Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Purge server cache

Pages are moved to sub-archives based on their nomination date, not closure date.

See the Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/archive for nominations under the previous FARC process.

[edit] Archives

Contents


[edit] Kept status

Place more recent additions at top

[edit] Toilets in Japan

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Chris 73, Yelyos, and Japan. Sandy (Talk) 16:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Lacks citations, lead needs expansion, and images need better captions. Gzkn 06:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. While I am quite fond of this article, it was promoted during a time when we had lesser standards for verifiability. I am not sure this is well-referenced enough that it would pass GA today. —ptk✰fgs 06:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
It has plenty of citations, just not inline citations. I'm working to change that right now. I've just saved the beginning of the conversion. It's a big article, so will take some time to do so. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Insufficient inline citations (1. c. violation). LuciferMorgan 23:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Lead needs expansion, and a lot more inline citations are required. When I read this article through (before looking at the talk page), I thought of entering this into featured article review. CloudNine 15:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Changes: Since I am the primary author, I am very interested in keeping the article's FA status. I greatly expanded the citations (following User:Nihonjoe's work), and expanded the lead section. I also expanded the intro section. I also did some small changes in the captions, although I thought the captions were not bad to begin with. What further improvements if any do you feel necessary? Detailed feedback would be appreciated. Many thanks -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Whole paragraphs still remain uncited, so I want this FAR to remain Open. LuciferMorgan 23:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I will keep on working on it. Should be possible to find a citation for every paragraph -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - citations start off OK, but then tail off. "Environmental aspects" is stubby and the two "A website...achieved some internet fame" paragraphs are horrible. It was heavily overlinked (an obsession with urinal, vulva and the TOTO company) - I've fixed a lot of this, but it could probably still do with another pass. Yomanganitalk 16:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Moved the Tokyo Toilet Map to the External links -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Still adding more refs, even finding good sources that I have missed when I first wrote the article. I will keep on working during the next few days as I have time -- Chris 73 | Talk
  • Request for Comment: Could I get a feedback about the current status of the article? Many more refs were added recently, citing a total of 42 sources. -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - a lot better. Some sections are still light on references though. Inline citations should follow punctuation per the manual of style and be in numerical order. At times it reads like a how-to-guide for foreigners: "You can also try an upscale department store..."; "Alternatively, users can seek a handicapped bathroom (if one is available)", etc. Yomanganitalk 02:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Footnote placements have been fixed. Joelito (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Added refs for the fact templates. For one claim I could not find refs, so i moved it to the talk page. Another claim (squat-washlet) was added by me based on discussions with the TOTO show room manager in Shinjuku L Building. he even showed me the catalog for it, but unfortunately my japanese is not good enough to find it on their webpage. I will work on some wordings next. Also, thanks to Joelito for fixing the foot note placements -- Chris 73 | Talk 20:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I found this page, which shows an adapter for converting a squat to a standard sit-down. I can't find any others, though. Do you remember the catalog number? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should add this link to the article, too. The missing citation however is a regular squat toilet, which includes a washlet like nozzle that comes out from one end (not the "dome" side but the other one). The manager said that the sales of these devices are near zero. He gave me a copy of the catalog page, but I don't have it anymore. -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Added information and link -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I would be okay if someone showed me another toilet in x country article. I think that this is pretty ridiculous & funny @ same time. (Wikimachine 02:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC))
Haha, I think it's hilarious as well, but also an indication of how distinctive Wikipedia really is. You'd be hard pressed to find a better or more comprehensive article on Japanese toilets. Also, where else would I have turned to for such high quality information on those exploding whales? By the way, Chris and Nihonjoe, you guys are making great progress on those citations! Keep it up. Gzkn 03:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are insufficient citations (1c), LEAD (2a), and images (3). Marskell 06:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: Why is this already moved to FARC? The changes are still in process, would it be possible to keep this in FAR for now? The citation request seems to be fixed (plusminus a citation here and there). I am planning to update the wording on some sections a bit soon (am busy with work and have time only on a few evenings). What I don't like about the FARC is that it feels like the focus is on removing the article, not on trying to keep it a FA. Thanks. -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Articles are moved to FARC only to keep on schedule, and it doesn't mean there is any more emphasis on removing the article: if you need more time in the FARC section, and work is progressing on the article, it is granted. You're doing a great job. Sandy (Talk) 16:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Status? This article is vastly improved: I'm adding it to the Urgent FAR template so we can get other views as to any additional work needed. Sandy (Talk) 15:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments & Votes? The article should by now have enough citations for a FA. The last //fact// open point is based on an interview with a showroom manager, of which I have unfortunately no written reference. If there is anything else that needs improvement, please let me know and I will see what I can do. BTW: Thanks for the positive feedback, Sandy. -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - it still has the "user guide" style writing I pointed out earlier, but if that can be corrected it's not far away from a keep as far as I'm concerned. Yomanganitalk 18:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Changed some wordings and removed some redundant or POV information, especially in the Public toilets section. I think it is more descriptive now and less of an user guide. Any thoughts? -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Vastly improved since it was nominated. Well done. I'd still like to see the one remaining uncited statement removed until it can be sourced though. Yomanganitalk 01:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: I made a minor correction, but I see no other issues. --RelHistBuff 12:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I added a few "citation needed" tags, but those aren't enough to merit a remove vote. Well done. Gzkn 13:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: I removed the uncited voyeurism statement to the talk page, and hope the other two uncited statements will be addressed very soon, or removed. Sandy (Talk) 16:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wikipedia:Reliable sources says that "Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources". It seems that several of the sources used in this article are personal websites and blogs. It additionally uses a retailer's website and a newsletter as sources. I also find it strange that it uses an article from "Kids Web Japan", a website intended for children, to back up 9 claims. I realize that this is an esoteric topic but perhaps the reliable sources available should dictate the content that should be included in the article, rather than stretching to find sources for what is already written. On a side note, there seem to be some errors/redundancies and inconsistent style within the references section.
  • I also have problems specifically with the Terminology section. It arbitrarily provides footnotes for some terms but not others. But, more broadly, I'm not sure why the section exists at all. Wikipedia is not a "usage guide or slang and idiom guide", and this section seems to be just that: a usage guide for Japanese bathroom terminology. I find it difficult to imagine that a general, English-speaking audience would have any use for this information. Punctured Bicycle 18:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The terminology section in this article provides relevant information about toilets in Japanese culture. Ordinarily I'd agree with you, but this is an exception. A mere usage guide wouldn't illustrate the parallels between toilet terminology and the "tagged out" place in children's games, for example. Perel 05:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Joyce

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

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

  • Comment: It certainly doesn't need Wikifying (avoid linking common terms). The lead is not short. The paragraphs are not particularly problematic. As for the citations, the article is built from information gathered from the books listed at the end. Richard Ellmann is the source for almost all biographical information on Joyce that you will see by anyone, as it is widely considered the best biography of the 20th century, certainly of a literary figure. Burgess's book has information on critical themes, and particularly the language games of Finnegans Wake. Citing to this page here, that page there, the other page another place is far more than any print encyclopedia does. From Britanica to the DNB to any other source you'd consult, you will see a list of works that provided the information, but citations only if the information is controversial. There are no claims in the article that are controversial. Geogre 03:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: By Wikifying I meant it contains many nearly linkless paragraphs and technical terms are left unlinked. Yes, I do believe a two small paragraph lead is very short for a biography article. The references at the bottom might cover the article entirely but per criteria 1c it has to have inline citations. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It doesn't appear that the original author/nominator has edited in a year and a half (last version edited by Filiocht,) the talk page indicates some doubt about some of the content, and the article history shows no editor appears to be actively following the article. Inline citations are required for FAs on Wikipedia, which can't be compared to other encyclopedias, since anyone can edit: this article does not include them, and there are numerous statements that should be cited. The end of the article contains an external jump, and uses mixed reference styles (some of the references inserted towards the end may not be to reliable sources). The References section appears to contain what may be a link farm rather than actual sources for the article, and the External links section may need attention. Per WP:LEAD, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Sandy (Talk) 06:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Link farm? I see the names of the major works on Joyce. Please be sure that you are reading "References" and not "External links" and that you read the lead itself. Additionally, the fact that the people on the talk page were not turned back does not make them correct in their "concerns." People will say the darnedest things. Geogre 13:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is a very well written and sourced featured article, and I can see no reason why it should not remain one. There are no false or controversial facts at all in the page. The only thing that need fixing is the bio-box which is redundant as it contains information easily assimilated from the lead. It is ugly and falls into the section below spoiling the layout. Other than that it seems a perfect page, and I can see no legitimate or worthwhile reason for it being listed here. Giano 14:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: It has no inline cites, this is the primary reason for the FAR. Per Sandy, these are very important to the encyclopedia and without them it is nearly impossible to identify which statements are not covered by the references. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The infobox is well aligned on my browser, and doesn't fall into the text below; perhaps this is a browser issue ? Sandy (Talk) 19:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't worry Sandy, perhaps you just have a small screen. I've sorted the problem now, vast improvement. Great FA. Giano 21:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It has nine authorative books on the subject listed as references. None of the facts are contraversial. Giano 16:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm no expert on the subject, but this appears to me to be a well-written, well-structured and comprehensive article on Joyce. I'm actually quite impressed with the way the bottom-of-the-page stuff is laid out; I think it's clear, logical and helpful. I tend to agree that the lead could perhaps be a bit longer, but it's not problematically short and all the important stuff is set out in it in a well-thought out way. And well done Giano II for deleting the ugly and useless infobox. Palmiro | Talk 02:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Note I would advise all editors and people who have commented here to switch from defending/praising the article to addressing the concerns of this review. Past experience assures me that the article will be demoted if in-line citations are not added. There are many reasons for the necessity of in-line citations, some of which have been mentioned above. In-line citations are an actionable objection and a fair reason for removal of FA status. Joelito (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment: The FA criteria, say that an FA should have in-line citations "where appropriate". The burden is on those who think this needs in-line citations, to demonstrate that. This article is one of our very best, and continues to deserves its FA status. Paul August ☎ 01:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I thought inline citations are basically a requirement for all FA's. If this article was to go through the FAC process in its current state, I'm pretty sure it would not pass due to the lack of inline citations. Gzkn 06:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Well not according to the Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. The relevant passage is:
Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations (see verifiability and reliable sources); this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations.
Paul August ☎ 08:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Then perhaps WP:WIAFA needs some clarification, as I thought consensus had been reached numerous times in the past (see the talk page of FAR, for instance) that FAs need inline citations. And FACs that lack them are routinely rejected. I did always think that the "where appropriate" led to vastly different interpretations. Perhaps its time we cleared up the confusion and state with clarity in WIAFA whether FAs need inline citations or not. (I happen to think they do, but all the arguments in this particular FAR lead me to wonder if my view is indeed consensus.) Gzkn 12:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think (IMO) that if a fact is controversial, or newly discovered then it does need a firm clear reference preferably with a page number to a certain edition. However when the subject is a long dead much researched noncontroversial figure then the footnote is not necessary. " For instance Henry VIII had six wives" does not need citing - "Nicholas II had s secret wife" would need citing. However. listing references used is always essential. I see nothing on James Joyce that makes me want to say "hang on a moment here". Admittedly I have taken to citing almost every verb, my current work is only half finished and already has 117 - but the subject is almost unknown. Joyce is a much researched and reported figure, and that is why this page is fine as it is. It is all there in the references. Now if an anon comes along and inserts a controversial fact, then he must be asked to verify with a detailed ref, but at the moment there is nothing to warrant demoting this page. Giano 12:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    I agree with this summary. Case closed. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
That's understandable. I'm not going to get into whether or not the lack of citations warrants demoting James Joyce, but I do think the article needs inline citations. Perhaps those who are familiar with him are comfortable with this article, but what about readers who don't know much about James Joyce? How are they able to figure out whether to trust this article or not? For example, I don't know his early life, so how do I go about verifying the stuff in Dublin, 1882-1904? Which facts belong to which sources? How do I know they are all true? Let's take a random statement: Joyce refused to pray at her bedside but this seems to have had more to do with Joyce's agnosticism than antagonism for his mother. Doesn't this call for a citation? Gzkn 13:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
As you wish. You have been warned and have decided not to take my advice. Joelito (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm all in favour of requiring in-line references for current featured article candidates, but in the current state of Wikipedia it seems premature to say the least to question the status of a long-standing featured article for lack of something that has only relatively lately come to be seen as a requirement. This is a featured article review, so I think people are entitled to bring up whatever issues they feel are relevant in support of that article's status; furthermore, the request for review cites several other issues which are addressed in the replies here, not just the question of references. Palmiro | Talk 23:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
All FAs are held to the same standards. If by relatively lately you mean since January 2005 then you are correct. Long-standing FA status has little to do with current standards. Again, it's your choice if you wish to conform to the current FA guidelines or not. As I have said before, past experience shows that the article will get demoted if editors choose not to add the in-line citations.
Also see this thread where the majority of FAR reviewers express their thoughts on the issue. Joelito (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • several pages have passed FAC successfully since Jan 2005 with no inline cites at all Giano 16:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Have any passed recently? I really wish to stop this argument. Experience in FAR says no in-line = no longer FA. Joelito (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I bet you do. You were the one who brought up the subject of the date. Giano 16:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
If there's really a problem with uncited information, you could also use the citation requested template (or even <gasp> the talk page) to indicate where the dubious statements are that need references. Palmiro | Talk 01:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Certainly it needs inline citations, and it could use some copyedit: last para begins with 'Not everyone is eager to expand upon academic study of Joyce' but in effect it mentions only one of his relatives, that's hardly justifies suggestion that there is some widespread movement - seems like journalism style.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Can someone advocating for FAC status removal please reassure me that they have recently read a book (that's one of those rectangular things made from processed tree that taste so much like cardboard and are encountered in a library) and are converstant with the academic practice of footnoting! I just checked a couple: in all cases there is an extensive bibliography at the end, and those things that might raise eyebrows or are generally in need of explanation are annotated at the bottom of the page with a footnote. Folks, we are writing an encyclopedia, not a review article or a term paper! Dr Zak 20:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
How many people wrote that book? Can anyone edit it? Don't compare oranges with bottles. In-line citations are an FA criteria. If you wish to argue them go to the talk page of WP:WIAFA.
Furthermore, books have in-line citations. For example my The Tainos:Rise and Decline of the people who greeted Columbus. Yale Univeristy Press. ISBN 0300056966 uses in-line citations (parenthetical citations). Joelito (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
How many in-line citations does the FA criteria say an FA needs exactly? Paul August ☎ 21:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Paul, please see the relevant policy at WP:V, Sandy (Talk) 22:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The page is perfectly well referenced, can we now close this futile debate which should never have been opened. Giano 21:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No we will not close the review. An editor has expressed the concern that the article lacks in-line citations (A criteria of What is a featured article?) and we will, therefore, review the article. Joelito (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    Joelr3143, please stop whining about lack of inline citations. It would be much more helpful if you provided inline citations for the entire article instead. For my own part, I don't know any encyclopaedias with inline citations. Look at the Britannica, for instance. We cannot apply recently-adopted guidelines retroactively. This is not an improvement but a mess. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • I've only read the first page or so. The writing looks pretty good to me. (The bit about dogs is a little awkward in the first para of his life, but that's a trivial matter.) All FAs must meet the current requirements for referencing. Tony 14:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've expanded the lead a bit, and tried to make it reflect a better sense of where JJ fits in to literary history. Adding inline citations would primarily be a matter of flipping through Ellman (it has an index, after all). I have no stake in the question of whether all featured articles need them, but if anyone who has Ellman at hand (Geogre, I assume you do; ALoan? Paul?) would track down a couple of the assertions in the article--I'll happily do a bunch myself, though not for a few days most likely--we'll have this thing properly referenced in no time. As for the notion that there's nothing controversial, I haven't read the article carefully enough to say, but given Stephen Joyce's recent insanity I'd say we can't be too careful. That blighter will sue anyone in a heartbeat. Chick Bowen 05:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am happy to cite appropriate pages from Ellman, if someone will say which statements they think need a citation. Paul August ☎ 17:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the offer to help, Chick Bowen. Paul, I am (in fact many of the reviewers here are) usually reluctant to pepper a well-written article with cite tags, but if folks are now offering to do the sourcing, would you like for us to add cite tags to the article (which is the easiest way of doing this), or would you prefer we put a list on the article talk page? (I'm also wondering if anyone is looking into the tags on the images?) Sandy (Talk) 19:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I'll bow to others' preferences about cite tags vs. talk page. I've gone through the images, though. Detailed fair use rationales would be good, and I can add those later. The only one that is of real concern is the lead image, Image:JamesJoyce1904.jpg. It includes the date it was taken, but of course we need the date it was first published to verify that it's PD. The photographer (Constantine Curran) published a book in 1968 and was evidently still alive then, so that suggests it's not PD by creator's death. It might not be PD. In the meantime I'll look around for a good portrait we can absolutely certify is PD. Chick Bowen 05:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
        • There are a number of great images here that are definitely PD by virtue of publication. Also the portrait by unknown photographer I believe would be PD but I'm not sure--I'll ask someone who would know. Chick Bowen 06:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm still working on images, and making progress. See my talk page for details. Chick Bowen 17:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
            • Very nice improvement on the image ! Sandy (Talk) 23:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This appears to be a well written, instructive article worthy of its status. The debate here seems to relate largely to whether or not the article should receive inline citations in order to maintain its FA. Inline citations are not an FA criteria because of the where appropriate aspect of WP:WIAFA. It seems that there are those here who seek to make in-line citations a defacto criteria for FA status, despite it not being policy. We should wait until it becomes a hard and fast consensual policy before arbitrarily demoting articles because the referencing style doesn't comform to some peoples preferences. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations list

  • Comment Ok. I am sick and tired of people defending the article and stating that they do not find any places that need in-line citations. Here are a few examples:
    • "Reaction to the early sections that appeared in transition was mixed, including negative comment from early supporters of Joyce's work, such as Pound and the author's brother Stanislaus Joyce." Cite this negative reaction.
    • "This has led many readers and critics to apply Joyce's oft-quoted description in the Wake of Ulysses as his usylessly unreadable Blue Book of Eccles to the Wake itself. " Weasel words, should be cited.
    • "Indeed, Joyce said that the ideal reader of the Wake would suffer from ideal insomnia and, on completing the book, would turn to page one and start again, and so on in an endless cycle of reading." Is this a direct quote?
    • "For some years, Joyce nursed the eccentric plan of turning over the book to his friend James Stephens to complete, on the grounds that Stephens was born in the same hospital as Joyce exactly one week later, and shared the first name of both Joyce and of Joyce's fictional alter-ego (this is one example of Joyce's numerous superstitions)." This sound like it needs a citation since I cannot verify it easily.
    • "He has also been an important influence on writers and scholars as diverse as Samuel Beckett, Jorge Luis Borges, Flann O'Brien, Máirtín Ó Cadhain, Salman Rushdie, Thomas Pynchon, William Burroughs, Robert Anton Wilson, and Joseph Campbell." Citations that he is/was an influence for some of these writers is needed.
    • "Countless critics over the past century have argued that Joyce's work has had a harmful effect on modern and post-modern fiction, creating generations of writers who have eschewed storytelling, proper grammar, and coherence in favour of self-indulgent rambling." Which critics? Cite.
      • I took this out. I'm not sure it's true, actually ("countless"?). Someone can revert me, but I'll try to replace it with something I can cite. Chick Bowen 01:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • "Some scholars, most notably Vladimir Nabokov, have mixed feelings on his work, often championing some of his fiction while condemning others (in Nabokov's case, Ulysses was brilliant, Finnegans Wake horrible)." Cite this scholar.
    • "The phrase "Three Quarks for Muster Mark" in Joyce's Finnegans Wake is often called the source of the physicists' word "quark", the name of one of the main kinds of elementary particles, proposed by the physicist Murray Gell-Mann. (James Gleick's book Genius suggests that Gell-Mann found the Joycean antecedent after the fact, as physicists have pronounced quark to rhyme with cork and not with Mark.)" If this sentence is true cite the book and page number.
      • Done. This sentence has been removed, since according to the cite provided, Gell-Mann based the name on the line from Finnegans Wake. Paul August ☎ 00:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • "However, Nabokov was less than thrilled with Finnegans Wake (see Strong Opinions, The Annotated Lolita or Pale Fire), an attitude Jorge Luis Borges shared." Cite since we are stating the opinion of someone.
    • The in-line external jumps at the end of Legacy should be converted to appropiate ref format.
    • I could go into more detail but I think this is enough to prove my point. The article is well written but to someone that knows very little of Joyce and his works the referencing is inadequate. Joelito (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you, Joelr31. We'll work on those. To others--giving us concrete ways of improving the article is much more helpful than sniping about the validity of this review. Chick Bowen 17:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - I have to agree that the lack of citiations in this article and in general should be a disqualification for featured article status. Without extensive citations, it makes it much easier for someone to coverly slip in either false or misleading information and/or assert a specific point of view which is not clearly supported by quality sources. Also, it raises the question just how accurate an article is if it cannot be verified by specificly cited sources. Without such verification being available, it really is hard to tell whether it is fair, accurate, and NPOV or not. On this basis, I have to agree with those above that this article right now needs a number of citations to keep it at featured article status. Otherwise, if the data were supported, the article itself looks good. Has anyone contacted the Unreferenced Good Articles WikiProject for help? I think they might make a priority of this one. Badbilltucker 15:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Legacy section I began to convert the inline refs, but one of the sources for the lawsuits is a blog (reliable?), and the rest are dead links. Another knowledgeable editor might know where to source these edits, or whether they should be deleted. Sandy (Talk) 16:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Sandy. I think these all have proper citations now. Paul August ☎ 18:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New look?

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

  • Whoa, what an improvement. All my concerns have been fixed. I'll withdraw this for now. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Michaelas10, but I don't think the review can be considered withdrawn until all reviewers are satisfied. Sandy (Talk) 16:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Statements about medical conditions, diagnoses, phobias, and details of one's personal life without citations concern me, whether in BLPs or wrt the deceased. I'd like to see inline cites on the canine phobia, fear of thunderstorms - God's wrath, John's drinking and financial mismanagement, rejection of Catholicism, squandered money his family could ill afford, mother's cancer - drinking at home - conditions grew appalling, and Stanislaus and Joyce strained relations - frivolity - drinking habits. With those, I'll be satisfied that we can avoid FARC. Sandy (Talk) 16:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • That's easy enough to do, but it just means a dozen more citations of Ellman. Would a broader footnote with some explanation at the beginning of each sentence do? As a scholar, if I were writing something like this, once I established that all my biographical info was coming from the same source I would more or less leave it at that. Chick Bowen 16:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not fond of the idea of broad covering footnotes, because future editors might insert something that isn't covered. I just don't like opening the door to anything about diagnoses, conditions, alcoholism, cause of death - issues of that nature - not being cited, guess it's my work on medical articles. Whatever you think best: I know that would work in a hard copy or other academic environment, but we have to confront the dynamic nature of an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and any statement that isn't ref'd might be challenged by a future editor. Sandy (Talk) 21:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I've done what I could. Some things just are too general to cite, I think. The drinking particularly; it's hard to find a page of any biographical text on Joyce that doesn't mention it, so we cite particularly notable incidents of it, like the Phoenix Park fight. Chick Bowen 22:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Another new look

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

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

[edit] Order of the Garter

[edit] Review commentary

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

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

  • Comment - I'd like to know how Lord Emsworth feels when he returns to Wikipedia and sees so many of his FAs defeatured or at FAR/C. LuciferMorgan 23:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I hope he doesn't shoot the messenger <eeek> Sandy (Talk) 00:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as far as the image, I don't know. But I'm sure an article doesn't have to have inline citations(altough it would be nice). Suffencient references are given in the appropiate section. Joe I 09:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    • This is a review, not a removal candidate, so we aren't voting yet. Inline citations are required to verify specific facts. Right now a non-expert can't verify anything. You are right that if the image were the only problem that the article wouldn't be listed here, but it still needs to be fixed. Jay32183 13:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Please see above.  :) Joe I 10:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Needs inline citations (1. c.) and I feel it may possibly be too listy which makes the article disjointed (1. a.). LuciferMorgan 09:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is a great article! The lack of inline is because he didn't write it when inline was required, or even available (it was a problematic template system). He lists the references used in writing it, and this is how legitimate academic scholarly works are done. The level of inline citation that seems to be the "norm" now at Wikipedia is at the far end of the extreme in scholarly works - and inline citations don't mean an article is of good quality. -- Stbalbach 15:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments Uncited, extremely listy, some version of something that looks like it wants to be See also or Notables but is just a long list, does not conform to WP:LAYOUT. Sandy (Talk) 16:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the lists of the members could be split off into its own article unless anybody objects, but I don't think the bullet points in the body are a particular problem. Should be easy to cite - I'll come back to it in FARC if nobody does anything on it. Yomanganitalk 01:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • A list of all the members ever already exists at List of Knights and Ladies of the Garter. Given that it's such an exclusive Order (26 members + royal extras) I don't think it's inappropriate to list all the current members in the article; it's certainly the sort of thing someone looking up the subject would probably want to know. Maybe a two-column format would make it look better. A lot of the other bulleted sections in the text (e.g. vestments) could easily have the bullets removed. What layout problems specifically did you have in mind, Sandy? I may be able to help cite this, but I'm quite busy at the moment. Dr pda 03:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
      • The *order* of the sections doesn't conform to WP:LAYOUT - easy to change as long as no one objects. Sandy (Talk) 03:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

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

  • I've mostly finished on this. I've split off the current member list just because it was easier to handle that way. There are two paragraphs that I haven't been able to reference which I think must come from the Begent and Chesshyre book - I'll try and get hold of this, but feel free to move it to FARC in the meantime. Yomanganitalk 16:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm impressed. Good work. Jay32183 19:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are insufficient citations (1c) and images (3). Marskell 06:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Much work already done. Moving it down to keep it on track. Marskell 06:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Comments: I've added references from Begent and Chesshyre to the remaining paragraphs so just about everything is cited now (although a unsourced statement about a possible link to Sir Gawain and the Green Knight was recently added). I removed the assertion that some of the vestments were designed for the coronation of George IV because this wasn't mentioned in B&C, and is indeed inconsistent with the details given in the article about each item (the hat may well have been, though). I've also replaced the picture of the Queen Mother, which was a copyvio (painted in 1938 by an artist who died in 1972, so not "no rights due of age" as stated on the image page). The image of the garter needs to be properly tagged or replaced. I notice the section about the chapel of the Order got split off to its own article some time ago. For consistency with the articles on the other orders I think there should at least be a paragraph with a {{Main}} tag. Dr pda 14:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment I removed the header picture, as I don't see how we can claim fair use just because it is a better picture than the ones we already have. I've also removed the Sir Gawain statement, as "a presumed link" sounds like OR to me (and I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere so it isn't generally presumed). I've also cancelled my order for the C&B book! Yomanganitalk 15:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep A lot of work has been done, and I think at this point I can say this is a keeper. The image I originally had a problem with is gone, and there are now lots of inline citations. Good job! Jay32183 19:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per references added by Yomangani, and other improvements. Sandy (Talk) 14:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's mostly very well written, but the prose needs cleaning up in places (sorry to sound like a broken gramaphone record). Take the opening:
The Most Noble Order of the Garter is an English order of chivalry with a history stretching back to mediæval times; today it is the world's oldest national order of knighthood in continuous existence and the pinnacle of the British honours system. Its membership is extremely limited, consisting of the Sovereign and not more than twenty-five full members, or Companions. Male members are known as Knights Companion, whilst female members are known as Ladies Companion (not Dames, as in most other British chivalric orders).
    • Remove "with a history of".
    • The use of semicolons throughout is problematic. Needs an audit to ensure that the closeness of statements is logically expressed by semicolons vs stops. The first one here, I think, should be a stop.
    • "oldest national order of knighthood in continuous existence"—try "oldest continuous order ...".
    • Remove "extremely" (what does it mean here?)
    • "Whilst" is a personal hate of mine: why not simply "and" as a link?

And further on:

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

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

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

[edit] Greek mythology

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

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

Problems
  • 1a - Not well written.
  • 1b - Not comprehesive.
  • 1c - No cites.
  • 2a - Lead leaves much to be desired.
  • 3 - It has 3 images, which is acceptable, though an article on such a topic can and should have many more.
*Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 17:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment WikiProject Middle-earth?!? Jkelly 17:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering the same thing. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
That only means I found a link to that Project either in "What links here" or on the article talk page when I ran through all 400+ articles: if a Project links to an article, I notify, in the hopes that casting a wider net will help find someone who will work on the articles. The "What links here" don't always make sense, but the idea is that the more potential editors we can pull in, the better. (And, if anyone knows of Projects that might help, please do put out additional notifications.) Sandy (Talk) 00:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The link was at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Middle-earth/Standards#Tenses... Carcharoth 08:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. As a Greek I feel very sorry I see this article here. But I must agree it is an awfull article, as it looks like now! Bad lead! Bad structure! I don't even like the writing! Uncitated! I could do some things for this mess, but I don't think I can soon bring this article very close to FA criteria. I must study my material, find additional sources, think about the right structure, start rewriting, improve the prose (the most difficult task for me, since I'm not a native English speaker). Maybe it is better to defeature it and then start form scratch. I really don't know.
I don't think it is exactly within its scope, but I'll leave a message in History of Greece wikiproject, in case one or more editors have the eagerness, the appetite and the background to co-operate with me, in order to achive something within the pressing time limits of FARC. But I must admit I'm not so optimist about such a prospect!--Yannismarou 11:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I will lend as much help as I can. Unfortunatley, my knowledge of the subject is limited thanks to a high school teacher who thought learning how to diagram sentences was much more important than learning about Greek mythology as everyone else did. Let me know if you'd like me to help copyedit and I'm always up for a little research. I'm glad to see that someone has taken an interest in this article. Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
OK! Thanks! I did some work with the lead, but nothing more. I hope I'll find some time tomorrow to work more on this. And I'll definitely need your copy-editing skills, when (and if!) I complete my improvements in this article.--Yannismarou 14:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Just let me know. I just made a very minor correction to some sources you added. I changed the spelling of Aischylus to the more common (at least in English) Aeschylus. I have the article in my watchlist and I'll check in and see what changes are being made. Nice work so far! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your collaboration!--Yannismarou 19:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
As you may see, I've already worked on some of the sections and I'll continue improving the article. I estimate that I'll need about 10-15 days to bring it to close-FA status. I don't know what are exactly the time limits of FARC, but I had to inform you about my time table (approximately). This article still needs much more work, but if I stay on schedule and if I have a nice copy-editing at the end, I think that we can save it.
Oh! And something else. You might get the impression that my edits are scattered and mal-organized! You may even wonder: "What, on earth, is he doing?". Just don't rush to judge me! This is my way of working. You'll see that in the end the final result won't be that bad!--Yannismarou 15:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I've watched this board for a while and if something is being done to an article, they will usually let it sit here for awhile. You're improvements have certainly sruced the article a great deal! Would you mind if I added a few more images? *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 02:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Be my guest!--Yannismarou 09:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if I'll continue contributing to this article, after some incomprehensible interventions I saw from other users. You can check the talk page of the article to see what I mean.--Yannismarou 09:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC) Misunderstanding.--Yannismarou 15:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have also done some additional (slight) copy-editing to my own rewriting. I think the article is comprehensive and fullfils FA criteria now. But I'm still open to suggestions.--Yannismarou 10:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Wholehearted support This brand new overhauled and polished article deserves our merit. Congratulations to the contributors. NikoSilver 11:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to close FAR per Yannis, Ganymead, and Niko. Sandy (Talk) 14:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed status

Place more recent additions at top

[edit] World War I

[edit] Review commentary

Brilliant prose promotion, no original editor. Messages left at Germany, MilHist, United States. Sandy (Talk) 19:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm nominating this for FAR because;

  • It fails criterion 1. c. of "What is a featured article?" Lacks sufficient citations. LuciferMorgan 19:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree with the nominator. As a matter of fact I was also thinking to submit it here!--Yannismarou 22:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm unsurprised others thought of nomination, as there's been so much literature on World War I that this article's amount of cites is rather poor. LuciferMorgan 23:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I also agree with the nominator - the citations are incredibly weak, and the article could also use some polishing (the quality of the writing has, I think, slipped a little since it reached FA). I don't think it would be problematic to delist it while work is ongoing - it can always work its way back up. Carom 16:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Note - If work is being made on an article, admins generally extend the allocated time to address the criteria concerns. LuciferMorgan 17:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You're right, of course - slipped my mind for some reason. Carom 18:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment 109 kilobytes of info and thirteen measly citations? This article is the encyclopedic definition of unsourced, and if any one is curious, it has been nominated for removal at least three separate times. It's high time we put our credibility where our guidelines are and axe this article’s FA status. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Concur with nominator and above also, for reasons above and my nomination (the 2nd one). It seems that after my nomination, the article was improved (ex. article size went down to 65kb), but now it appears to be growing worse again. AZ t 23:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: lots of paras without inline citations, the current footnotes include one named just 'web reference', and there are style issue (lots of tiny paras that should be merged or expanded).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria are citations and prose. Joelito (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove Insufficient inline cites (1. c. violation). LuciferMorgan 13:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove, and fast; an article like this one should be loaded with inline citations, and it's not what I call "brilliant prose".--Aldux 18:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove for some of the reasons listed here and for the weak inline citations. The prose isn't that great either. Looking at the lead (guidelines suggest 4 paragraphs, btw), the first sentence is missing a comma, and the second paragraph (which is only 1 sentence) is somewhat unparallel. AZ t 00:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove per my previous comment. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove—Where are the references? Tony 12:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. No references. I'm surprised nobody is working on this article.--Yannismarou 19:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove - lack of citations. Buckshot06 00:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bath

[edit] Review commentary

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

This FA has several problems.

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

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

  • Comment Insufficient inline cites. LuciferMorgan 16:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Per LuciferMorgan, plus other issues: some section have tiny paras that need to be merged or expanded and there are stub-sections(like 'The Spa'). Lots of red links, but I don't consider that issue a criteria for objection/removal personally - but it would be nice if somebody would do some stubs.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

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

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

  • Remove. Inadequately cited, prose issues, poor image placement, external jumps, short stubby sections and paragraphs, mixed reference styles, and no one working on any of it. Sandy (Talk) 00:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove as per everything above- --RelHistBuff 11:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove per Sandy.--Aldux 14:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revised Standard Version

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Bible and Christianity. Marskell 11:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

With the FAR page finally settling down, I thought I'd nominate one myself. This article fails to meet the criteria on a number of counts:

  • 2a. The LEAD, consisting of one sentence, is obviously insufficient.
  • 2b. The headings are entire phrases, in some cases.
  • 1c. Completely lacks inline citations. There are references, but unfortunately sourcing will be difficult for someone relying on the web.
  • 1a. Not terrible, but many one sentence paragraphs. Some of it is stylistically limp, such as "owing to its aim" in LEAD. Later: "The RSV New Testament was well received, but reaction to the Old Testament was different. Many accepted it as well, but many also denounced it." This doesn't need to be two sentences and it feels like it was written with a six year-old in mind.
  • 1b. This weighs in at 13.5k. Yes, it's comprehensiveness not length, but the size is on the low-end of what you'd expect. The description of the drafting of the version overlaps the first and second sections and needs to be better rationalized and expanded. The International Council of Religious Education is redlinked and the reader needs to know what it is. Who were some of the scholars involved? How were they chosen?

A tough nut, to be sure. Hopefully someone will pick up on it. I can work on the prose, at least, if there is interest. Marskell 11:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Article has several serious flaws, and, personally, given the significance of the textual differences of the various editions, could and should be much longer. I also agree with all of the above reservations cited by Marskell. Badbilltucker 17:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria are LEAD, style (headers), citations, prose and comprehensiveness. Joelito (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. Nothing doing. Marskell 14:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. No improvement. Sandy (Talk) 20:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove No inline cites and an insufficient lead section. LuciferMorgan 04:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Antony

[edit] Review commentary

No original editor, messages left at Bio, Classical Greece and Rome, MilHist and Ancient Egypt. Sandy (Talk) 23:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Needs inline citations, and also needs to have the first image replaced, and it is of unknown origin. In addition, the references used are almost solely from ancient texts or Britannica 1911, so could definitely use some updated scholarship. Judgesurreal777 22:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - Needs inline cites. LuciferMorgan 10:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC, still uncited. Sandy (Talk) 04:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria are citations. Joelito (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove - Lacks inline citations (1. c. violation). LuciferMorgan 15:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove per above.UberCryxic 18:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove per above. Badbilltucker 14:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove per above. --RelHistBuff 15:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove per above.--Yannismarou 14:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove per above.--Aldux 17:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove per above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mixed-breed dog

[edit] Review commentary

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

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

This needs massive re-writing. Potential OR, rather than prose (which isn't too bad), is the fundamental issue. It's an interesting and, I'd guess, fairly well-searched topic—no doubt for these reasons, lots of people have added nuggets of BS. In discussing intelligence of mixed-breeds we find: "For example, Benji, the hero in a series of films named for him, was a mixed-breed terrier." A fictional example used to support a real-world point?
Other random OR concerns:
  • "Some American registries and dog clubs that accept mixed-breed dogs use the breed name All American, referring to the United States' reputation as a melting pot of different nationalities." That's really how the term arose?
  • "Mixed breeds also tend to have a size between that of their parents, thus tending eventually toward the norm." What is the norm?
  • "If one knows the breeds of the parents, some characteristics can be ruled out; for example, a cross between two small purebreds will not result in a dog the size of a Great Dane." No shit?
  • Ah wait, there is some info that suggests someone read a book. The norm is provided: "With each generation of indiscriminate mixing, the offspring move closer to the genetic norm. Dogs that are descended from many generations of mixes are typically light brown or black and weigh about 18 kg (40 lb). They typically stand between 38 and 57 cm (15 and 23 inches) tall at the withers." OK, this is good and encyclopedic, if we have a source.
  • "It's important to note that..." I just love "it's important to note that...". It helps you clearly identify non-encyclopedic writing.
  • "Mixed-breed dogs can be divided roughly into three types:..." Roughly divided by whom? This screams OR.
  • After saying just the opposite, the article declares: "Overall, mixed breed dogs tend to be healthier. They have more genetic variations than purebred dogs." That needs sourcing.
This really is an interesting topic (as a dog lover), but I think this page is a good example of the "semi-OR" that went unnoticed a year or two ago: written with good intent and no desire to deliberately include inaccuracies, but still of the vague, unsourced, "I-sort-of-know-this" type. Hopefully it can be picked up and worked on! Marskell 21:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Needs inline cites (1. c.). LuciferMorgan 15:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Good article, but needs inline citations. Right now, I would question it's FA status on that basis. Badbilltucker 19:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC. Sandy (Talk) 04:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria are citations and OR. Joelito (talk) 04:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. This is one of only two featured articles a project I am associated with can point to, so I have very mixed feelings about saying this. But I do believe that the objections raised above are serious enough to merit the article being delisted. Maybe doing so might jolt some editors into working on it. Maybe I might even stop trying to assess articles to do it. Maybe. Can I get back to you on that one? :) Badbilltucker 15:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove as per FAR commentary. --RelHistBuff 13:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm going to check whether this can be referenced/rewritten from the sources I have available, so please leave it on for a couple of days. Yomanganitalk 02:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove - now I've had a decent look through. It's uncited, original research, poorly written and US-centric. Needs rewriting from scratch in my opinion. Yomanganitalk 11:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove - too much uncited OR. Sandy (Talk) 21:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove per Yomangani (nice summary of the article's flaws!).--Yannismarou 21:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove Lacks inline cites (1. c. violation). LuciferMorgan 21:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Celtic Tiger

[edit] Review commentary

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

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

  • Comment. External jumps, mixed reference styles (refs need to be converted), not clear if "Online references" are really References or External links, but the sources necessary for adequate inline citations appear to be available, and this article should be salvageable. Sandy (Talk) 17:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Indeed - not as bad as I was expecting, given its antiquity (FAC in late October 2004). It has not changed all that much in two years (diff from 31 October 2004, the last version before it was promoted, to 20 October 2006, the latest edit before today). Inline citations are required, inevitably; the listy sections can no doubt be prosified, if necessary. -- 17:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've worked on this article considerably and it has gone from here to current. I will probably review the text one more time. It could still do with more citations and improvement in flow but I think it's considerably improved. –Outriggr § 01:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Since there is still a lot of uncited text, we should move to FARC just to keep things moving. Sandy (Talk) 04:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

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

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

  • No, I'm done. –Outriggr § 23:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I can expand the refs that are there, but if no one is working on finishing the citing, it might not be worth the effort ... ??? Sandy (Talk) 00:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I tend to agree with you. (Which kind of reinforces for me the 85° uphill battle that I feel this process is!) –Outriggr § 00:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. Unfortunately, in spite of excellent improvements by Outriggr, no one else pitched in to finish the job. Sandy (Talk) 16:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove Still patches of uncited text. At least the article has been improvised though. LuciferMorgan 21:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Would it be worth the effort to remove the uncited statements without affecting the context in order to preserve FA? If you all think it is possible, I might try giving a first pass at it. --RelHistBuff 11:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I spoke too soon. It looks unsalvageable unless someone has the sources. Too many uncited sections that really need cites. I change my vote to Remove. --RelHistBuff 13:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pashtun people

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at User talk:Tombseye, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pashtun and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Marskell 11:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this really a featured article? It seems generally speculative and the sources don't seem to meet WP:RS. Particularly, the population figures from the "Joshua Project", an evangelical Christian missionary organization, seem suspect. Mike Dillon 03:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of references, but still large swathes that are only partially wikified (see Women section). I don't think this meets 1a either. "Their history can literally be traced back millennia"—do people normally assume "millenia" is a non-literal denotation? List numbers should not be inserted into the text as they are in "Pushtans defined". "This is the most prevalent view among the more orthodox and conservative tribesmen who do not view Pashtuns of the Jewish faith as actual Pashtuns even if they themselves might claim to be of Hebrew ancestry depending upon which tribe is in question." Wha..? Marskell 11:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
It's always nice when FAs follow WP:LAYOUT; perhaps one of the main editors will fix that. Sandy 13:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Needs a serious copy-edit to pass 1a. Here are examples of redundancies and other problems in the first three sentences.
    • Right at the start, "Pashtuns" and "ethnic Afghans" are plural, yet all of the alternative terms are singular.
    • "are an ethno-linguistic group living primarily in eastern and southern Afghanistan"—Remove "living".
    • Insert "the" before "Balochistan"—presumably, they're identifiable.
    • The listing is wrong technically: "The Pashtuns are typically characterized by their language, adherence to Pashtunwali (a pre-Islamic indigenous religious code of honor and culture),[20] and Islam." I think it should be ", and adherence to ...", without another comma.
    • "Pashtuns have managed to survive a turbulent history despite having rarely been united. Their history can literally be traced back millennia, while their modern past began with the rise of the Durrani Empire starting in 1747." Replace "managed to survive" with just "survived". Just why the "despite" is the case is not immediately clear. Remove "literally". Choose either "began" or "started", not both. Tony 11:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that even through the article has some inline citations, there are still entire paras without a single one.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are quality of sources (1c) and prose. Marskell 13:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry for the late reply, but 'real life' has kept me away from wikipedia for months. I got the message regarding the review for the article. Firstly, since I wrote the article and it won FA status it has devolved into personal views and irrelevant additions and now we have an ever expanding view of what defines Pashtuns (that does not correspond with encyclopedias). I will try to repair it as much as I can, but people seem adamant at turning it into a sub-par article just to get their point across regardless of whether it is academic or not. I agree with the above comments as well as and will see what I can do. Any further input would be appreciated. Thanks! Tombseye 21:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Update ? By the way, what is the Literature section - are those References or Further Reading? Sandy (Talk) 15:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
As Tony notes below, there is still work to be done. I'm doing some on and off and I'm in the middle of a ton of work in real life. As for the language and lit. section it's about the Pashto language. Tombseye 23:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Quite a lot has been done on this article since my last comment. But I'm not yet happy that the prose is of "professional" standard, and I think that it's still under-referenced. I've copy-edited the lead as an example; a few of the edits are based on personal preference; most are not. Plus a few random points that suggest that there are problems lurking throughout.
    • "They share with their menfolk a free-willed, strong and fiercely independent character that values freedom and self rule." Reference required. "Due to numerous social hurdles, the literacy rate for Pashtun women remains considerably lower than that of males"—Reference required (I guess stats are unavailable, but you are making this assertion ...).
    • "for example, though women are technically allowed to vote in Afghanistan and Pakistan, many have been kept away from ballot boxes by males.[69]"—By males? Is this a systemic, cultural behaviour? How is it manifested? More details would be nice, since most readers won't bother to go to the reference.

I'd like to see this survive as a FA; at the moment, it's on the wrong side of a knife-edge. Tony 14:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Is anyone still working on this? Many of the references are just blue links that need to be expanded. If there is actually an effort to improve the article, I'll help expand the refs to bibliographic style, but if no one is working on it, it's not a good use of my time. Sandy (Talk) 16:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove: Citations are needed in several sections ("Women", "Genetics"), some restructuring is needed as there are overlapping information in the "Pashtuns defined", "Culture", "Putative ancestry", and "History and origins" sections, and a through copyedit should be done. --RelHistBuff 13:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bodyline

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Cricket and Australia. Sandy (Talk) 00:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant prose, but no inline citations. Yes, all articles need them, and so does this one. Tagged images are good, movie poster could use a fair use rationale. Could probably use a copyedit too. Judgesurreal777 00:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - I've given it a light copyedit - as you say, the prose was pretty good already - and added a few refs. Hopefully someone from WP:CRIC with the books will help too. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I would like a little more time (a week or two) to work on this. I should be able to get Jack Fingleton's Cricket Crisis in a few days. Tintin (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c) and prose (1a). Marskell 07:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Tintin, you have two weeks more to work away—longer, if you feel it necessary, and you inform people here. Marskell 07:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a featured article I can't agree with the prose comment. Even the nominator of the featured article review, Judgesurreal777, started his comments with "brilliant prose". ALoan has also commented favourably on it above. My own description would be that it is engaging prose. It's also clear that the citations are coming along and I'm sure they'll be at a sufficient standard really soon. jguk 18:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove Still patches of uncited text. LuciferMorgan 20:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Give it a short while (another two weeks) and the text will all be referenced up, I'm sure. jguk 20:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. I cleaned up the TOC per WP:MOS, and cleaned up the few refs that were there, but the article is basically uncited and there doesn't appear to be a serious effort underway to correct the issues. Sandy (Talk) 15:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean. The whole of the "Genesis" section is referenced. The "English tour 1932-33" section just needs a reference to most of the books already listed at the bottom to be added at the end, and then it will be fully referenced. The "In England" section is fully referenced. The "Origin of the term" section is fully referenced. The "Changes to the Laws of Cricket" is missing just one reference - namely to the change that happened 30 odd years after the event. So up to there, we're only missing two citations, one of which is largely already covered at the end. I agree that the "cultural impact" section is unsupported.
In terms of improvement. There have been many edits relating to referencing in recent days, showing clear improvement. jguk 16:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there has been improvement, but more is still needed. Can someone please add page nos to current ref numbers 3 and 6? And, as you mentioned, there are still uncited sections. Sandy (Talk) 18:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I mentioned that there was one uncited section. And I fully agree that it should be referenced. As you note, there has been improvement, and I trust that as long as that improvement continues, adequate time will be given for this article to get back up to standard. I should add that I myself proposed the format that WP:Verifiability currently takes, so I'm quite mindful of the need to allow others to check all substantive claims that have been made. At the same time, I trust WPians are mindful of the large amount of work put into FAs such as Bodyline, so that they are eager for it to retain FA status (and to make the improvements to allow it to do so) rather than rush to delisting. jguk 22:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
If someone is working on it, please keep us posted - two weeks passed between Marskell's comment and my Remove vote. Sandy (Talk) 22:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as featured article. I have no idea how this page works (there's no explanation text, or link to any and all the headings are jargon - "FARC Commentary" hardly suggests that people should be nominating to keep / remove, but everyone else is, so I shall too) so apologies if this comment is out of line, or only admins should be "voting". This is a superb article. An exceptional number of issues need citation within it, and proportionately by far the majority are covered. The images are apt, well titled and enlightening. The text is of a quality you'd expect to find in a hardback book on the subject. It's one thing to suggest that some extra citations would be a good thing - noone could dissent. But to say that the article should lose its FA status because there's still a few outstanding does not seem right. And btw could someone who understands how to do these things suggest that an appropriate explanatory template is devised for these FAR pages - they're currently very exclusive. --Dweller 08:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
NB Before someone points out that there's a link at the top of the page to WP:FAR that page doesn't explain process on this one, that I could see. Besides, even if it overtly did, shouldn't it be obvious here too? --Dweller 09:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand the confusion: will raise the question on the WP:FAR talk page, but note that the same situation exists on individual FACs. Sandy (Talk) 14:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment If articles don't meet FA criteria after an FARC period, they're defeatured. I'm not a particular fan of this "good faith" attitude where people keep FAs on the basis they're improved in future. Since the month has finished up, I think this FARC should be closed real soon as no work is going on. LuciferMorgan 01:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree strongly that no real work has been going on. I have added references myself (or rather moved them from being listed at the bottom of the page to being inline citations). I am disappointed that it has been defeatured on something so minor when the text reads so well and (apart from one section at the end) is fully referenced. It seems that the delisting process is automatic and regardless of the goodwill employed to address what (as of today's date) are minor issues that are in the process of being addressed merely serves to dishearten people. Not everyone wants to live their lives by WP, we do this for fun. Assuming the aim is WP improvement rather than denigrating others' work, can there not at least be a holding bay where such articles go to, so they can be relisted as soon as reasonable objections are properly addressed? jguk 18:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I didn't realise this discussion was going on. I can add citations for all the missing bits if you give me a day to do it. I will do it when I get home from work tonight. -dmmaus 22:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The process is dreadful. If you check the article, it seems this process has been decided and closed. Not that anyone bothers to note as much here. Hugely unimpressed by my first experience of FAR. --Dweller 22:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It also seems to go against its own rules. It says those who have commented should re-appear towards the end of the process to update their comments. Only one commentator did that, and that was to edit out "Remove" from his comments. I see little point in having a review if articles are only going to get delisted anyway. jguk 13:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_article_review_archive_3d48.html"