after an endless discussion about footnote.--Yannismarou 10:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with more specific citations Having read most of the above discussion, I have been moved to sign in in order to comment. Not wishing to stir things up I was surprised at the level of controversy this one unassuming article seems to have brought about (especially the recommendations that article writers should leave!). Having looked at this and other FA's I was initially surprised about the low level of inline citations, but looking more closely I assume that it is because other military history FA's I've seen have cited most statements with specific page no's etc and then listed them individually, and therefore have similar numbers of actual sources, but long reference lists.
I believe a citation for every sentence is almost certainly going overboard (Military History Project may not agree with me), I think most people would expect one citation per paragraph/section for ease of fact checking (1 is probably sufficient for simple bio details), just as a guide to say which pages or chapters of a particular work or works one could find information in the same vein, ie the initial bio paragraph having a citation to the initial bio pages/chapter of one of the references should be sufficient. More complex/frequent citations may be thought necessary by most for military manoevures etc as it's not always possible to be sure who is right in these circumstances. For personal preference I would like the following edits to be considered.
  • A general section citation for Early life (already there I think), Inter war years and Retirement and more complete referencing for Italian offensive, Reversal and VIII Corps and OMG as military manoevures are being described.
Still needed I feel, but I think other people are better placed to decide what needs to be cited. Had I got the references and knew how to do inline citations then I would be prepared to help. Terri G 18:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A title for the Preceded by/Succeeded by box at the bottom as I'm not sure what position it relates to.
 Done (maybe I missed it before actually) Terri G 18:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With these changes I think it more than satisfies the FA criteria as I understand them. Even without the changes I would have a neutral stance on the article. I hope whoever is currently working on the article finds my comments constructive. Terri G 18:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one has asked for every sentence to have a citation, but for every claim to be cited. If an entire paragraph comes from the exact same source then it is perfectly acceptable to cite the entire paragraph at once. Just for clarity, are you a "conditional keep" or a "keep, but there's always room for improvement"? Jay32183 18:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to imply that every sentence needs citations (or that anyone had requested them), but I have seen plenty of FA's where it seems almost every sentence is cited, so I was just trying to point out that whoever is good enough to do the work needn't see the changes I've suggested as a massive chore. I'm a "keep, with room for improvement" I suppose, because if it wasn't done, I wouldn't change to remove as the references are there at least and I have no reason to doubt what has been written (I'm no expert). Please don't take offense if I don't pop back regularly, I drift around a lot. Terri G 19:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I strongly believe that the criterion for a good encyclopedia is exactly the opposite: I am entitled to doubt whatever is not cited. We are not Britannica, which has its name behind each article - a name synonymous to quality and credibility. Here we are anonymous users, not professors or well-known experts, and we have to prove and verify whatever we write. That is what I believe, and that is why I always defended the inline citing as a necessity for high quality Wikipedia articles, a necessity preserving and prompting quality. And that is why all the currently promoted FAs are adequately cited. I ask you once again: does anybody of you arguing against citing honestly believes that this article would be promoted if it was now a FAC?--Yannismarou 21:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No but we're arguing that a lot of FAC-reviewers these days engage in more or less random and gratuitous footnote counting. "Cite this (more than you already have) because I tell you to" seems to be the current slogan. And, no, you don't need to answer that. We already know where you stand on this.
Peter Isotalo 08:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To give some criticism on the "can be improved" claim, the article became an FA in 2004. Inline citations became common in 2005 (sometime before I began my wikicareer). So, in theory, one could say that this article has had well over a year to meet the "new" FA criteria. Part of me's thinking that these people who refuse to vote delete are saying that citations are no big deal just because the others say they are. I'm not saying we need 100 citations; if 1 per paragraph or even 1 per section suffices, that's fine. The problem is that instead of improving the article, there is still whining that the article doesn't need citations. Yannismarou's right on this one. I mean, if this article came to WP:GAC now, it would probably be failed, let alone FAC. As I've said, I sent it here in hopes that it could be improved to an FA-quality article by people finding those references, adding in footnotes, and making this article great. Instead, we have people bashing each other that the article doesn't need footnotes. But like I said, ideally I want this to be an FA, it just isn't though.--Wizardman 22:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even noticed that 1d has been amended?
Peter Isotalo 08:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well done! Then time to focus on 1c.--Yannismarou 10:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I don't think any of us are "whining" that the article doesn't need citations - I have been objecting to the idea that there is some "density" or "volume" of inline citations that is a requirement - they are required when appropriate; no more and no less - and Peter Isotalo has been asking people what they think should be cited, so he can actually do the necessary (which is what I thought this process was about).
It may be worth mentioning that HighInBC was asking for more citations for medieval cuisine recently, just days after it was promoted! -- ALoan (Talk) 11:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many things need citing ALoan, and do not compare a recently promoted article where, with very few exceptions, almost every paragraph is cited with this article whare almost no paragraph is cited! Citation tags had been added, but (I think) they were removed without the addition of the demanded citation (If I am wrong, I apologize). Now, do you want to start form scratch? OK, then! Let's do it:
  • "If O'Connor's suggestions had been followed, the main German defences which had bogged down XXX Corps might have been bypassed and Market Garden salvaged." Who says that? Who argues that this would be the outcome of O'Connor's suggestion? What sources support this assertion?
  • "O'Connor's unassuming manner has been less noted by historians compared to more colorful Allied military leaders". What historians mentioned his "unassuming manner"? Mention; otherwise, it is WEASEL.
  • "His imprisonment during the conflict's truly decisive phases robbed him of many prime opportunities to prove his abilities further." "Robbed him" is a strong expression; who supports the assertion that if hh was not imprinoned, he would have proved his opportunities further (where and how? Blur and vague assessment).
  • "In late October 1918 the 2nd Battalion captured the island of Grave di Papadopoli on the Piave River for which O'Connor received the Italian Silver Medal of Honour and a bar to add to his DSO.[1]" This in the only inline citation. But it is not properly formatted! Only title I see and url; publisher? Work? When was it retrieved? And why don't you use Template:cite web.
  • "Many of the theories of mechanised, combined arms manoeuvre warfare put forth by J.F.C. Fuller (the brigade commander), Basil Liddell Hart, Heinz Guderian, and others at the time were being practiced by 5 Brigade." What source verifies that the 5th Brigade practiced such methods? Source needed here.
  • "He returned to his old unit." Who returned?! The subject of the previous sentence is different. Such things make me wonder if the prose of this article is up to "brilliant". And somebody should also take care of the many typos I encounter.
  • "He would later say the lessons he learned in mobility during this time would serve him well later in Libya." Say when, where and how? Sorce, please! Even "indirect" quoted like this one should be cited and verified.
  • "In August 1939, 7th Division was transferred to the fortress at Mersa Matruh, Egypt, where O'Connor was concerned with defending the area against a potential attack from the massed forces of the Italian Tenth Army over the border in Libya." Source verifying the "concern" of O'Connor is needed here.
  • "These would stop the Italians long enough for reinforcements to arrive, bolster the defence and, eventually, launch a counteroffensive." According to whom? Which analyst verifies that?
  • "The British, however, were better trained, better led, and possessed (for the most part) superior weapons, equipment and mobility. O'Connor intended to use all these advantages to the utmost." Who verifies their higher training and equipment, and O'Connor's intention?
  • "As a result, O'Connor, his adviser Brigadier Eric Dorman-Smith, and his men began to realise just how poorly led and ill-prepared their foes were, despite having a huge numerical advantage." What source verifies that O'Connor indeed felt this way? How do we know that he regarded their foes as "poorly led and ill-prepared"?
  • "By mid-December the Italians had been pushed completely out of Egypt, leaving behind 38,000 prisoners and large stores of equipment." Verify the numbers, please.
  • "Despite this setback, the offensive continued with minimum delay, and by the end of December the 6th Australian besieged and took Bardia, which fell along with 40,000 more prisoners and 400 guns." Again these numbers need verification. Which is your source.
  • "O'Connor cabled back to Wavell, "Fox killed in the open..."[citation needed]" Provide citation as requested here.
  • "In two months, the XIII Corps/Western Desert Force had advanced over 800 miles (1,300 km), destroyed an entire Italian army of ten divisions, taken over 130,000 prisoners, 400 tanks and 1,292 guns at the cost of 500 killed and 1,373 wounded.[2]" Oh! Another citation, saying "Dupuy". Is this enough?! Of course, not! Citation, please!
  • "In a strategic sense, however, the victory of Operation Compass was not yet complete; the Italians still controlled most of Libya and possessed forces which would have to be dealt with." Another uncited assessment.
  • "O'Connor was now forced to hold the line at El Agheila with a single understrength division, negligible air cover and over-extended supply lines.[citation needed]" Provide requested citation.
  • "But the two, while returning to safety after a night reconnaissance mission, were captured by a German patrol on 7 April 1941, mostly due to Neame driving the wrong way.[citation needed]" Provide requested citation, please.
  • "Montgomery suggested that O'Connor be his successor as Eighth Army commander but that post was instead given to Oliver Leese and O'Connor was given a corps to command." What source verifies Montgomery's suggestion?
  • "In later life, he would remain in touch with his fellow prisoners from the Vincigliati escape club and the members of the Italian resistance, who had aided him during his escape." How do we know that? Who verifies that he indeed was in touch with his fellow prisoners?
  • "These concerns would later prove to be well-founded." Proved how? Incomplete and uncited assertion. Who argues that his concerns would later prove to be well-founded?
  • "Churchill was impressed by O'Connor and the two would continue a correspondence.[citation needed]" Provide requested citation, please.
  • "O'Connor raised concerns that the Germans might launch a counterattack, and strongly recommended the ground gained by VIII Corps be consolidated before continuing on further against Caen. This was ignored, however, and the Germans did exactly as O'Connor had feared. VIII Corps was pushed back over the Orne. O'Connor tried to re-establish a bridgehead during Operation Jupiter, but met with little success." Important assessments and events about O'Connor's proposals and the way they well received that should be cited.
  • "O'Connor maintained an active correspondence with Churchill, Montgomery and others, making suggestions for improvements of armoured vehicles and addressing various other problems such as combat fatigue. Some of his recommendations were followed up (such as for mounting "rams" on armoured vehicles in order to cope with the difficult hedgerow country), but most were ignored." What sources verify the correspondence with Montgomery? Who tells us about which of his recommendations were followed and which weren't?
  • "If O'Connor's suggestions had been followed, the main German defences which had bogged down XXX Corps might have been bypassed and Market Garden salvaged." This assertion definitely needs citing: who says that this would be the outcome if the suggestions were followed? This is not even an event; it is an hypothesis. Who support this hypothesis? Are there any different opinions?
  • "When he wrote to Montgomery about this, he was assured this was unlikely." Citation needed: how do we know that Montgomery reassured him? Who verifies the particular correspondence between the two of them?
  • "As was O'Connor's habit, he stayed in touch with members of VIII Corps after his transfer to India, and closely followed the accounts of their advances." Again, how do we know that they were in contact, and that O'Connor "followed the accounts of their advances"?
These are the major issues which IMO should be fixed so as this article to keep its star. And, as I tried to make clear, it is not enough to provide the necessary citations, but to provide them in the right formatting and to properly format the current very few (2) citations. And something else: I don't want to make a lecture here, but if you want to see how a proper war-related article should look and how it should be cited, just check all the articles of Cla68. If this article starts to look like any of these in terms of quality and citing, I'll be a "keep" voter. Until then, I am a "remove" one!--Yannismarou 13:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, there was exactly one relevant comment in there, but that had nothing to do with citation, but rather with how a certain sentence was worded; I tweaked the statement about his notability. And complaining about a bloody reference format? It's completely bloody obvious from the reference list. They're but centimeters apart! Otherwise this is exactly what I was talking about when expressing my fear of becoming the wikipedian Sysophus of citation pedantry. The "assessments" you're talking about here are pretty much just assessments in the sense that they can't be reduced to fact statements like "X is Y". Saying they need a citation merely because of that is patently absurd. You're going to pile your subjective requests for citations on top of one another haphazardly until you reach that gratuitous "volume" of footnotes that you checklist-type reviewers without any knowledge of the topic want because it looks good. This is not constructive criticism, and the only alternative I see is to combat ballot-stuffing with ballot-stuffing. So keep the article.
And the idea that all articles on military history should have a particularly pedantic form of footnoting, no matter the topic, is ridiculous. The members of the WarProject may think that their favorite topic is the absolute pinnacle of academic verifiability, but I don't and pretty much the entire historical establishment would scoff at such haughty arrogance. I believe you're an incompetent and sloppy reviewer and that your modus operandi is nothing short of an overt attempt to encourage anyone to demand random demands for random facts in random articles. I have nothing more to say other than I hope to God that you and rest of your nitpicking ilk who flaunt their astounding ignorance in every topic imaginable ever sniffs out an article that I've been involved with.
Peter Isotalo 14:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ho! Ho! So your answer is a personal attack: "I believe you're an incompetent and sloppy reviewer and that your modus operandi is nothing short of an overt attempt to encourage anyone to demand random demands for random facts in random articles...I have nothing more to say other than I hope to God that you and rest of your nitpicking ilk who flaunt their astounding ignorance etc.etc." Nice! Thanks, pal! The Tantalus myth seems indeed stronger in your case than the Sisyphus one!--Yannismarou 14:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Peter - article is attributable and the claims the article makes are not so surprising to justify citation. If Yanni would like his citations put in a particular way and the (unidentified) typos fixed - I suggest he FIXIT, but for me it's fine. --Joopercoopers 18:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove, as the article is still laced with uncited hypotheticals and subjective judgements; all quibbling over the other details aside, anything that is inherently a matter of opinion must be attributed to the person promulgating that opinion. For example:
    • "O'Connor's unassuming manner meant that he is less notable compared to more colorful Allied military leaders..." - I assume that whoever wrote this meant that he had been noted less than them, rather than that he was less notable; but, as it is, this is an extremely controversial assertion.
    • "These would stop the Italians long enough for reinforcements to arrive, bolster the defence and, eventually, launch a counteroffensive" - according to whom?
    • "the two finest remaining divisions in the British Army following the Battle of Dunkirk" - according to whom?
    • "The British, however, were better trained, better led, and possessed (for the most part) superior weapons, equipment and mobility" - according to whom?
    • "just how poorly led and ill-prepared their foes were" - according to whom?
    • "a formidable foe under a commander whose cunning, resourcefulness, and daring" - I'm aware that this is a widely-held opinion, but it is an opinion nevertheless, and we therefore need to know who espouses it.
    • "If O'Connor's suggestions had been followed, the main German defences which had bogged down XXX Corps might have been bypassed and Market Garden salvaged." - another hypothetical; which historians have argued this?
  • Not to mention the two direct quotes that are still uncited, despite already having been tagged.
  • (Frankly, I find the hostility expressed by some people towards highly-productive writers of featured articles—and towards the Military history WikiProject as a whole—rather baffling and disturbing, all things considered; but that's another issue.) Kirill Lokshin 03:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, all the attacks in this discussion have been anything but consructive. I don't want to bring other discussions into this, but maybe I should ask Peter about the article I have on FAC. That may be WP:COI, so I won't touch it, though if someone else wanted to bring it up that's fine. More importantly though, I find Peter's position to be very undermined by his resorting to personal attacks. Plus, I have no idea what that PA is even tryign to say... I may ass that it now lacks a photo in the userbox. (Though I can add that myself).--Wizardman 19:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely there must be a page somewhere in this great encyclopedia you lot could go and write/improve instead of pontificating down here about what is one of Wikipedia's better pages - the conversation here is pathetic to read - Everytime I look at the calibre of behaviour here I become more disgusted. Giano 22:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. The article has improved dramatically at FAR, with a good deal of the uncited hagiography removed, but cite tags have been removed, and there is still far too much uncited opinion and judgment, including uncited direct quotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ghost On Two-Faced gods

Indeed, I'm beyond disgusted. It is in this context that I write what follows. First, my sincere thanks to Peter, Joopercoopers, ALoan and of course Giano for defending what is largely my work from being torn apart by the pedantic Wiki mob mentality.
Second, those who sanctimoniously preach civility should try practicing it themselves. My camp was not the first to invoke the charge of plagiarism. If anyone has had their charachter slandered by this sad farce it is I. Riping apart someone's work, though technically not a personal attack, can often be tantamount to it and is bound to lead to hard feelings and due retaliation. Which, of course, gives you fucking Pollyannas the chance to act all shocked, and hurt and whine about personal attacks. Haughty words of civility are meaningless without the true spirit of such behind them. Most of the criticism levelled here are destructive rather than constructive and clearly violate this spirit. Further evidence of the vast chasim between the core principles of Wikipedia and current practices.
Now Kirill, my old colleague, Giano asked you a very pertinent question above; I just wonder where the page has changed since Kirill made this comment here [12] and if he felt it was so awful why not say so then instead of making it a featured article over on his War Portal. I find your response very slick but unsatisfactory. And even if you did not wish to "Second guess" the FAC processs, you still had ample opportunities to raise your objections there and afterwards. It would have been a LOT easier for Leithp and myself to have added cites then or at least fixed the wording which you now seem to find so wanting. It is highly unfair to the writers to come after us now, over a year and a half later, and demand citations. Leithp has moved at least once (not all of us live with our parents) so his books have gotten mixed up and we both have (gasp) actual lives outside of Wikipedia.
So why tear the article apart now? How will that improve it? How will it improve Wikipedia? If we were to remove every uncited statement to satisfy you and the others then all that would be left would be a single paragraph stubb...which is basically all it was when we found it. Surely since it has been so long you should be able to grandfather it through, after all the recent edits made by Peter, Joopers and others? Or is it too much now to ask you to be reasonable rather than rigid?
Back then, Kirill, you may not have wished to second guess FAC's standards, but today, as the prime mover and shaker of the mighty mighty military history project, you have no qualms about setting up separate standards and processes for peer review and classification...adding to the instruction creep gauntlet any poor FAC author must pass through. But you are right, since you place the standards of your project ABOVE those of Wikipedia at large, then I conceed it does not meet current MilHistProj standards. I therefore vote to REMOVE the mil hist project tag from this article, since it was written without the project's current enlightened guidance and has become such an embarrassment to it.
As for the wording, well Peter raises a very good point, why not JUSTFIXIT yourself. You are, afterall, a master of dry, bland, dull prose...charges I defended your FACs against, if you recall, back in the days when compelling narratives were considered more important than cite counts.
If Peter is the Sisyphus of this drama and Yannismarou the Tantalus, then you, Kirill, are Janus. I, for my part, shall be Timon. I cast my contempt at the lot of you and return to my cave. I will never contribute so much as a single sentence stub to Wikipedia again. I regret that I ever wasted my time here. My gift to you is dirt.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 01:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now, maybe I'm wrong on this, but I find that when I'm writing articles, making it well-written, the prose compelling, and creating a great article is the hard part. Referencing and citing sources are the easy part. Here's the catch-22 though. No one wants to change the article, which defeats the purpose of having submitted this in the first place. And now, instead of reaching a consensus or improving the article, we have a 100kb document that encompasses personal attacks, whining on both sides, and a great user who's fed up with this site. Even though I still think it should be delisted, I regret ever nominating this after seeing how this has played out, and I'm disappointed with both sides. There's never gonna be consensus, so I have no idea what to do with this article... I mean, I have access to roughly 20 college libraries, and here's what I turned up for whether or not I have access to references: Barclay, no; Barnett, yes (2nd edition though, not 1st); Baynes, no; Docherty, no; Dupuy, no; Keegan, most likely (Churchill's Generals is at a library where it would take me a while to get it); Smart, no.

But I have thought of a compromise. If this does get delisted, I will cite whatever I possibly can, and upon that re-submit it to FAC. I'll try and cite some things before that, but who knows. But I honestly don't know where this is going anymore, so hopefulyl this will be closed soon.--Wizardman 02:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please spare us your crocodile tears and half-hearted offerings of help. I have a better idea, as suggested above, NUCLEAR CLEANSING. If it is delisted, delete everything but the first paragraph. Then you, or more likely someone else, can start over from scratch. No muss no fuss.--70.171.22.74 02:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ay, there's the rub. Nuking it seems to be suggested by some, yet I'd be surprised if anyone supports it enough to go and do it, because the nuclear option is the last thing I want. Plus the lead was one of the parts I didn't care for to begin with. But hey, at least I'm trying to create a compromise, even though it'll probably be futile...--Wizardman 03:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise..Ha! Your "compromise" is offering to put a band-aide on a gapping chest wound and calling 9-1-1. Peter, Coopers and others have made many edits over the last several days to try and address some of the concerns. But instead of acknowledging their efforts, you and your ilk keep raising new objections, making new demands and adding more of those fucking [citation needed] tags. A REAL compromise would involve accepting the wording changes that have been made and only demanding citations for statements that truly scream out for them, which is really not that many. Failing this, I support the nuclear option...I not only support it, but I'll do it. And I'll do it with a gleam in my eye and a song in my heart. Just watch.--70.171.22.74 06:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So your solution is "waa, waa, I'm taking my article and going home". Wow, how constructive. Oh, and adding references is not hard, just add some already. I added one earlier without really trying. And if I'm putting a bandaid on a gaping wound, then you guys are just starting at the half-dead body and saying "it's fine", which it's clearly not or else we wouldn't be here. If nothing else just add a citation on the quotes! It's common sense for those to need citations. Besides, if you were to go nuclear I'd just put it back up anyway.--Wizardman 21:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I understand what you're trying to do now. Once you get this article defeatured, you will "fix" it with cites, then resubmit it to FAC and voila! Thus you can claim credit on a Featured Article. What a clever lad you are. You and Janus should hook up, the two of you would make for a very scary team. And if you're going to accuse me of assuming bad faith here, then I plead no contest. Dealing with the likes of you has taught me that it is safer to assume the worst of human nature.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Everytime I see the time and effort some users spare to attack all those users asking for citations, I just wonder why they don't spend this time in adding the citations, and get over with it. A series of rhetorical schemes and exhibitions (some of which are indeed of high quality, but this is not the place for that), but nothing about the substance. I'm afraid to say that, but I tend to believe that some users are not interested in whether this and other articles will keep their star, will be delisted, upgraded etc. It looks to me as if their only interest is to make clear their point. Because I can't see any other explanation when a user proceeds to a long intense and passionate analysis of his point, and then declares that he leaves Wikipedia. And something else: The innuendos about who wants the best for Wikipedia (which sometimes are getting straightforward attacks and insults), the effort to undermine other user's quality and contributions add nothing here; the contempt with which users and projects are treated by some Wikipedians reminds me of a discussion in my country, Greece, about who's more patriot! Oh, come on now! We all spend hours and hours in Wikipedia! More than the normal, in a way that some others, some outsiders may regard us as sick bastards or some kind of fricks! So, let's cut the bullshit here! Nobody is more "patriot" than the other!
Giano is one of the best editors around. Kirill is the driving force behind the encyclopedia's best project, and a writer of some of our best articles as well. Sandy reviews almost every FAC and FARC; he is now travelling and still reviews; he was reviewing when nobody of us was interested in FARC. Wizardman assesses hundreds and hundreds of articles in WP:BIO. So, I don't see the reason for expressions like "disgustion", "dirt", "pathetic". I really don't understand that! Why are you taking it that personal guys? It is just an encyclopedia! And you may regard this article as one of the best of Wikipedia. I respect your opinion, but I regard this article as a poorly cited and needing improvement article; therefore, for me it is a mediocre article. If you don't respect my opinion, Ok, I can live with that, but this is my opinion, and I stand by it, refusing to prove who I am, why I am here and what I or you have done for Wikipedia, because this is irrelevent. I also refuse to attack anybody else here, because I do appreciate all your contributions and effors here - and this is not a hypocrisy but an honest belief. And you know something else, Wikipedia would be a much better place if we learnt to respect one the other, and if we realised that despite our disagreements we work harshly for this dum project that has intruded into our life. And RHD you declare that you are out of the project, but how do I have this strange impression that you are so passionate with it that you'll be soon back. And, RHD, if I had to chose a role for myself (and not to be assigned by others) ... no ... I wouldn't like it to be Sisyphus neither Tantalus ot Ianus ... No no ... I would travel to France of Enlightment and I would pick Voltaire's role, and I would hope that every other Wikipedian choses the same role.--Yannismarou 10:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannis, we'll start respecting your self-assigned role as an FA reviewer when you start taking the task seriously. As long as you believe that it is your God-given right to demand a footnote for anything you deem unfamiliar enough, no matter the counterarguments or your own ignorance of the topic, you're nothing but a footnote counter.
Peter Isotalo 16:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Peter that is the attitude that caused me to lose my cool in the first place, and right now you're only begging Yannismarou to do the same. The reasons Yannismarou has given for requesting those citations are explicitly listed under Wikipedia:Citing sources#Why sources should be cited. Jay32183 18:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing, (I'm glad the conversation has died down, let's keep it at that) I went and looked over the article again, and I am proud of the keepers, who actually did do a lot of work on this in between when this was put up and now. Although my vote stands, 1d was fixed, and the article was fixed up very well. I asked for this FAR to be closed now that things have finally settled down. (Plus, it caused more harm than good anyway, too many people quit.)--Wizardman 17:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NEWSFLASH...it hasnt...see above. You opened this can of worms, it is only fitting you dine upon your share before it closes. Also I want to address Tantalus/Voltaire/Yanni first:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ no ref
  2. ^ no ref
  3. ^ no ref
  4. ^ no ref
  5. ^ no ref
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/April_2007&oldid=141525416"