Wikipedia:Featured article review/Isaac Newton/archive1

Isaac Newton

Bipolar Category

Why is one of the categories listed "People with Bipolar Disorder" when there is nothing in the article to back that up? It seems like a pretty strong statement to leave unfounded, especially about a man who lived in a time before the disorder was ever diagnosed.71.56.216.30 (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review commentary

Article is full of ^{[citation needed]}, ^{[clarification needed]} or various cleanup tags. The article is not bad, but if it were to undergo FAC right now, it would spectacularly fail. Hence, FAR.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 19:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right. There are places where citations are desperately needed. We need a speedy remove in FAR, to handle such articles passed long back in 2005 or so and currently do not meet the present FA status.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The intent of this page (FAR) is to review, improve, and bring articles back to FA standard not to delist them. Speedy removals contradict this objective. Joelito (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notified User:Borisblue (FA nominator), WikiProject Physics, History of Science, Astronomy. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy remove would be a good idea in theory. However, I just think we need to improve the existing FAR so, you know, it doesn't take 48 weeks to delist anything that is clearly below FA class. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So how long did it take to fail to remove Kingdom of Mysore? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations and style.Joelito (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

remove far too many {{fact}} and uncited statements. It won't get fixed anytime soon. Xasodfuih (talk) 06:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove since no one wants to work on it and remove all the {{fact}} tags. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are three (please count them) {{fact}} tags. One of them also claims to need clarification. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Whole sections with no sources. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - Agree with this assessment by YellowMonkey (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just about to fix the remaining {fact} tags. If you want other bits fixed up, note on the talk page (or fact-bomb if you must). PaddyLeahy (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, there are no tags left now. By the way, quite a few people have edited the article since this FAR started: it is not true that no-one is working on it. PaddyLeahy (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are no fact tags left. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - still largely uncited. --Peter Andersen (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

56 citations in a relatively short article is "largely uncited"? Citations are supposed to be for facts likely to be challenged, IIRC. This article has been on FAR for 2 months or so but no-one has challenged any specific items over and above the fact tags present at the beginning...which have all been dealt with now. (Well, I requested a cite for something added yesterday). PaddyLeahy (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added numerous fact tags. More could easily be added. --Peter Andersen (talk) 07:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(numerous = 6). Here's the deal: I have access to a good university library and I'm quite prepared to spend an(other) evening there adding cites that are agreed to be missing. But I don't have time to do that repeatedly, nor to re-write the article significantly. FAR is supposed to be about reviewing FAs with the object of improving them but in this case the "review" just consists of a bunch of people wishing they could speedily delist. If people here want to make the process work then please help by adding {fact} or specific suggestions on the talk page—I'm not up to speed on current FA citing requirements. For instance:

Query to FAR(C) regulars: as well as some good calls, Peter Andersen added two {fact} tags in the middle of a paragraph on the Chaloner episode, which ends with a citation to five pages of Westfall's definitive Newton biography. I don't have the book to hand now but I'd assume the paragraph is a summary of those pages. Do we really need cites in the middle of such a paragraph? This certainly used to be deprecated.

PaddyLeahy (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]