Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/archive/January 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the archive of Featured Article Removal Candidates for January 2006. For the active archive and list of previous arhives, click here.

Contents

[edit] Buddhist art

Article is still a featured article

Here is the difference between now and when it became featured.

My main reason is the lack of references [2 (c)] for this article. It is surely no longer anywhere near Wikipedia's best work [1] and it is not comprehensive I don't believe [2 (b)]. It could be salvaged but it was an FA from another era and needs to be updated for new expectations. gren グレン ? 10:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose removal. This is not an FA from "another era", except if beginning of 2005 is indeed another era. References are there, except someone relabelled them "Other Readings", which I corrected. The article has a high level of comprehensiveness, especially in its geographical treatment. Regards. PHG 10:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per PHG. As a suggestion though, it would be nice to have something on contemporary Buddhist art. Mark1 11:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per PHG. Given the length of this article (already 31K), I'd suggest that "Contemporary Buddhist art" or "Buddhist art after year N" or whatever be a separate article anyway. Anville 08:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove per nomination. The article lacks inline citations (also 2(c)), and should be split up per Wikipedia:Summary style. AndyZ 01:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chariot racing

There is no consensus. Article is still a featured article

Chariot racing was featured long ago and meets few of today's standards. No lead section to speak of; not comprehensive; improper image use; no inline citations. Chariot racing certainly does not, "exemplify our very best work". -- Rmrfstar 13:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Can you be more specific, like making reference to featured article criteria? FWBOarticle
  • Remove per nom, the lead is only one short sentence. --Jaranda wat's sup 19:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove this is quite an good article, but the lead section does need work and the lack of references is unacceptable... Mikkerpikker ... 22:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, with the condition being that the lead section is improved within a week or so. While I'd certainly expect inline citations of every new FA candidate, I'd be willing to let the older ones stay grandfathered in, as long as they give a comprehensive list of sources as this one does. Andrew Levine 03:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I think it's fair to say this article is mostly my work; I can't do anything about the lack of sources or references, since I am no longer in the same place as the books I used and to be honest I no longer particulary care about the subject. As for the lead section, I'm sure any reasonably competent person could fix that in less time than it takes to make a FARC page. I would also like to say that inline citations are horrible and ugly. Are we writing essays here, or encyclopedia articles? I hope this trend of demanding inline references does not continue. But enough ranting... Adam Bishop 03:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The new lead seems fine, and the article overall also...seems fine. I read the article and nothing bothersome jumped out at me (although it might benefit from more subsectioning). The References seem suitably comprehensive. I didn't review it as thoroughly as I might a FAC, and I have no special knowledge about the topic. Based on that, I don't have an objection to it keeping its FA status. Remove It needs an intro, plain and simple. If the introduction gets written before this FARC nom ends, I'll read the article more closely and possibly change or withdraw my opinion. (In passing, I happen to very much agree with the inline citations comment above -- in general, citations are horrible and ugly indeed -- for all but the most controversial of statements, where a link to footnotes would be useful.) --Tsavage 17:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment More or less for the sheer joy of it, I added a lead paragraph. I don't care that much if the article keeps its FA status or not, though I thought it was interesting and well-written. And I couldn't agree more with the comments about the current mania for footnotes. They're ugly and usually unnecesary and almost always nitpicking and often added only to get an article through FAC and did I mention they're ugly? I had to plaster Henry James (the article, not his ashes) with a couple dozen of the little cruddies just to push the article through FAC. Wouldn't you know, the two articles right after Henry James on the FA list, James Joyce and Rudyard Kipling, don't have any footnotes at all. Oh, for the good old days... Casey Abell 15:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep article improved --Jaranda wat's sup 23:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Still remove. I still don't think the article is up to current featured article standards: it is not particularily well-written, with unprofessional anecdotes and stated assumptions; it is poorly organized, with very little subsectioning. This article is not "our very best work". I say send to peer review. -- Rmrfstar 13:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      • As I said, I'm not real enthusiastic one way or the other. But there certainly seems to be no strong consensus for removal, so I'd say the article is a Keep. Casey Abell 18:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Rmrfstar: I (quickly) reread the article, and modified my comment a bit towards the negative. For one, the writing is not at all as tight as it could be; combined with lack of subsections, it makes the whole article somewhat bloated and a dense read (which right there isn't FA quality). But, if you could be more specific with your problems (um, examples...)... It's tough, partially because based on the fact (IMO) that current FACs quite often get promoted despite having big problems, I'm in favor of, when in doubt, remove, but that often takes a detailed, protracted argument. Here if I did some quick research, I suspect I'd find significant stuff that's missing, but that takes time, and I believe FARC is based on "consensus", so a couple of keeps may scuttle the nomination in any case. It may sound odd, but for FAC and now FARC, after three months of participating quite heavily (mainly FAC), I've taken to reserving my energy for the noms I see as the most problematic (as, in FAC at least, some of these reviews run on for literally WEEKS). It's not an...ideal situation, with objectors facing much hard work not required of supporters, but it's what we're working with... --Tsavage 18:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buddhism

Article is no longer a featured article

The article is currently 72 kilobyte, which clearly violate section 5 requirement of featured article criterias. This means that most people can't or won't read the article. Most space is wasted on esotric details of buddhism. Plus most sister page linked to this main pages are too short or non existent. In many case, some section of the main page has more content than linked sister page. To top it off, several attempts to slim down the article has incited arguments between different sects of Buddhist denomiation. This article no longer provide good overview of buddhism. Plus, without removal of the featured article status, some will not accept that the article requires surgery. Strong Remove FWBOarticle

Speedy keep, clear bad-faith nomination and attempt to make a POINT; "without removal of the featured article status, some will not accept that the article requires surgery" says it all. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 15:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
It appear that you are involved in editing the article and belong to group who are not happy with my suggestion that this article need major revamp. I think you misunderstand the wiki recommendation you linked. The page you linked advice against people "editing" the article to prove point. I, on the other hand, declared in talk page that I will no longer edit the article. I fully accept that I'm a part of the ongoing debate in talk page. But the opinion that this article has become unmanageable is voiced by many in talk page though some disagree on how I go about fixing it. I came here after feeling that debate is not going anywhere. If you made your judgement based on the discussion in talk page, my comment here or my style of editing, please reconsider and focus on the article itsel.
I think you misread WP:POINT: "This means that an individual who opposes the state of a current rule or policy should not attempt to create in the Wikipedia itself proof that the rule does not work." This would be like the nominator nominating this article FARCing it because another article he had worken on was nominated for FARC. AndyZ 01:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I have read the page correctly. It refers to someone "editing" the wikipedia to prove a point or "editing" by gaming system such as pushing 3 revert rule to the limit. What I'm doing has zero impact on editing process. Objection based on that page does not apply. FWBOarticle 07:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, this article does need some serious copyediting.--nixie 22:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree with Nixie; needs massaging to remove clumsiness. Take this awkward sentence structure, incl. punctuation, for example:
The principles by which a person can achieve enlightenment are known as the Buddhadharma, or simply—the Dharma, meaning (in this context) "law, doctrine, or truth."

I don't think the nominator's point about size is a strong one; please present a more specific argument that the size is inappropriate to the topic. Tony 23:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I accept that 32 is only recommended size and 50kb is recommended size for split. However, 32kb recommendation is based on well established studies of adult attention span. Anything longer and many would stop reading the article. Moreover, I believe this article is read by large number of younger audience so I believe that the article should be slightly lower than 32 kg. At 72 kb the article is in serious trobule. My "subjective" opinion is that too many esotoric topics are discussed in details. Unfortunately, what is or what is not "esotric" topic is causing some sectarian disagreement, which is another reason I gave up and came here. FWBOarticle
  • Weak Remove: Bloat issues compared to daughter articles. Needs copyediting focusing on the denominations confusion. Slightly hasty nomination, but valid. Peace. Metta Bubble 00:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Remove: This article requires (1) a network of sub-articles that will take the load off, and (2) extensive re-editing to raise upto FA standards. As this will take time and effort, I strongly advocate a re-nomination. Rama's Arrow 18:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Yes, the article requires sub-articles - and indeed there are many already. Unfortunately (but understandably) it is often edited by relatively new editors who are interested in, or practitioners of, Buddhism - and feel that they have something necessary to add. However IMO, as a general rule, the quality of the article remains high. (20040302 12:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC))
  • Remove - Too much bloat and too little development of daughter articles. --mav 22:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. WP:POINT has nothing to do with whether the article meets Featured standards currently; reprimand the nominator if he's truly "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point", but it's true either way that this article needs major reworking, and removing FA is a fantastic way to facilitate that. -Silence 22:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'm making a point. But this doesn't fall into "don't-make-a-point" in wikipedia. You are not allowed to "edit" to make a point. FA removal nomination has zero impact to editorial process. Moreover, I declared in the talk page that I will not make edit until the nomination process is settled. FWBOarticle
  • Keep. The article is long but I see nothing to warrant removing its FA status.--Alabamaboy 17:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is true that the article is very long, but it is very well referenced, and I see no reason to remove its current featured article status. It is one of the best religion-related articles. Carioca 01:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove For a 71 kb article, only 4 inline citations? Lead is too long, due to WP:LEAD. Rest of my objections are already stated in the "remove"s above. AndyZ 01:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, for above reasons. - Mailer Diablo 01:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, also for above reasons. Secos5 01:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I think that this is a brilliant article, it is well set up if you are just reading through it. It's wel done and may be too long, but it's all good. Motor.on 00:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Please do not vote on closed nomination pages, as it may confuse people browsing through the archives into thinking that a comment was actually posted during the vote. If you think that Buddhism should become a Featured Article again, then nominate it at WP:FAC or send it through WP:PR to see how it can be further improved. -Silence 03:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Plus the article has gone through significant revamp since the removal of the status. FWBOarticle

[edit] Human

Article is no longer a featured article

The "psychology and human ethnology" section is dominated entirely by a discussion of psychoanalysis. The "spirituality, religion, mythology, and theology" section does not have any discussion of the comparative size of world religions (not even that Christianity and Islam are the largest and second largest). The "population" section says nothing about demography nor the Black Death (the biggest population drop in history), and lacks a desperately needed chart for illustration). The section on "race and ethnicity" fails to discuss ethnic groups and even fails to distinguish between races and ethnic groups. It also includes an image of the "five races" from the long-discredited Carleton Coon. The "body image" section makes an unsourced claim that "in every human culture, people adorn their bodies with tattoos, cosmetics, clothing, and jewellery" [emphasis mine]. Literature is not even mentioned in passing.

The article lacks any discussion about humans, violence, and armed conflict, and when I tried to insert even a sentence about this it was removed. Politics and government get no section. This is unacceptable for a featured article. Remove. Neutralitytalk 23:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: What about food? There's nothing about what humans actually eat. At least a section should be about the diet, diversity of food, most common foods (rice, wheat, corn). Neutralitytalk 03:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
More: A politics section was added, but it focuses three sentences on semantics ("In Commonwealth English, the word "government" can also be used to refer only to the executive branch, in this context being a synonym for the word "administration" in American English (e.g. the Blair governement, the Bush Administration). In countries using the Westminster system, the governement (or party in governement) will also usually control the legislature") and doesn't mention political philosophy. A "war" section was added, but it doesn't address how humans are distinct from other animals in this regard, nor does it mention the beginnings of war. The psychology section still is completely made up of a discussion of Freudian/Jungian psychoanalysis, which is only a part of psychology. The section fails to even link behaviorism, cognitive psychology, and humanistic psychology–the other three major schools of thought in psychology. And there is nothing on communication, only aspects of communication. There is no mention of the human genome, which defines what a human is. And where is the section on human extinction? --Neutralitytalk 19:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
What about disease? There should be some mention of the most common diseases, medicine, and sanitation. Neutralitytalk 19:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. (Even though I fear it may be too soon since its elevation to featured status to consider its removal.) The introduction has been cleaned up noticeably, but most of the other objections appear to remain valid. I'm not sure if I agree with Neutrality's specific objections above, as some of them are too specific for this article. However, I absolutely agree that the omission of warfare from the culture section is a gaping hole. War is far more integral to humanity than most of the other cultural phenomena mentioned. Also, the article's quality is generally poor as noted in the talk page section linked above. It's too scatterbrained, trying to mention too many sub-topics rather than giving a concise summaries with links to associated articles when necessary. --Yath 05:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Addendum: the new, improved correction has been reverted to the poorer, older one. The article has degraded since its FARC nomination and really shouldn't be identified as an example of Wikipedia's best work. --Yath 19:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep of course, its far to soon to even consider this anyways, and the unresolved objections during the FAC process were ignored for being either non-specific, or to the articles detriment to address. Isn't there some sort of requirement that concerns be discussed on the article talk page prior to a FARC nomination? If not there certainly should be... I have included war, and addressed other concerns btw, have a look. Sam Spade 15:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Re: Too soon after promotion: There seems to be a generally agreed upon three month threshhold for Farcs, and this, more or less, meets that threshhold. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but positive additions should of course not be removed. Please discuss any controversial reversions on the talk page and let's help it to remain a living article. — goethean ॐ 17:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove for three reasons. (1) Writing quality and content. This article is deficient in a large number of ways, with poorly-worded, unprofessional, and unhelpful writing occurring even from the very first sentence ("Human beings define themselves in biological, social, and spiritual terms."), which wrongly implies that the article is about how humanes define themselves rather than actually being about humans themselves. Many obvious facts about humans fail to be mentioned, many sections later in the article need clean-up and reorganization, and many trivial facts need to be moved to the hundreds of sub-articles Human has. (2) Citations and sources. There are very, very few inline citations in this article, and while this is certainly not a requirement for being Featured, it's highly recommended on WP:CITE for any controversial claims or statements an article makes. And an article as general and centrally important as human is obviously going to have tons of controversial statements, yet the introductory paragraphs, for example, don't cite a single source! (3) Practicality. History has proven that the best way to improve articles that need improving is to force them to go through the Featured Article process, and related processes (like WP:AID and WP:PR) that ultimately seek to get an article Featured. Thus, I see no downsides to removing a lacking article from being Featured, even though it is an impressive article with much useful information, many well-written paragraphs (though a number could use a fair amount of copyediting, trimming, clarifying, broadening, etc.); and I see a large number of potential benefits. I'm willing to possibly bruise a few talented and remarkably skilled editors' egos slightly, and perhaps get some more harsh, soul-rending criticism, by voting "Remove" here, if it means that the end product, human, will be all the better for it. And I think it does. -Silence 18:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Wary Keep. The submitter brings up some very good points for expansion, and the article certainly should mention things like demography and the distribution and proportions of religions. However, we need to keep article size in mind. I'd like to see the proposed additions included in the article; but also, wherever possible, I think the subsections should be concentrated as much as possible down to the most important information available, with links to secondary articles being placed in each. (For example: Life cycle takes up more space than I believe it deserves in context of the rest of the article, and has no secondary article link.) If we were to include in detail every facet of human existence, this article would take up half of Wikipedia's server space. The article should be expanded, yes, but not carte blanche. Cheers. !mAtt™ 18:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Part of the problem with an article about Humans is that all over human history, sociology, biology, and technology could fit within the article. Obviously this is not possible and I feel that some of the items raised against the article (such as the omission of the black death) are silly considering these items have their own articles. The article can, of course, still be improved but it is worthy of being a FA.--Alabamaboy 01:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. Many problems with the writing (2a), which are deeper than the language just at the clause level, and POV (2d). Here are some examples:
  • 'Juvenile males are called boys, adult males men, juvenile females girls, and adult females women.' Sorry, but that's not very profound, especially just after the lead.
  • At the top, humans are announced as seeing themselves in biological, social and spiritual terms. Apart from the dangers of imposing a culture-centric categorisation so prominently, there's no explicit treatment of the second category in the lead ('spiritual', like the other two terms, needs to appear again to clarify the structure of the lead).
  • again, in the lead, the self is characterised as being 'composed of co-operating and competing groups'. Sorry to be picky, but that's not good enough.
  • 'Humans are commonly referred to ... collectively as Man (capital M)'—unsure about the upper-case M, and more importantly, let's not glorify sexist terminology by placing it first.

It's all like that, and needs a thorough rewrite. I suggest that it be removed, reinvented and resubmitted to the FAC room.

Tony 23:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I dispute your objections as variously being non-actionable, or to the articles detriment if acted upon. Sam Spade 13:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid that a more specific defence is required. Tony 08:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak remove. Repeating the FAC process will help this article, but some of the criticisms have gone too far. --Rikurzhen 19:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove per nom and others. Saravask 08:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, please see the diff between when it was featured and currently. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. A group of us have been working recently to improve the introduction. Our changes have since been reverted with any explanation on the talk page and we're back at square one. This article is not an example of Wikipedia's best and I fear it will be some time before it is. Hitchhiker89talk 13:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove - Does not follow good Wikipedia:Summary style (FA requirement 5) by having 'main articles' that are a fraction of the size of the section they are 'summarizing'. Compare: Human biology and Human#biology. Too much bloat here are too little development of daughter articles. --mav 22:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Mav points out an unfortunate and valid criticism. I hope everyone can understand how this will be a perpetual difficulty, but I admit more could be done. Sam Spade 12:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a fine article and while bloat is some concern I'm willing in this case to accept the length. I see positive momentum and a comprehensive article on an enormously difficult subject to quantify. Most of the encyclopedia's entries could be considered a daughter article in this case. Marskell 12:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Which is why it's so very, very important to make sure that this article is truly exceptional and extraordinarily stable, concise, and high-quality before we award it "Featured Article" status. We shouldn't go easy on the article and let it slide in a few areas just because its editors "mean well" or are "working hard", and certainly shouldn't because it's an important topic; just the opposite, it's much more important that we hold it to high standards. And, unfortunately, it doesn't come close to meeting any of those standards; it's unreferenced, disorganized, simply not comprehensive (even to a reasonable degree; noone here is asking for perfection, just for the level of quality), needs a thorough copyedit and several POV corrections, and needs both tightening (where trivial details are gone into in great length) and expansion (where important, obvious facts are completely ignored). It's come a long, long way, and has a long, long way to go before it's one of Wikipedia's best; that might let it qualify as a Good Article, but not as a Featured Article. The fact that it's such an important article makes it more important for it to be given the same clear, critical eye our other articles get. Right now, the votecount suggests that this isn't yet happening; it's being given a much less critical, objective, thorough analysis than numerous other FAs on less central topics have been given in the past, and that's unfortunate. -Silence 18:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
      • "simply not comprehensive (even to a reasonable degree;..." Why? Marskell 09:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove, per User Neutrality's remarks. This article is indeed a good article, these are major problems, and until they have been addressed, this article is not worthy of featured status. Standards must be maintained, as FA's should, as we all know, exemplify the very best of our work. --Zantastik <font color=darkgreen size=1>talk</font> 03:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove per my unaddressed FAC objections. Fredrik Johansson - talk - contribs 11:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Remove indepth and wide coverage spoliled by disorganised categorisation. FWBOarticle 18:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is of featured quality. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. The article is full anything but NPOV. Just look at the Psychology subsection and the Psychology article, these inconsistencies are throughout the article. dr.alf 09:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove In order to appease a small group of what appear to be Christian fundamentalists the introduction has been convoluted beyond belief (no, I have nothing against Christian fundamentalists, but this is an encyclopedia, not a researh project for Bible study). Additionally, there are too many long parts in the article -- long treatises on economics, war, spirituality, psychoanalysis, food, etc. There's nothing wrong with covering those topics, but one doesn't need a few thousand words for each -- they each have their own articles. I've suggested, to no avail, that everyone look at the French and German (Featured) articles for ideas on how to proceed, but to no avail. Jim62sch 19:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove, needs serious work.--nixie 01:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World War I

previous FAR

[edit] Aztalan State Park

Article is no longer a featured article

This article is not even close to Featured Article status today. A few bad examples, lead is way too short, too many one sentence paragraphs, only one image and it's oversized and absolutely no refrences nor notes, Writing is very shacky also and there is some awkward sentences. A FA at its worst. Strong Remove --Jaranda wat's sup 18:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Remove - Does not meet current FA criteria. FCYTravis 19:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Image now uses modern image syntax, is a thumbnail of the largest size uploaded. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Remove. Not "well written" - choppy paragraphs and awkward wording. Not "comprehensive" - though there may not be as much notable information from modern history, such little information after 1919 and no word on anything past 1968 makes me wonder. No guarantee of being "factually accurate" - no references, and certaintly not inline, as required by current FAs. No good lead section - its short, choppy, and has little to do with most of the article. It does not exemplify Wikipedia's best work. -Rebelguys2 03:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove—not particularly well written. Just a minor point compared with the task at hand concerns the inconsistent and inaccurate treatment of the imperial/metric measurements. Sometimes metrics are first, sometimes imperial. And we have '4 m by 2 m (12 ft by 5 ft)', which doesn't add up when you do the arithmetic. Tony 08:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. Does not cite references, this is a requirement for a featured article. Article is way too short. One image for a featured article is unsatisfactory. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 11:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove I agree with the nom (and previous reviews). In particular, the lead is limp and uninspiring, and should include more about the notability of this park. And, it does need at least a bibliography. --Tsavage 18:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. It's good enough information, but not very close to FA quality. - Taxman Talk 23:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Jude

Article is still a featured article

Where to start? It uses way way way way way too many quotes... The Awards and Acclaim section has too little on acclaim from people... Featured Articles shouldn't have trivia... the image of the Beatles on the Frost Show has no fair use rationale... some phrases seem too over the top or weaselly, such as "exuberant"... too little on the chart performances... some of the claims made in the article should probably need inline cites of some sort... the section about the trial should probably be expanded as it doesn't provide enough info... the prose is certainly not brilliant. Nominate for removal for all of those reasons. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - Featured in August 2004 - nom - diff. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Shouldn't these problems be brought up on the talk page before FARCing? Anyway, tidying up these Beatles song articles is on my to do list - I recently cleaned up Yesterday (song). Johnleemk | Talk 10:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • After much slicing, dicing and footnoting (diff), I'm ready to say I think this should be a keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Johnleemk rewrite --Jaranda wat's sup 20:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The numbers of the inline cites are out of order. Furthermore, here is your fair use rationale for image:heyjude.jpg
    • {{TV-screenshot}}

The Beatles performing Hey Jude on the Frost Programme. Apparently there are some people who for unknown reasons insist on mindlessly hewing to "process" even though it's blatantly clear why this is fair use: it's a TV clip, bla, bla, bla, fair use when it comes to "Hey Jude", the Beatles or the Frost Programme, bla bla. Johnleemk | Talk 14:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

    • I do not understand what purpose your comments serve. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The numbers are supposed to be "out of order". I'm using the new m:Cite footnoting process, which obliterates all the problems Wikipedia:Footnote3 had (including previewing and section editing), and this is what it's supposed to do. Even if I converted back to Footnote3, the recommended procedure is to make the footnotes "out of order". And I think the fair use rationale is blatantly obvious, which is why I get pissed off when people demand a fair use rationale when it stares them in the face (see my comments on the Erich von Manstein FARC). The image was broadcast on a television programme. Under US law, discussion of the television programme with the fair use image is legal. You don't need anyone to tell you that -- it's right in our fair use article or WP:FU. Johnleemk | Talk 04:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The m:Cite footnoting system works well here, and in this case, the boilerplate fair use justification provided by the {{TV-screenshot}} template is adequate. Maybe this only happened after Johnleemk's cleanup, but I think this article reads very well: it establishes greatness in a sweet and succint way, rather than straining for it like, oh, others I won't name. Anville 07:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This article is not comprehensive. There is very little on acclaim from individuals and no mention of cover versions. The section about auctioning off lyrics as it is written implies that it was just one person's word against another. Is this true? With the footnotes the way they are it is hard to tell which of the references go with which inline cite. Also, this article uses quotes way too much. I don't see how something that just regurgitates what others have said is exemplifies "our very best work", and has prose that is "compelling, even brilliant". Lastly, it is imappropriate to express your displeasure on a non-discussion namespace. Your comment (not the template) should be removed from the image page. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Acclaim from individuals is not really important; I find they often cause more problems than they solve, in that quoting reviews often makes the article sound POVed (just look at Anville's example, or some other stuff I've worked on like Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album)). There's no need for it. The auctioning section is correctly implying that it was just McCartney's word against the other fellows -- that's all there was to it. The footnoting is in full compliance with the way m:Cite was designed, and also with the recommendations of Wikipedia:Footnote, which seeks to create some uniformity in how we footnote our articles. While I agree the old article used quotes excessively, I don't think it does so here -- most of them have been pared down to only the relevant parts. If the article doesn't flow well, I would agree they're a problem, but it flows well and it's clearly not a mere collection of quotes, so I don't see the problem. These problems are clearly a matter of opinion, not fact, so I suppose it'll just depend on which way FARCers lean. Johnleemk | Talk 06:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leet

Article is no longer a featured article

This article was made Featured in 2004, but seems to have fallen prey to the culture it tries to describe. No references whatsoever. It lacks a good formal structure- history should be split from overview, Leet#Leet in other languages needs to me moved down, and have the tables reduced in size. The page overall is too much of a glossary and the section on Leet#Leet in videogaming contains far too many examples. The Leet#Pwn section particularly seems badly written and probably belongs in Pwn. In parts, including the infobox, the article asserts itself as a constructed language rather than a simple slang, like Cockney. This is no longer an example of our best work. -- Netoholic @ 22:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • This nomination appears to be making a WP:POINT. Neto objects to a template on the Leet page, which he has waged a slow revert war over in the last couple of days ([1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]). There is now a discussion on the talk page about this template. FARCing an article because of a template on it seems rather silly. Radiant_>|< 23:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC) (and by that I mean keep, in case it wasn't clear). Radiant_>|< 12:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I take this FARC in good faith, but it seems like to me that much of what Netoholic brings up are not necessarily objections to the quality of the article and whether or not it meets our standards, but easily fixable structural differences and issues with the content that should be discussed in Talk (i.e. conlang vs. slang). The article could use some serious pruning and minor reformating, but overall I think it is worth keeping featured. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The article fails against even the most basic featured article criteria, specifically, it does not even have a reference section nor does it use inline citations. It needs major work to bring it up to those standards. Removal today does not mean it can't be renominated later. -- Netoholic @ 05:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep:
    • 1. The article covers an informal slang concept, and furthermore a relatively new subject area, and as such it is not feasible for it to have "reputable" references as to most other articles. There are no "experts" on leet culture per se, and thus there is little or no "expert opinion" either. Even if you did get some other information, they would just get their sources from the same people, the same environment, as those who wrote it in Wikipedia in the first place. In short, while references would not hurt this article, they are comparatively not vital.
    • 2. This article suffers from "starsickness" as other popular-subject featured articles where it is more of a matter of opinion than fact. People start contributing bits and pieces fine on their own, but gradually degrading the article. Ironically, this happens because the article is GOOD, not because its bad. The solution to that is selective reversal and systematic copyediting.
    • 3. And to top it off, the article is a prime example of Wikipedia being able to produce very well written and comprehensive, and comparatively neutral to most other sources, information about a popular subject few are willing to tackle precisely because of its popularity. Leet is the kind of article Wikipedia can and does show its unique qualities through. If it has side effects, deal with them, rather then demoting the article.
    • Personally I hate online "leet" when I see it, but I do appreciate the article ABOUT it as being one of the best neutral references about it, and one of the very few places to read about "leet" without the article beeing "leetified" itself.Elvarg 03:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove Ignoring all issues of "slow revert wars", I have to agree that this article falls terribly short of modern FA standards. I can't pass up the references requirement, simply because people who speak and grok leet also edit the Wikipedia. By that logic, we should let all articles on ethnic groups be filled by people who claim to belong to those groups, never mind what is actually verifiable. The prose is far from brilliant, or even compelling, and the unorganized deluge of inessential examples makes large sections more unreadable than C code. "Leet in videogaming" is particularly bad: it's a trivia section in all but name. This page is drowning in the cruft its subject naturally attracts, and requires extraordinary measures to return it to useability. Anville 08:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: This article is still of great status and was constantly being improved above the original article. I agree that this is simple a WP:POINT on the part of Netoholic. This seems like little more than a very un-wikilike attempt to "get back" at the users who opposed and ultimately trumped his removal of the language template from the article page. Unfortunately as a result of the relative fame of its subject matter among the internet community, it is subjected to a great deal of cruft and personal agendas of one-time editors. Which is frequently under discussion and is usually reverted on sight for a more consensus-formed approach. While there may be a section or two that is slightly questionable, to revoke its featured status would be a grave overreaction thaty will achieve nothing. There are several other articles that warrant this debate far more than this one. A much more productive approach would be to adress the issues in question rather than simply cause further harm. Unlike the article below these are all things that can easily be adressed on the talk page.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 11:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove Changing my vote. While I stand by the majority of my statements, I have come to the conclusion that the article would be better served by having this status revoked, and possibly even tagged for cleanup, so that it may get the attention it needs to be properly repaired.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 07:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • "get back" at who? This article is the result of dozens of editors, only three of which I have disagreed with. I'm not petty. I made this removal nomination only because, having first read it, then objected to the language assertion, I discovered it was actually featured (which seems to have been a mistake since this poll indicates it should have been removed). I cannot imagine the present article ever being featured on the Main Page at this point in time, so I made this nomination in good faith. -- Netoholic @ 17:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove -- regardless of whatever other points are being made by this nomination, references are an absolute requirement. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree. See WP:IAR for details. In general, there are only one ABSOLUTE rule to WP (apart from legal issues such as copyrights) and that is NPOV. Everything else must be approached with some elasticity, and I think this article, due to its nature (see my reasons above) is the exception that makes the rule. Elvarg 21:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Indeed, IAR is perhaps the best page to make the point, since the explicit driving force of it is to remind us that we are here to make an encyclopedia. Which is why our featured articles require references. To say that references don't exist is simply to say that the information is unverifiable; verifiability is defined in terms of references. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
        • The statement "the sky is blue" is verifiable and can be referenced, but do you REALLY need to see references for it every time it comes up? Elvarg 07:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
          • It seems that, even for a statement like "the sky is blue", it's still appropriate to have a verifiable source cited (see Diffuse sky radiation). -- Netoholic @ 09:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
            • The sky is blue, unless it's cloudy, or you look at night, or if an oil well is burning nearby, or if it's during a solar eclipse... or if you're standing on another planet. Often, we only make blatantly obvious statements when there are in fact subtleties involved. Otherwise, what would be the point of speaking at all? In an encyclopaedia, if I see the phrase "the sky is blue", I expect to see a phrase following it, like "due to Rayleigh scattering". A statement like this then deserves a source. Anville 21:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove -- falls short in terms of accuracy, citations, and has far too much flame war drama on it. How bad is this that we're accusing people of "getting back" in this section? Also, if this were just getting back, there wouldn't be as many removes as there are, especially from users like me, who aren't involved in Netoholic's e-drama. Swatjester 20:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Removal -- I think that this would still be a good FA if it had some references, I don't really buy into the other critiques levelled against it. If some resources can be found for this page, I would support its status as an FA. KrazyCaley 18:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I would also like to halt this process while I take time to copyedit (per above) and further neutral-ize the article. Finding sources would be difficult if not impossible. I have asked ([6], [7]) for help from other communities which would have more... "expert" advice. I can't see this as being anything less than a transparent attempt by the nominator to harm the article after a protracted argument with other maintainers of the article. It's a classic "I'm taking my ball and going home" action. I also find it rather comical that after we had been arguing about the infobox for some days, Netoholic chooses to read the article. After strenuously objecting to its status as a polyglot/pidgin/dialect/language/whatever. That, too, is rather telling of this little crusade of his. Avriette 23:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Halting the process is not going to happen, however if genuine improvement occurs, and objections are met, I am open to extending the deadline. But there needs to be progress, not delays. --(Farc closer) Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove Appears to largely consist of original research; lacks reliable sources. An example: editors are attempting to decide whether it may be classified as a constructed language based on personal interpretations of Webster's Dictionary definitions and other Wikipedia articles. If that's not original research, what is?
    Much of the prose is tortured. (e.g. This is symptomatic of the desire or affected desire to elude comprehension by others unfamiliar with the foreign art form.) The "Leet in Videogaming" section is excessive and would probably be best split to its own page. An article that ventures so far from RS and so close to OR is not among the best Wikipedia has to offer as a reliable encyclopedia. --Tabor 23:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
How is that an interpretation? Its a dictionary definition used as such.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 06:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
The problem is in applying a dictionary definition to a settle a technical question by making interpretive claims. For example, suppose the question under discussion was: Is arsenic a metal? I go to my trusty dictionary and find that a metal is: Any of a category of electropositive elements that usually have a shiny surface, are generally good conductors of heat and electricity, and can be melted or fused, hammered into thin sheets, or drawn into wires. So taking that definition I say, "well arsenic looks pretty shiny to me, heat and electrical conductivity seem pretty good, etc. so I've determined it is a metal." It is just as inapproprate to follow this sort of heuristic using a dictionary definition of language—which, it should be noted, describes language in the aggregate and says nothing about what constitutes "a language" as distict from another—to decide whether Leet may be considered a distinct language.
On a different topic, I don't think adding unpublished student papers really helps the references section, save to make it look less empty.
The article promulgates implausibly precise but unreferenced facts. Created in 1980? Where did this "fact" come from?
For anyone that has not looked at WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR recently, I think it is instructive to take another glance back at the standards outlined there just as a sanity check on how we evaluate article quality. And keep in mind that I am not saying that there shouldn't be an article for Leet—just that it genuinely falls short of lofty moniker: "the best Wikipedia has to offer". --Tabor 04:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove I agree with the previous reasoning this article is below standard you need to work to get FA back Discordance 06:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove - Fails to meet current featured article standards. FCYTravis 19:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove - There is too much in this article that needs referencing, and some content is even speculation. In addition, many parts are just silly, such as the random mention of the J/ψ particle or the claim that most major websites are run by people who people who, having formerly been in the "1337" stage, have transended to "stage three", using proper grammar and sentences. There are several little inconsistencies, such as referring to "pwn" as a misspelling; wouldn't pwn be misspelled in English, but properly spelled in 1337? The prose is not compelling or brilliant; too much of the article is given to lists, some of which is duplicative. --Pagrashtak 07:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove - contains alleged original research, doesn't adequately cite references, and needs improvement. Further, this article will probably always be undergoing rapid change, so I'm not sure if it's ever going to remain in a featurable state for long without some very diligent copyediting on an ongoing basis. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 04:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove - too many examples, trivia, lists, list-like paragraphs and general cruft. Absolutely agree with Anville above that "this page is drowning in the cruft its subject naturally attracts". Needs serious cleanup. Kosebamse 10:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simon and Garfunkel

Article is no longer a featured article

I'm an experienced editor who has just opened an account. I hope this does not affect the validity of my argument.

This might have been a good article once, but now it pales in comparison to other music articles:

  • Major
  1. it has NO notes and references WHAT-SO-EVER.
  2. the lead is choppy and does not provide enough context.
  3. the music samples are disruptive to the article (yes, you still have to consider aesthetics). I suggest moving them to the bottom of the article.
  4. no fair-use rationale of images.
  5. The entire article is choppy; there are many paragraphs with only one or two sentences (this is not enough to state and expand on a point), and the prose does not flow. If this is what Wikipedia's very best work is, then I'm extremely disappointed. Traitor 22:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Minor
  1. it uses unsightly conventions : #12 instead of the preferred "number twelve."
  • Comment- You should bring these points up on the article talk page before listing the article here. Mark1 23:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove as per Traitor. Mikkerpikker 23:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove per Traitor. Things can be brought up on Talk but this requires a massive overhaul if it is to remain as an FA. Marskell 18:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove per nom. FCYTravis 22:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove per nom. Even the fourth word in the article, the first after the title, is wrong. We can do better by Paul and Art than this. David | Talk 22:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove per nom, also seems to be using album cover images as illustration instead of to identify the albums in question, has no sound samples, and half of the article is an awkward table-formatted discography. Lots and lots of work needs to be done. Jkelly 19:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. Neutralitytalk 23:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove as per nominator. Tony 08:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University of Michigan

Article is still a featured article

I've done a massive lead-section copyedit, but this article is still not FA-shape for a university of 39,000+ students. It reads at times like an admissions brochure and has lots of weasel words. Neutralitytalk 22:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. I haven't read every word, but on a first look it seems fairly neutral to me. Can you be a bit more specific, particularly as to problems which can't easily be fixed? I find it a rather dull article, but that's because I have no particular interest in the subject- it's not obvious to me how it could be much better. Mark1 22:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Again, not a single concern brought up on the article's talk page, nor have you given any specific criteria it lacks or what can be fixed. The primary author has actively sought advice on how to improve the article and has implimented everything he's gotten. Your edits to the lead improved nothing I saw. You just rearanged information and arguably made it flow worse. In addition you introduced what appears to be a factual error in changing the conversion of 1920 acres to 776 hectares instead of the 777 which appears more correct. Why would you even do that? - Taxman Talk 23:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I won't even dignify the "made is flow worse" comment with a response. The 776/777 change was the result of an edit conflict. --Neutralitytalk 23:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I make comments here quickly to limit the time wasted on meta conversation. But if you want to focus on that and ignore the more important points we're making go ahead. - Taxman Talk 00:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm with Taxman on the confusion here. I'm shocked that people seem to be so emotional about this University - both for and against. Little constructive discussion has occurred, but lots of vandalism, and a NPOV tag got slapped on a featured article. --Habap 02:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I corrected much of the POV issues, and the user who placed the NPOV tag in the first place has since removed it. PentawingTalk 07:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The fact that the FARC has been put up without any in-depth discussion concerning POV on the article's talk page is beyond me. Usually, FARC is done as a last resort if no one is willing/able to work on the article further. PentawingTalk 04:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have been working on getting U-M's in-state rival, Michigan State University up to Featured Article status, but I support U-M's inclusion in the FA category. I have worked hard to give a balanced view of MSU (most notably our frequent riots), and I think that the U-M article can stay a featured article with just a few extra "cons" to balance the numerous "pros". While I agree that the article is POV (for example, I've never heard anyone call it a "public ivy",) puting this article up as a FARC the day after it appears on the Main Page is the online equivalent of MSU students spray painting the U-M Diag green and white. For you non-Michiganders, that means it's not cool. — Lovelac7 05:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I have moved the "public ivy" reference out of the lead, changed the peacock language to a matter-of-fact statement, and added a footnote. Please see the this talk page section for more details. — Lovelac7 05:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is practically the same version as the one that was first put up as a candidate for featured article. If there are too much favorable POVs been added since the time the candidate was elected as a featured article, perhaps a selective reversion to the "feature article version" would suffice. An AFRC a day after the article managed to get to the front page is just too fast and shocking. __earth 06:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The campus map needs to be rotated 90 degrees counterclockwise. (Unsigned comment by 68.54.242.34 15:04, January 12, 2006.)
  • Keep - unless substantial, specific problems are pointed out by the nominator (or someone else) this is not a productive exercise. Johntex\talk 18:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep—insufficient grounds for removal, as yet. Convince me .... Tony 10:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erich von Manstein

Article is no longer a featured article

An incident over a quote (see Talk:Erich von Manstein#Quotes) has led me to scrutinize this article closer for the first time since its promotion to featured status on November 25, 2004. I think it no longer satisfies the criteria for a featured article:

  • it lacks inline references,
  • has three (out of four!) unsourced images (the fourth is claimed "fair use", but has no rationale), despite my having bugged the main author GeneralPatton repeatedly about this at the time,
  • has some very small sections (Barbarossa, Crimea),
  • contains needless discussions of "might have beens" (Stalingrad, Citadel),
  • is POV in some places (for instance, in "Kharkhov Operation", Soviet casualties and losses are numbered, in the following "Citadel" section, German losses are glossed over by just stating "despite losses")
  • needs a fact check (which I cannot do all by myself; I have marked a (very) few places with {{fact}}, but there's way more),
  • needs a grammar workover (for instance, there are run-on sentences), or even a complete rewrite, as one editor suggested on the talk page.

I also think this article should have more on-line references; surely there are trustworthy web sites with information on this important General of the Third Reich. Lupo 22:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

  • The unsourced images need a source, but the sourced one doesn't appear to require a rationale to me; I expect it would be obvious. Perhaps {{fairusein}} might be appropriate, but that's minor. The rest of the complaints (except for inline references, which I would not really expect, although they are to be encouraged) appear to be serious enough to warrant a remove, however. Johnleemk | Talk 07:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • All "fair use" images must have a rationale (and, of course, a source); see Wikipedia:Fair_use#Fair_use_policy, item 10. The rationale may be only omitted if the image is covered by one of the specialized "fair use" tags such as e.g. {{bookcover}}, which have an implied generic rationale, but which also apply only in very specific uses. For book covers for instance, the "fair use" would be in an article on the book, not in an article on the event the book is about or that happens to be depicted on the cover. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use for more on this. Lupo 08:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm aware of that, but as the image clearly depicts von Manstein and wasn't used in a book cover or anything of the sort, I think the rationale is implicit - this image is fair use in Erich von Manstein because it depicts him and is being used for educational purposes. Johnleemk | Talk 02:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • On inline references: I'm certainly not one of these people who want to see every single sentence referenced. It's fine to write an article as a summary of a few main references and give those summarily as "main sources" at the bottom. However, some topics need more scrupulous referencing than others, and I believe articles on Third Reich personalities fall into this category, if only to be able to easily detect falsifications and apologia inserted by sympathizers, as this happens often on such articles. If one writes that some Russian General praised Manstein, it needs a precise (and preferrably on-line, backed by a print publication) reference. In this sense I find this article seriously lacking. I might add another weakness of this article: it sometimes uses weasel words (e.g. "presented by some" in the Stalingrad section). Lupo 09:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay, I think I get it now. Johnleemk | Talk 02:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I think this is still an FA. Though the nomination brings up legitimate concerns, they are relatively minor, and can potentially be addressed quickly. Especially since the defending editor already seems to be hashing out the problems, I would favor keeping this article.
    —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KrazyCaley (talk • contribs) 18:51, January 19, 2006 (UTC).
    • Hm. Who's the "defending editor"? If you mean me, no, I'm not really "hashing out the problems". I'm trying to avoid that it gets even worse, but I just do not have the time resources and energy to do a thorough verification and constant rebuttal of the POV inserts. I must admit that after the discovery that the article's main author had slipped in a completely fabricated quote (see the talk page; in all fairness, he may just have misremembered, but it's a sign of sloppy source work at the very least), my trust in the article's veracity has plummeted. Lupo 08:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noam Chomsky

Article is no longer a featured article

Fails criteria 2(b) and 2(d): not comprehensive or NPOV, because all criticism has been removed. Fails criterion 5: inappropriate length, 86 kb mostly describing Chomsky's views. Hoziron 01:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment.Remove Referencing is pretty haphazard. Article clearly needs some trimming into Wikipedia:Summary style. I'm really bugged by "Political contemporaries" as a list... who is making these comparisons? The "Criticisms" section needs a much better summary of the child article, and the structure probably should not be arranged that way. That said, all of the above seems like it could be accomplished with some WP:BOLD editing. Jkelly 01:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove, for a variety of reasons. Here is the version that was promoted; the article has now nearly tripled in size, mostly by including Chomsky quotes on every subject imaginable. The article terribly overuses quotes in general; a large portion of it is not original prose. All criticism of Chomsky's views has been removed to a separate article, leaving a one-line section in this one. There is no explicit references section; and the bottom is a linkfarm. —Kirill Lokshin 01:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove as per above. Also, it fails 2a & all those quotes make the article nearly unreadable... Mikkerpikker 11:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. More a bulletin board than an article. Mark1 00:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. --Alabamaboy 16:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove - per nom. FCYTravis 22:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. Poorly organised and difficult for a new reader unfamiliar with the subject. David | Talk 22:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rainbow

Article is still a featured article

The organisation of this article is horrible. All of the scientific information is condensed in the introduction, while the body part is for rainbows references in culture. CG 12:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Remove. Poor organization, and the science section is incomplete -- no mention of what causes supernumary rainbows. There's also a surplus of photos, and the "popular culture" section shouldn't be lists. --Carnildo 22:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove as per Carnildo (emphasis on poor organisation!). Also, inline citation is radically inadequate and poorly done when it is included. The article could be brought back up to FA standard with some TLC but it is undeserving in its current state... Mikkerpikker 23:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Some extra headings were added by Nuj on 6 January to improve the seggregation of information. It currently has an adequate lead (although it could expand into another paragraph), then scientific explanation and history, then mythology and religion, then literature, and finally mnemonics. What else would you suggest to improve organisation?
Are there any particular photos that you think are unnecessary (since this is a visual phenomenon, doesn't it make sense to show several examples?).
I'll try to add an explanation of supernumary rainbows and turn the "Popular culture" section (presumably you are referring to the one currently called "Rainbows in religion and mythology", which has its own sub-page at [Rainbows in mythology]]?) into prose in the next few days. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The article seems to have turned into a "my favorite rainbow picture" collection, sort of like what keeps happening to Cat. I'd suggest keepign all the diagrams, and reducing the photos to Image:Double Rainbow.jpg to illustrate double rainbows, Image:Supernumerary rainbow 03 contrast.jpg to illustrate supernumerary rainbows, Image:Rainbows.jpg to illustrate reflected rainbows, Image:TakakkawFalls2.jpg as an example of a waterfall creating a rainbow, and either Image:Regenbogen-gesamt.jpg or Image:Regenbogen Zürichsee.jpg as the lead image. --Carnildo 22:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Right - I have put most of the images in a gallery at the end, prosified the listy section, and added an explanation of supernumary rainbows, and, as mentioned before, someone else dealt with headings. It even has (one) inline citation now ;) Is that better? (And I wish some other people would try to help our poorly FA rather than just saying "remove per nom". It sometimes feels like no-one else cares about our content if they have not written it themselves.) -- ALoan (Talk) 21:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the gallery. Commons already has a gallery with those pictures, and many more as well. --Carnildo 00:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough: you are right; I thought that is where we may end up. The German page (de:Regenbogen) is actually very good: I shall try to translate the relevant parts into our page (rainbow flag and rainbows in art are obvious missing pieces, as well as mentions for other phemomena such as the glory and fog bow). -- ALoan (Talk) 01:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jet engine

Article is no longer a featured article

While not a bad article, there are no references of any kind, the lead is not comprehensive and there are empty sections, remove--nixie 07:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • keep - I am not sure this subject needs as many references as, say, a history article. Wizzy…☎ 08:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I doubt the authors of this article received the information from the ether, the consulted references, and should have provided them. Without references, which make an article verifiable, they do no meet the featured article criteria (something you should familiarise yourself with if you are going to vote on such matters).--nixie 08:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Having watched this (outstanding) article grow, I am in no doubt that the writers know a great deal about their subject, perhaps being aerospace engineers themselves (as I have been). The knowledge came from their profession. I am in no doubt that this article represents some of the very best work on wikipedia, references notwithstanding. Wizzy…☎ 07:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I still think it is a great article. How about adding {{cite}} to items you find problematic ? I wouldn't know where to start though. Perhaps some references to historical engines ? The pictures do a good job of explaining the text, but I understand that is not a cite. Wizzy…☎ 15:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Another outstanding engineering article, TGV, made it to the front page yesterday. It has some references, but hardly important ones. Wizzy…☎ 08:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove: No references --Carnildo 08:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove per nom. Saravask 17:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keeeep, per Wizzy...Phoenix2 07:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove, no references. Absolute requirement. Even if their knowledge came from their profession, it has to be recorded somewhere to be verifiable per WP:V. - Mgm|(talk) 12:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove Good article but I agree, a FA cannot lack references, WP:V is very clear Mikkerpikker 01:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. Lack of references. --Allen3 talk 13:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ralph Yarborough

Article is no longer a featured article

No record exists for the promotion of this article. Rather than sticking an embarassing {{no references}} tag on it - this article has no refs, and has never had any, despite the raising of this problem on the talk page. I doubt the comprehensiveness of the article: it is a very brief chronological biograhpy, and having read it I still know nothing about this poilitican's platform.--nixie 14:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Remove. To satisfy 2a, almost every sentence would require word therapy. 2b is in doubt: the section on legacy is particularly thin. Although 2e refers to significant change 'from day to day', which is not the case here, the article has changed substantially since it was 'promoted'. Tony 06:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove as per nixie & Tony above. How did this article ever become featured in the 1st place? Mikkerpikker 02:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    The article's talk page history seems to indicate that this article got put on to the list during the switch from Brilliant Prose to Featured Articles. Probably just got lost in the confusion. --Allen3 talk 14:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove due to lack of references. --Allen3 talk 14:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove Everyking 22:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Latham

Article is no longer a featured article

Article passed with 50% oppose votes in 2004, there have been vast changes since in his life since then, alhtough the article has kept up, if it were to go through FAC now it would fail for its tabloid style of writing, its lack of verifiability and lack of consistent referencing style.--nixie 14:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

  • The objections were resolved at the time. The record of the debate, which was over a short period of time with not many contributers, shows the objections being crossed out. However, the article has had just under 500 edits since 5 September 2004. Latham released his diaries in 2005 resulting in significant new material being added. There is almost no material remaining from the version approved in September 2004 judging by the edit comparison. It is appropriate that the article be reviewed against criteria for featured articles, to confirm whether or not the standards are met.--A Y Arktos 22:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Althought there are good aspects to this article, it could be much more engaging, and would probably require a lot of work if a FAC now. How on earth did it get through the first time? It would be good to remove it and encourage the contributors to put it through the process again. Tony 06:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_article_removal_candidates_archive_January_2006_ed35.html"