Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/archive/January to March 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Newer nominations are at the top.

Contents

[edit] Origins of the American Civil War

Article is no longer a featured article.

1. Lead is way to short. 2. No references. 3. Rather too much sections, and the article lenght (87kb) is rather large - perhaps sth should be moved to subsections (this is not an objection per se, I like large articles, just a note). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Remove. I tend to agree even though I nominated this article for FA before. Although there is a notes section that does have specific cites and an overview section that acts as an expanded lead. This is odd and non-standard. A full lead section is needed as well as a references section (keep the notes section though or make them all inline). And the whole thing should be broken up into at least a few different articles with summaries left here. Bryan Derksen and I started on this at Talk:Origins of the American Civil War/Origins of the American Civil War but never got around to finishing. I'd like to do that and then resubmit this as a FAC again. --mav 15:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. There's some resistance by other editors to adding a lead, which I don't have the inclination to fight over. Without a lead, I agree the article is not FA standard. Keep. I'll do you a lead. The references requirement is not retrospective, and this does have them anyway (albeit non-formatted). The sections aren't disproportionate to the length- they're not too small. Finally, the question of whether the information should be all on one page or divided up among different pages is a trivial housekeeping matter which I'm unable to get excited about either way. Mark1 01:55, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • How are they not restrospective? If so, the entire FARC would be usless. As our standards improve, we list here articles that either need to be brought up to them or removed. What was once a FA does not have a guaranteed future, and lack of references have been the downfall of many estabilished FAs, not only recent FACs. After a lead and references section are done I'll change my vote to abstain, not before. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:50, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As per Markalexander100. Filiocht | Talk 07:42, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Hydriotaphia 06:47, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Everyking 07:11, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. KingTT 15:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] India

Article is still a featured article.

Does not meet criteria 1, 2a, 2b, 2c. It also has a template underconstruction on the main page. It has two sentence paragraphs, almost no references for the curious, not comprehensive, badly formatted (the national symbols of India is sitting in the middle of the page) and has stublike sections.

  1. Lack of easily verifiable references and citations Quite simply, for an article this size, it cites just a few references, and those hardly at all within the text.
  2. Use of weasel terms
  3. Short, choppy sentences

--Bob 01:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep First of all, you should try to be more specific about what you have issues with. That would be helpful. Only real issue that I see in your complaint is regarding the citation. This is a two-fold complaint:
  1. Citation style is not user-friendly: I agree with you but as far as I know inotes are acceptable and the editors of the article decided to use those. So, unless I am wrong (a distinct possibility) about their acceptance you have no case in that regards.
  2. Citations are insufficient: This is a problem potentially but you have not really explained which parts you feel need citations. Your argument is very generic and I am unaware of some article length to number of citation relationship that you speak of. Besides, you saying "article of this size" implies it is a large article. Last time I checked it was 33KB and probably one of the shortest country article with FA.
Finally, it would be nice if you had attempted to "Before listing here, leave comments detailing the article's deficiencies on its talk page, and leave some time for them to be addressed." As indicated in the talk page, their was a massive dump of information in the article during the past few days and it had not been cleaned up. You might have read the article at that point. (added later) Also, I do not see the national symbols in middle of the page or any other presentation problems. Did you check the history to see if you were not looking at a "Just been edited badly" version? --Blacksun 05:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment Citations are really, really inaccessible to the reader. inotes are absolute rubbish and do not aid the reader find the required citation at all. You say, click on edit to see it, I do, then I see a reference to something that I then cannot find. This issue was raised 22 March 2006 by user Blacksun, and was not acted upon. Thus, I felt no need to leave a message at all. One nice example of how few references are visible to the reader is the subsection demographics which has just one visible reference for the entire section, lots of inotes, but as the average reader has no idea what they refer to, if anything, it can not seriously be considered as Wikipedias best work.
Bob, yes I had brought that up. But don't you think you are being grossly inaccurate when you say my issue was not addressed?? A quick look at the talk page will easily prove that user Nichalp had addressed my issue? inotes are acceptable form of citation style in wikipedia. You have no case. If you dislike them feel free to start a thread in the talk page and maybe we can reach a consensus to change them. Also, I will go through all the inotes in the article currently to make sure they are formatted correctly. I agree that the inotes in demographis are formatted in a very strange manner. I had definitely not noticed that before. I have raised that issue in the talk page. However, inotes themselves are perfectly legible. --Blacksun 12:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
They are anything but legible. Especially in the demographic section. What, exactly, does inote|tongues or inote|languages mean? --Bob 00:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Let me rephrase: The usage of inotes is completely legible but yes, their might be problems with how couple of them are formatted. But this is completely irrelevant to your claim that you need not bring it up in the talk page as I had already raised the issue and it was not addressed. My issue was completely different and was in regards to the general question of whether or not inotes are acceptable. I had never noticed or raised the issue of any specific problems with citations. Which means that your claim is false and at best you were mistaken. --Blacksun 02:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
We have one line paragraphs, for example - Mumbai (Bombay) serves as the nation's commercial capital, with the headquarters of many financial institutions located within the city. hardly brilliant writing.
I am sorry but I think you meant to say that their is/was A one-line paragraph - yes that is paragraph WITHOUT a s. That was the only one line paragraph in the entire article - quite possibly a cause of a recent edition. I am starting to wonder if you are being misleading on purpose.--Blacksun 13:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Why would I do that? Unless you are being paranoid.... --Bob 00:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Lets just say that I am suspicious of people who do not take the courtsey to raise issues in the talk page first or a cursory glance at the edition history of an article before nominating an article for FARC. --Blacksun 02:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
We have weasel wording - Indian society is largely pluralist, multilingual and multicultural. - who says?
That is not weasel wording considering their are thousands of different dialects in India with hundreds of languages + many different religions and cultures. A quick look at demographics should back that up in my opinion. Otherwise a citation can be easily provided. --Blacksun 12:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Unless backed up by a reference, it is. --Bob 00:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Bad formatting - the table National symbols of India is stuck in the middle of the page, why isn't this properly inserted into the page inline with the images?
Something is wrong with your system. I dont see it and neither does anyone else. Please refer to the screenshot posted by user Nichalp for how everyone else is seeing the page. Again something that would have been quicly addressed as a "bug in your system" if you had posted in talk page first. --Blacksun 12:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
This has been rectified by the recent edits, thankyou. And no, there is no problem with my browser. --Bob 00:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
And this just proves, as I said earlier, whatever you were talking about was a result of dump of text by a questionable entity in the past few days. Bringing back to the point as to why one should bring up issues in the talk page or atleast check the history to make sure the current version is the stable version. Toodles --Blacksun 02:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The Himalayan parts of India have a tundra climate. India gets most of its rains through the monsoons. - choppy.
I dont understand why that is choppy.--Blacksun 12:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
The constitution recognises 23 official languages. Hindi and English are used by the Central Government for official purposes. Two classical languages native to the land are Sanskrit and Tamil. The number of mother tongues in India is as high as 1,652. again, choppy.
Fixed. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. --Blacksun 14:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Traditional indigenous sports include polo, kabaddi and gilli-danda, which are played in most parts of the country. - lack of references. --Bob 00:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Each of that sport has its own article. I have added inote reference for Kabbadi too. --Blacksun 12:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Bob, I have fixed all the choppy phrases you have listed. Such issues should be raised on the talk page of the article itself; bringing it to FARC without discussion on the talk is a waste of everybody's time. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
No more a waste of time than posting on the talk page. Both should lead to improvements, which, as this article was cited as a good example of a country FA, it should be, because it did not meet 1, 2a, 2b or 2c. --Bob 00:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
According to you, my dear. --Blacksun 02:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that constant improvements are needed, but listing it here instead of the talk page for just one valid clause (brilliant prose) is a little too harsh. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I think we all agree that this FARC was unnecessary and the consensus is not going to be problematic for the India article. Please post such things on the talk page first or at least give some time for your issues to be resolved. I agree with Nichalp, it was way too harsh to immediately put up an article that people have worked hours on for FARC without telling them that you are doing it. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --Gurubrahma 06:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, there is no real detailed reason you have presented to get it removed from Featured Article Status and as Blacksun pointed out, if you are unhappy with formatting and a bit of structure, then say so on the talk page of the article in question. Allowing us to fix it up. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Blacksun. Copyediting may be needed in some areas. Otherwise it is still FA standard. GizzaChat © 06:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep although I agree that the article needs upgrades. Rama's Arrow 11:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    Could you expand on what upgrades are needed? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Blacksun. Specifically point out the problems here. --Andy123(talk) 15:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove per Bob. Citations insufficient, prose sometimes long-winded and awkward, but mostly with choppy phrases. Image placement in wrong sections at high resolutions, resulting in messy organization.Naus 16:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    Wikipedia aims to set image placements at the standard web resolution (800x600), the most common resolution. As one increases the resolution, the images will obviously be clustered together. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    I just reread majority of the article and I really did not find any awkward or "long-winded" prose. Please give examples. Infact, I find the prose to be articulate and concise. Obviously this is a very subjective criteria and once again, do provide examples if you are interested in improving the quality of the article. I also found citation for every thing that I felt needed a citation in the inotes. Again, provide examples if you feel like something is not cited that should be. --Blacksun 17:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


Examples of sentences using weasel words and without sufficient citation in the India article:
India is a sovereign, secular, liberal democracy with quasi-federal republic.
What is "quasi-federal"? Who qualifies India to be a liberal democracy?
Quasi-federal is self explanatory if you look up the meaning of Quasi. I recommend doing a google search for "Define: Quasi." Infact, I believe that my American Government class text book in highschool (in USA) had that phrase in it and gave India as an example of other countries with that form of federalistic model.--Blacksun 22:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
So, this article has to fit with American idealogy? I was under the impression that Wikipedia was for the world. Cite sources. --Bob 00:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I've copyedited it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Since the early 1990s, India has gradually opened up its markets through economic reforms by reducing government controls on foreign trade and investment.
What is your opposition to this sentence? Are you just randomly copy-pasting at this point? --Blacksun 22:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with this phrase. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that it lacks visible sources. --Bob 00:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
As a multi-ethnic and multi-religious nation, India has had some sectarian violence and insurgencies in various parts of the country, but has stayed together as a vibrant democracy. What qualifies as staying "together"?
Is this phrase "stayed together" even necessary for country articles? What is a "vibrant democracy"?
Yes considering that many political experts had doubted whether or not India can survive after its independence in 1947. It is not a weasel term. --Blacksun 22:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I've copyedited it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
None of the sentences are "weasely". Please see WP:AWT for actual weasel phrases. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
The following are examples of "prose not 'brilliant'" (to borrow the phrase from Nichalp):
The Constitution of India also recognizes Bharat as the official name of the nation. It is in wide popular use as is the colloqial name Hindustan. Second sentence is problematic.
Why is it problematic? It is afterall used as one of the names by Indians. It is also part of many important patriotic songs and has been in use for centuries (coined by Iranians I believe) --Blacksun 22:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Being home to over one billion people, India is the second most populous country in the world and also seventh largest country by geographical area.
This exact sentence forumlation was used for the People's Republic of China article, to which user Nichalp specifically cited as an example of "prose not brilliant." Fair?
Read my comment below regarding this. --Blacksun 22:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The comments above are related to a draft version and has since been reverted. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
My vote of Removal is tit-for-tat to the aggressive approach of Nichalp against the PRC article. The examples I gave above are trivial and can be easily fixed, just like many of the issues involving the PRC article. Naus 21:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Well if your vote for removal is as you say a "tit-for-tat" for whatever happened with some other article then quite frankly I find it pretty immature and I wonder whether or not your vote should be counted. Some might even consider it as a form of vandalism. Regards, --Blacksun 22:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
My vote was clearly done in a sarcastic tone, the issue here is that trivial reasonings should not be used for FARC as they can be easily fixed. The intention was to demonstrate this point. Please read the Wikipedia article on vandalism carefully if you believe my comments to be vandalism. Votes in Wikipedia are not binding anyway, the important thing is consensus and the comments associated with the vote, not the actual vote itself. Cheers and no hard feelings. Naus 07:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry but the fact that both India and PRC article are on FARC does not equate them in any manner. While the reasons for nominating India for FARC were arguably trivial and done without raising the issues in the talk page - the same cannot be stated about the PRC article. A quick look at votes and comments would back this up. --Blacksun 14:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
That last paragraph just ruined all of your points. You yourself have called the problems trivial and stated that they can be easily fixed. Yet you say that this article should be removed from FA status because of these trivial problems. Then your points lose further importance as you say that your vote is only because Nichalp voted against the People's Republic of China. Honestly, when you say that an article should be removed from FA, what happened or what is happening to the People's Republic of China has no relevance at all. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
The last paragraph IS my point. And it has nothing to do with the fact Nichalp voted against the PRC article, but the nature of the trivial reasonings he used. I merely mimicked his exact gameplay here. My points are still valid (as they have clearly been fixed by other users in the article), but they are temporary points (which is exactly my point). Also, what is happening to the PRC article ABSOLUTELY has a relevance here, as the point of FA country articles is to be consistent, and precedence does play a role in decisions within Wikipedia. Naus 07:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
My objections to PRC were far more than trivial. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh please Naus. Enough with trying to play with words to fit your own assumptions and conclusions. You are an embarrassement. In your own words, your vote was nothing but tit-for-tat. You can try to talk out of it till the end of the world but it wont do you any good. --Blacksun 14:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Naus, all the statements raised by you have been fixed. If you have any other issues please list them else your vote for its removal will be considered void. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thank you for fixing them. Naus 07:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- 1. {{inote}} is a perfectly valid method of referencing. From WP:WIAFA, it only recommends the use of cite.php. This style is NOT mandatory. Please state which all text needs to be additionally referenced. Secondly, the use of inotes is not a valid reason to object even during the FAC process. It is perfectly reader friendly as it avoids text from being punctuated by footnotes. 2. Please specify the "weasel" words found in the document, we'll clean it up. 3.Similarly the choppy sentences. 5. It is customary to add a note on the talk page of the article before listing here. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It looks fine to me - referenced well, structure excellent. Although See also needs to be shortened. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 18:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    Done =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well referenced through the means of inotes. No reason to remove its FA status.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 19:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Leaning towards keep, but yes, it does need a copy-edit. I'll try to do some in the next week. Tony 00:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Article is too long and people keeping adding pointless or unverifiable information all the time. This article needs to remain as it was when it was first nominated as a featured article and not allowed to devolve as it is starting to. Tombseye 03:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Replies

  • Bob, this is not the appropriate forum to debate the drawbacks/merits of inotes vs cite.php. Since inotes is one of the inline referencing methods allowed, you'd have to move the discussion to a common forum such as talk:fac etc. I'd be happy to convert all inotes to cite.php if inotes is declared to be an inferior style and completely done away with from wikipedia. Till then I'm afraid, your opinion on inotes will not be acted upon.
At least get the references legible within the text then. The demographics section has inotes, but the enduser has no idea what they refer to, if anything at all.--Bob 00:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • ...the table National symbols of India...' -- I can't see what's wrong with the table: This is what I'm seeing: Image:India-screenshot-table-test.png in Opera 8.53 on Win, at 800x600 resolution. Probably a bug on your system?

=Nichalp «Talk»= 06:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Per above.--Dwaipayanc 06:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: please take a look at the page now. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Its a good article though I think it can be expanded a little bit. Raswa 23:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
    Note: User's fourth edit =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per above. thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK 13:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep didn't raise problems on talk page prior to nom. SECProto 19:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. No major issues raised. Even the minor issues raised have been adequately addressed. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep meets FA standards. per above. Ganeshk (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment While the problems with the article are not big, the article does look very messy with random sections like "Government" (could've been combined with Politics), "States and Union territories"(either be redirected by a See also or combined into Political divisions), and a "Holiday" section that could've been better placed under Culture. The pictures also seem to be placed randomely, with a building of a temple under Demographics (could've belonged under a new section called Religion), a picture of a house with himalayas in the background under Geography, and a picture of Ghandi in the History section (when the polictics might've been more suitable). In the culture section, there are four large pictures that are a bit distracting and don't contribute much (except for the Taj Mahal). Some of the pictures could definitely be replaced by more suitable ones and the article could be expanded to include a lot more information than what is there now. However, I am glad to see that there are so many Indian editors who are very protective of their article.--Ryz05 01:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Images:
  • Picture of Himalayas in Geography section:  ??? Himalayas are a pretty significant geographical trait of a nation. I fail to see why that is irrelevant.
  • Gandhi picture makes lot more sense in history than politics. He is a big part of Indian history. He never held a political office in his life. Surely, having a picture of the father of nation (who is deceased) in the history section cannot be considered as "placed randomly?"
  • I agree with you that 4 images in culture is overdoing it. I am going to remove atleast one of them right now.
Sections:
  • Indian government specifically definies its political division as "States and Union territories." That might be the reason to use that terminology. I am neutral either way.
  • I personally dont agree with combining government and politics. To me government is more about the overall structure of the..well.. government. Politics is more about the players involved and in the Indian article it is combined with Foreign policy. However, I think the long term goal is to expand the article to include more information. I believe that one of the things that can be looked at is making a supersection named Politics - with subsections for government, political parties, and foreign policy. However, this will take some time.
Finally, ignore people who feel overly protective. Your contributions are welcome. --Blacksun 03:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Per above. AmbExThErMaL 02:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep again per above. AndyZ t 23:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Terence Ong 12:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: This nomination is ridiculous and without foundation. It is almost disruptive to Wikipedia. When is someone going to do something to stop complete idiots making stupid nominations and wasting all our time? Why is this page, after ten days, still here when there is an obvious overriding majority of editors seeing common sense and voting keep. Whoever imagines they are running this FARC page needs to either resign or wake their ideas up - and fast, while their are still editors here willing to risk their time writing a decent FA. Giano | talk 20:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I have to agree with Giano's general sentiment; there's an air of vexatiousness about this nomination. Why is there such a backlog of nominations in this room? Tony 07:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep- Sometimes, I am amazed to see the tendency to criticize without making any attempt to add value to wikipedia. This is not good in the long term interest of wikipedia. In case, we find some shortcomings, we should sincerely endeavor to remove them to make the wikipedia Better than the Best. At least, we may try to solicit support of the editors who may be able to remove the real or "perceived" shortcomings. --Bhadani 10:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'd like to encourage those who engage in improving the content and constructive discussions rather than politically charged FARC nominations and ad homs. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I surely agree with you, not politically charged only, but against the spirit of wikipedia: we have to forget rule-book sometimes, if it is detrimental to wikipedia, and interestingly our "rules" provide for forgetting rules! --Bhadani 11:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This article is well formated, structured, the sentences are (for the most part) balanced, the only thing that needs working on is the references (too few for such an article). Sfacets 05:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This article does not deserve an FARC nomination in the first place. SwiftRakesh 13:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
When are they going to close this discussion and confirm the consensus (which is quite obviously Keep)? Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, its over 2 weeks and extremely clear consensus has already emerged. This should be closed soon. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is well-referenced. Carioca 04:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. An excellent article, the information is accurate to the best of my knowledge, some more non-gazzetteer type references may be called for, though. Why this was a FARC is beyond me. 141.151.186.244 15:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Isaac Asimov

Article is still a featured article.

As much as I love his writing, this seems like a relic from the brilliant prose days. If it would appear on FAC, I'd say: 1) no references 2) move quotes to wikiquote 3) merge trivia into the article 4) to many red linked lists, move to another article 5) a bit too many sections. Hopefully we can fix it while it is here, but if it is not improved, I am afraid it is not up to our standards anymore... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:50, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, with caveats. I agree that the quotations should be moved to wikiquote, or worked more thoroughly into the main text. The same goes for the "Trivia" section—I loathe trivia lists and consider them the bastard children of the factoid generation. Anyhoo, though, I don't think these are lethal problems, just slapdash organization. As for the lack of references, the majority of the article seems to cite its sources. What we really need is a concise bibliography at the end, listing the printed works by Asimov and others which cover his life and work. I'll get to work on this momentarily. Anville 20:47, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikiquote, references established; well-organized, in my view; the red links I don't see as too significant, especially since the number that exist which are not red is greater. Fine for featured, as I see it. --DanielNuyu 08:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Everyking 07:12, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek

Article is no longer a featured article.

I believe that the standards for Featured article are now much higher than when this article was initially nominated and that as the article stands, it does not match or coorespond to current FA standards. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Which standards doesn't it comply to? Peb1991 21:45, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  1. Comprehensive: Does the main article of Star Trek cover all topics? No. It has a list for more topics, I'll give it that. But it really should attempt to include the list into the article. There is no attempt to include topics like Star Trek inconsistancies, brief information about Gene Roddenberry, brief information about certain highly involved crew members (writers, etc). Does that seem suitable for an FA? -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Well-written: Is this article well-written? To me, no. It seems to have changed from its original FA standing to something else. Can I be bold and fix it? Certainly. But this will require a lot of work and time. I firmly believe that having it go through the FA process again would improve the article. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet. Does it really exemplify as Wikipedia's very best work? I mean, take a look at Venus (planet), then tell me if the article really does. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Include a lead section which is brief but sufficient to summarize the entire topic. Does it? -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Include images: Several sections seem to be missing images, and were removed due to copyright violations. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Include references. Although this has a Further Reading section, I am certain there are plenty of book references or other references. People cited complaints when I attempted to nominate Mars as a FA and told me about the missing references. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Addressing concerns: -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Article size limitations: "Some people feel that every featured article should have a certain length, and if not enough can be said about the article's subject to reach that length, it should in most cases be merged into another article". There is nothing said in What is a featured article regarding a maximum length. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I must ask the voters whether if they believe that there is an anti-Star Trek movement in the Wikipedia. Am I nominating this article because I am part of such a movement? Or am I nominating because I don't feel that this meets FA standards? -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove Everyking 09:07, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Rossrs 11:28, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. I disagree adamantly with the reasons given for removing this article from the list. In order for this article to retain everything, it would need to violate the 32K guideline set out by Wikipedia policy. 23skidoo 14:15, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think it's a fine article, addressing a vast realm of fiction and cultural relevance with just the right balance of brevity and detail. It's an article about Star Trek, and it does a fine job of telling an uninitiated reader what Star Trek is. - Brian Kendig 22:28, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. There's even an empty section. Fredrik | talk 22:54, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove, for the following reasons (which I hope will answer Peb1991's question):
    • No references: with the vast array of reference works available, it should be possible to list the ones that support the information in the article.
    • Not comprehensive. As the "main" article of everything Star Trek in Wikipedia, this article should provide a broad overview of the subject, and give pointers to more detailed articles for the benefit of the interested reader. See Wikipedia:Summary style for more information. The current article does an adequate job of describing the series and the movies, but many of the other main categories of Trek info are missing or underdeveloped—which include, but are not limited to:
      • Star Trek's creators and main contributors
      • Star Trek main characters
      • The Star Trek universe
      • Star Trek technology
      • Franchising/merchandising: books, novels, games, toys, etc.
      • Trek fandom (cultural impact, Trekkies, conventions, etc.)
    • A disproportionate amount of space is taken up by the "An uncertain future for the franchise" section. It discusses—in a somewhat rambling fashion—the possible future of the franchise which is, by definition, speculation. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a crystal ball nor a current-events news site. Most of this section could be deleted, condensed or relegated to secondary articles (i.e. the bit about the "Enterprise" series renewal could be moved into the Enterprise article). This would make room for the missing topics I mentioned above.
    • The "Motion pictures" section also largely contains speculation and rumours (all of it unreferenced at that). Concentrate on factual information about the past, not on speculation about the future.
    • Sections with just a link or one line of text are a no-no ("Society and Star Trek" and "Other storylines"). See WP:MOS and related articles.
    • There is a notable dichotomy between the internal links provided by the article and the ones in Category:Star Trek. "See also" should link to the most important articles on Star Trek. Instead, we get "Ranks and Insignias" and "TOS Trekmuse"?
--Plek 22:55, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Is there a date available for when the Star Trek article was named a feature article? I'm curious to compare histories to see what has changed that has made it allegedly unsuitable. This might assist in finding out where improvements can be made and whether the 32K limit should simply be ignored in this case. Incidentally in a minor way this article does deal with an "ongoing event" since the future of the franchise is a matter of hot debate at the moment and such discussion isn't likely to settle down (allowing consolidation of outdated information, among other things) until an official announcement of Trek XI is made, or if a final outcome is determined regarding current efforts to save Enterprise. 23skidoo 21:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    The talk page indicates in March of 2004. Specifically, 02:14, 15 Mar 2004. -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:05, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Diff from March 19, 2004 to now. -- Sufficient to say, it looks like FA standards were lower a year ago than the standards now. -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:09, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't that when all of the "Brilliant prose" articles got converted to "Featured articles" (that is, when the concept of "Featured articles" was created)? Many of them would not pass the test today - see the talk page. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:13, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove --Spinboy 06:51, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. To many lists, to many tiny descriptions of subarticles, short lead, no references (mixed with external links?)...and it doesn't even mention the term 'trekkie'. Fix it or kill it, cause it is not going anywhere good for now.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove -- Dunro 10:04, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove - Taxman 14:25, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. If the WP were really "the encyclopedia that Slashdot built", this article would be a whole lot better, don't ya think? Anville 20:48, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Geyser

Article is no longer a featured article.

This looks like a pretty decent article but doesn't seem up to featured standards to me. It's not very well formatted, with an enormous lead section, it lacks a diagram to explain the phenomenon, it hasn't got references, and I think generally there's more that could be said about geysers. In particular, the section about Triton's geysers is definitely not comprehensive. Worldtraveller 20:51, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Remove Peb1991 23:01, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove - Taxman 23:32, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Not sure how this was featured to begin with. --DanielNuyu 01:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Neutralitytalk 14:36, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Evil Monkey∴Hello 23:57, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. KingTT 14:17, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Japan general election, 2003

Article is no longer a featured article.

Too short and not comprehensive enough. Elections pages should have maps, in depth results, time-lines, issues, more references, pictures, etc... in order to be considered for featured article status. Earl Andrew 21:24, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beer

Article is no longer a featured article.

I think that the article should be delisted for these reasons:

  • The references are all jumbled up with external links. Note that this is not the same as there being no references!
  • It is not comprehensive enough, specifically on these points:
    • There is little history since the 16th century (is there really only that one change to the brewing process?)
    • There is no mention of anything to do with the moderate drinking controvery in relation to beer (that is, whether drinking moderate amounts of beer are beneficial or not) This should be mentioned at least.
    • It says little about beers using wild yeasts.
  • There are a few technical reasons for delisting:
    • Some of the subsections are just lists, with no prose. Example: the "Brewing Industry" section. Also, how is it decided which of these breweries are significant or not?
    • Some of the items in the lists are placed contradictorally (for example, sake is in both "Other Types" and "Related Drinks". Where does it belong?)
    • The lead section seems a bit on the short side.

This article has the skeleton of a featured article, but it just isn't there anymore. I hope that it gets improved so it can become featured again. Michelle T 19:12, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Remove. Agree with all points above; the article starts out promising enough with the "Ingredients" and "History" main sections, but then degenerates into lists of bitty trivioids. A "comprehensive description of beer styles" should be elaborated upon in the article and not be relegated to an external site. Wikilinks in subject headings should go. Being the main "beer" article, I'd also like to see something about written about the related subjects—like homebrewing and Non-alcoholic beer—here. Cheers! --Plek 19:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Neutralitytalk 01:15, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove : As much as it pains me to see a subject so dear to my gut... er... heart face delisting, I must also agree with the above points. A shame, but this article does require quite a bit of review. – ClockworkSoul 01:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Madonna (entertainer)

Article is no longer a featured article.

I think Madonna deserves better than this. The article might once have been Brilliant Prose, but seems to have degenerated. Much of the body text is still rather good, but I think there are problems with structure and layout. Specific problems are:

  • Lead section is too brief, and does not summarise the article properly.
  • ToC is overwhelming
  • Article is 52 kB long
  • The Discography is just screaming for a separate article (this would also solve the previous two issues)
  • The "Career achievements" section is very tedious and repetitive
  • No references and only one in-line citation
  • The sectioning of the article seems haphazard: the "Madonna Re-Invented" section seems to be tacked onto "Biography", with no apparent logic why a new level-2 section is used. The same applies to the "Current News" section, the title of which is also unencyclopedic. Also, the various aspects of Madonna's life (recording, media, cultural influence, film career, etc.) are all mixed together in the "Biography" section. I think a major refactoring of the existing data into a new section structure is in order.

I propose removing the article from FA status, with the hope that a new drive will lead to much-needed improvement to it. --Plek 20:43, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Remove Everyking 23:20, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove Agree with all points. Also I think we should be moving away from "Trivia" sections. If the factoids can't be worked into the main article then perhaps they're really not worth mentioning. Interestingly some albums don't have their own articles. If they did, then a lot of the info in the main article could be trimmed. The article has a really good skeleton, but too much has been piled onto it, and unevenly at that. Rossrs 14:07, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Agree with the above. A lot of good material here, but also a fair amount of POV. - Taxman 13:30, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Olympic Games

Article is still a featured article.

Non-NPOV style:

  • in its section unofficial POV prevails over official (one of the IOC) one. Namely: Ray Ewry is on top of the table of gold medallists and his photo (the only photo in this section) says about 10 titles, although IOC recognizes only 8 of them (IOC POV considered minor and is present only in the remarks section).
  • the subtopic of that section, "the most successful athlete", is itself non-NPOV item: e.g. in my POV, it is an athlete with most total number of medals, so, corresponding table should also be there.

So, I believe, at least one section of the article is not NPOV-style, an article needs attention and should be removed from the list. Cmapm 12:20, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Aliter 00:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    1. The IOC is not the "office" for this fact. Ray Ewry's victories were Olympic when he won them (1900, 1904, 1906, and 1908). The IOC no longer recognising Athens 1906 doesn't change history.
      1. I didn't say, that the IOC (and myself, independently from the IOC, BTW) is the "office" for some fact. I just said, that one POV by far prevails over another one (you didn't reply to this my argument): caption of the photo has even no corresponding remark, just is written - With 10 Olympic titles, Ray Ewry may be considered the most successful Olympic athlete in history, in the table Ewry's entry is not even marked by an asterisk - a reader should look through all the table of 10 items to accidentally find the remark in the end. Ewry did won 10 titles, e.g. athletes disqualified for doping also "won titles", but the question is: are all of them and by all people/organizations/whatever recognized as Olympic titles at present? Cmapm 00:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    2. Avoiding all POV in ranking athletes is only possible through not ranking them at all, as participation in Olympic events does not have an inherent universal ordering. The criterion used in the article should be familiar to most, as it's used quite often for per country medal counts: Gold count; if equal: silver count; if equal: bronze count.
      1. Yes, one way is not to present this info at all. Alternative (more common in Wikipedia) way is to expand an article and present alternative POVs, e.g. the table of "most-all-medalists" should be appropriate in this case. "Is familiar" does not always mean neither "is acceptable" nor "is suitable". While this criteria is used for country rankings by most parties, including the IOC, ranking separate athletes by it is less popular and I saw ranks by total medal count in many sources (especially the Russian ones) as well. It seems, that I answered to all of your arguments, isn't it? ... But the discussed section of the article has even more bugs. There even is not mentioned, that the table deals with Olympians of the Modern era. Therefore, it can be treated as the table of all-time "most-gold-medalists" and in this case it lacks the famous Ancient Olympian Leonidas from Rhodes [1], who should be on top of the table with 12 Olympic titles. I feel enough strength in my arguments to go through all steps of the dispute resolution process in the nearest future, I invite you in advance to corresponding dispute articles. Cmapm 00:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Brookie 11:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with the points listed above. In addition, regarding the first point, the article is actually more NPOV than the IOC, since both standpoints are included. The IOC silently ignores these Games. As for the "succesful" count, it is very clearly noted that no fair measure is possible. To give an idea nonetheless, the most commonly used method of counting "success" is used. I do not consider that POV. Jeronimo 20:49, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • All my arguments in my answer to Aliter are suitable here. I feel enough strength in my arguments to go through all steps of the dispute resolution process in the nearest future, I invite you in advance to corresponding dispute articles. Cmapm 00:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can see most problems here could have been solved without things ever getting this far. In some cases this would require splitting off subpages, though, as the main page is over the size limit as it is. I will, however, unwatch all Olympic content, as I do not want to be part of this. I found out in earlier discussions that I can not handle the style of discussion showing here, so I won't. I do wish everybody the strength to show eachother respect, and I hope the end result will be am improvement of the Wikipedia. Aliter 00:39, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, I'm often getting nervous and border with personal attacks, this is due to many injustices and lies which I encountered dealing with other my main topics for now (e.g. lies in an article 1980 Summer Olympics). I am really very sorry if I hurted you. Cmapm 02:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Other sections are NPOV-style in my view. My suggestion for the discussed section is (I'll do corresponding changes myself if nobody goes into discussing them):

  • games of the Modern Era mentioned somewhere in the section
  • an asterisk near Ewry's entry in the table or in the caption of the photo and near the corresponding remark.
  • Either a photo of Larissa Latynina (I'll try to supply it; Ewry's photo may remain there), the caption on which just states: Larissa Latynina won 18 Olympic medals, including 9 gold ones - nothing else or a table of most total medallists, to avoid subtopics both tables may be limited to 5 entries each. Cmapm 16:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've realized this my proposal (as you can see, this is relatively soft, compared to what I proposed on the talk page, I believe it may be a sort of compromise) and change my vote to keep. Cmapm 11:12, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Application programming interface

Article is no longer a featured article.

Hard to believe it is comprehensive, and has no references. - Taxman 15:18, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Remove Everyking 05:45, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. I'm a programmer, and this is certainly not comprehensive. The illustration is horrible. Jeronimo 20:54, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. I'm also a programmer and I'd expect a much more detailed article for this topic. There's really only one section with useful information. I also agree with Jeronimo that the illustration is horrible. Carrp | Talk 18:47, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brolga

Article is no longer a featured article.

Not at all comprehensive. Remove. Oldak Quill 19:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Remove. Everyking 19:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove Ta bu shi da yu 21:46, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove Confuzion 10:07, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. It is only not comprehensive if there is something it does not cover that it should. What would that be? I don't know the topic, but everything I think should be there is. What other criteria would you all say it doesn't meet? If you just vote to remove without mentioning why, then this is just a popularity contest. - Taxman 20:50, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
To quote Confuzion, "What do they eat? Do they have natural predators? What's the estimated population size, and is it increasing/decreasing? Do they migrate? How fast do they run/fly?" and this is just a start - bascially not showing off the best of the communities work, alot more could be done.--Oldak Quill 02:16, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ah yes, well, that stuff. ok then. Remove. - Taxman 00:36, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I would suggest that in deference to the difficult process of approval for an article to become a featured article we would make a minimal effort to improve the article before voting to remove its status. I typed in "brolga migration" in Google and the very first link answered most of these questions. Rmhermen 18:41, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This has been here before, I did try some to improve it by claring up some problems. I didn't think it was enough. But a few others thought it was. I'm inclined to agree with Oldak--ZayZayEM 00:35, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Search engine

Article is no longer a featured article.

Not at all comprehensive. Remove. Neutralitytalk 01:22, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Remove. Agree. 119 01:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Agree. I also suggest that we place this on Peer review. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:28, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Agree with above, and no references. - Taxman 20:44, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Agree with above. Rad Racer 16:14, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[13-Sep-2006 Status: On May 6, 2006 (one year later), I began adding reference-notes in the "search engine" article, as sources for some statements; however, by September (now 18 months later), few new sources had been added. I converted the existing notes into ref-tag footnotes with a "Notes" section per Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout. Many statements still remain unsourced, but sources would be easy to find in web-searches. -Wikid77 15:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)]

[edit] Triangle

Article is no longer a featured article.

I like the images in the article - they are of high quality. However, pictures alone would not get this article to FA status today. Firstly, there are far too many one sentence paragraphs. The lead section is too short. The history of the triangle is not explored (for instance, there is nothing about the Pythagoreans and their view of the triangle). There is a lot of maths, but not much of an explanation of why you would use the maths (for instance, see "Heron's formula"). Though not retroactive I know, there is no references section (which I feel for something like a triangle, there really should be). I'm afraid I think it should be delisted from FA. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:22, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not a vote, but finding a reference for this shouldn't be hard. Mark1 06:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support removal for reasons above. Johnleemk | Talk 12:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove - Taxman 20:44, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove Everyking 00:35, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I thought it was good! Brookie 10:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • oh, it's good all right. I liked it even. However, good and featured article quality are not the same thing. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poetry

Article is still a featured article.

In its current form with big lists etc, it doesn't meet featured criteria. -- Sundar 08:42, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

    • What big lists? There's one short one and one fairly short one (considering the subject). Could you expand on the etc? Mark1 09:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Poetry#Famous Poets appears to be a very subjective list, which can never be comprehensive and accurate. -- Sundar 09:43, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • I have restored much of what was the original FAC and removed the lists in question. Sundar, would doing this not have been better than listing here? Filiocht 09:52, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC). Keep, BTW. Filiocht 09:54, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • The article is in a much better form now. I don't know if I can withdraw this nomination given that there is a pro-removal vote here. -- Sundar 10:54, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It is too broad a topic ever to be a featured example. --Wetman 10:04, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • There are no topic restrictions on what can be an FA, as far as I know. Filiocht 10:32, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • That is of course correct. It is simply a matter of whether the article meets the criteria. Topic is not one of them. Sundar, do you have some criteria you feel it fails to meet? - Taxman 21:56, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
        • I had comprehensiveness and lack of a picture in mind. But am not too particular about getting the status removed. -- Sundar 04:57, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • Well one could certainly challenge this article on comprehensiveness. It is certainly not comprehensive in any normal sense of the word. Nor could any article with so broad a topic be so, and still be a reasonable size. Maybe this is the crux of Wetman's objection. However I think this is more a problem with our "comprehensiveness" criterion, than a problem with this article. I think it is comprehensive "enough". Keep. Paul August ☎ 23:19, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • I object to this as a removal criteria. I don't agree with this statement! We can always use summary form and split off the article into other subarticles. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:31, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course. Mark1 05:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Poor layout; relevant topics that should be incorporated in the text are dumped as lists at the end of the article. Far too short. Fredrik | talk 09:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, in reverted FA form. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree this article is not the best it could be, and it definitely needs some work. I've nominated it for the newly formed (experimental) Wikipedia: Article Improvement Drive. Come vote if you are interested.--Dmcdevit 18:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • remove. too many lists, poor layout, the topic is very broad, and thus the article is less than comprehensive.Dinopup 18:53, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] World War I

Article is still a featured article.

No references. 119 19:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. As has been argued on the talk pages ad nasuem, there is no consensus about how to retroactively apply that criteria. →Raul654 19:51, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • That's great, FA is then a shiny badge of "our best work" which the reader can have no confidence in. 119 00:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Your arguement is bull. To put it simply - the references criteria was added recently - about 2 months ago. It's unfair to the authors to defeature 200 or so articles based on criteria that didn't exist at the time they were written. →Raul654 02:04, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
        • When the definition of a Featured Article changes, articles that do not meet that definition cannot logically be considered Featured Articles, no matter what their former status was. To do so makes the distinction between articles that are and aren't Featured-quality useless. 119 02:26, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • With all due respect to Raul, IMHO, being an FA or not an FA, is about the article not the authors. Paul August ☎ 05:16, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ambi 01:34, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. (There are other problems as well; it is too long and contains huge chunks of unwikified text.) I strongly agree with 119's reply above. Featured status should be a distinction of quality, not a commendation for effort (though the two are often related). If 200 articles are no longer up to the standards, that means they should cease to be featured articles. If anything, that should give people incentive to improve them. Fredrik | talk 12:13, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I am going to take the principalled stand here and vote remove. The World War I article is an example of one that critically needs references. As a point of fact, Raul654, the references requirement was added on Sept 11, 2004, or nearly five months ago. That is more than long enough. If we don't make a stand somewhere it will never happen. Take the pain now for a much greater long term gain for the project. Lets help eliminate Wikipedia's single greatest weakness. - Taxman 15:19, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove, concur with Taxman's eloquent words. Neutralitytalk 04:59, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. When we started to require references, it was clearly said and understood that the requirement would not be retroactive. If we change our minds on that, we need to do so explicitly. This is not the place. Mark1 06:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Agree with Mark and Raul. Filiocht 08:27, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously. Great article. ✏ OvenFresh☺ 01:23, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. The article is very poorly written. The content is there, but its just painful to read. Its very much quantity over quality. Try reading the "Ludendorff offensives of 1918" section. You will see what I mean. --Benna 07:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. I've worked on this article some over time (mostly proofreading other people's additions), and I'll say that, references aside, the article is just not in very good shape. It needs some fairly extensive work summarizing and splitting off detail into subarticles as well as some intelligent copyediting. Everyking 11:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rembrandt

Article is no longer a featured article.

Another Brilliant Prose article. The article seems incredibly short for an artist of Rembrandt's stature. The excellent featured articles on Henry Moore, John Vanbrugh, and Matthew Brettingham are all longer and provide a more in-depth treatment of their subjects, and I think we can all agree that none of those three luminaries are in the same league as Rembrandt in terms of fame and importance. There are only two images, which seems like a small amount for such a prolific artist. Finally, there are no references, though I realize that policy is unclear on how to handle that problem retroactively. Indrian 02:12, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

  • Neutral. Good article. Badly organised. Ambi 01:34, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • A good article, sure, but is it a great article. Is this the best wikipedia can offer for Rembrandt, or will people see this page, see that it is a featured article, and comment, wow, I was really hoping for something better? Indrian 20:31, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove, definitely. Fredrik | talk 12:13, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Hard to believe it is comprehensive and lacks references. - Taxman 16:03, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Neutralitytalk 04:59, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Too short, badly organized and sentimental. Junes 20:58, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. ✏ OvenFresh☺ 01:24, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. And remove the labels from its Talk page too, please. --Wetman 05:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. It has the skeleton of a featured article, but no flesh on its bones. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove - doesn't seem comprehensive. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:29, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Damascus steel

Article is no longer a featured article.

A hold over from the Brilliant Prose days. Good in its day, but times have changed. →Raul654 01:25, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. But what criteria are you saying it no longer meets? The only one I see it entirely violates is in lacking a picture. - Taxman 14:28, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. It's really quite good, and would take little effort to polish back up to FA standard. But it's not quite there at the moment. Ambi 08:16, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. What are the actionable objections? Paul August ☎ 18:23, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • UH, it's very short - I doubt that its comprehensive (but I'm no metallurgist so I cannot say what's missing). It lacks a picture of any sort; for cituations they basically renamed the 'external links' section. →Raul654 19:34, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove - needs proper references (ie. inline references - not just a list of sources at the end). --Neoconned 22:11, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Incorrect. Our policy is that you can use either inline sources or a reference at the end - both are acceptable. →Raul654 22:19, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, if that really is the policy, it needs fixing. It's unreasonable to expect readers to verify information in articles when it's not made explicit which part of the article comes from which source. Putting a list of sources right at the end with no effort to correlate those sources with the article's contents is both lazy and fragile. Wikipedia needs a robust referencing policy that will boost its credibility (and that's a matter of urgency). For an example of a proper referencing policy in action, please see SourceWatch. My vote is unchanged - 'Remove'. --Neoconned 03:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • The featured article criteria say it has to abide by policy, and not your personal interpretation of what it should be. →Raul654 03:47, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
        • Listing references at the end is both standard and very reasonable. The only time references are needed inline is when a controversial or seemingly surprising fact is stated that needs to be backed-up with a specific citation. --mav 04:39, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)~
        • I think inline references are welcome, when appropriate, but wikipedia is not a scientific paper (and i'm glad for that!), so they shouldnt be mandatory. muriel@pt 17:59, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I thought we were not retro-actively applying FA-criteria? Anyway, the title should be Damascene steel. dab (ᛏ<;/small>) 18:05, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • The way it has been applied is that lack of references alone is typically not enough to defeature an article, but lack of references can be used in conjunection with other shortfallings. →Raul654 19:58, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Neutralitytalk 04:59, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. ✏ OvenFresh☺ 01:25, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove Peb1991 22:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is short, but looks pretty comprehensive to me. "Damascus steel remains something of a mystery", so I doubt whether a metallurgist would be able to help much anyway. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The only criteria it totally fails to meet is a picture. Inline references would be great, but few articles do that now. - Taxman 15:16, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Those who contend that it fails "comprehensiveness" should say what is missing. Raul, are you saying there is a problem with the References? Paul August ☎ 17:55, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Baroque

Article is no longer a featured article.

This article should be removed. First of all it doesn't cite its sources. Second of all, some of the pictures may be copyvio. But the most important problem is shared by many other art "style" or "movement" articles: it fails to make clear the whole coherency of the movement, either intended or subconsciously done by the practicioners. For example the scentence: " It is an interesting question to what extent Baroque music shares aesthetic principles with the visual and literary arts of the Baroque period." If the music DOESNT share the same principles as the movement in architecture, then the whole article would have to be changed, such as the lead to be "baroque is defined as such and such features of art and architecture, and is also a term given to the music made during that era even though the music wasn't connected to the principles of the art and architecture movements". There needs to be a clear distinction between what was intended by the artists and musicians, and how later observers looked at it. This can all be fixed over a while, but please remove the featured status in the meantime. (unsigned nomination by 67.180.196.196. --Conti|✉ 10:41, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC))

The section on baroque literature is complete nonsense. It doesn't even read coherently. I have a feeling no one has scrutinized the section because few people like to read early 17th century literature.68.118.61.219 04:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • This was nominated here in November and that nomination failed. Propose striking this nomination. Filiocht 08:31, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Old discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/archive/November and December 2004#Baroque. --Conti|✉ 10:41, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Neutralitytalk 04:59, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. It barely got any keep votes last time and a number of editors were waiting to vote remove or keep to see if it would improve soon. It has not improved significantly. - Taxman 13:05, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove And remove the labels on the Talk page too, please. --Wetman 05:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove, with regret. It is better than it was in November, but needs to TLC to bring it up to Featured standard. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hip hop music

Article is still a featured article.

ON THE MAINPAGE NOW... full of copyvio. Sample section which has 1-2minutes of songs (definately more than a sample) the mainpage image is a Copyvio! This needs to get revoked ASAP!  ALKIVAR™ 19:45, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • STAY! Project2501a 19:46, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Fix the problems if you can get support on the talk page that they are in fact problems. Dont list it here. This article was very recently promoted by community consensus, so it is not likely you will have a successful vote to remove. Fix, don't remove - Taxman 21:18, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep! Truly representative. --Wetman 05:18, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. Electoral College

Article is still a featured article.

The first half of this article is decent enough, but then it descends into a bit if trivia about "faithless electors" and then a virtual flame war of "detractors of the college" and "supporters of the college." The pro/con section makes some interesting reading, but it is not really encyclopedic in quality. I'm also afraid that the article isn't very informative. I think that most (American) adults already know how the electoral college works. 1User:dinopup 1/24/05 (Moved from Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/archive --Conti|✉ 10:48, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC))

  • Just a comment, not a vote. First off, Wikipedia is not just for American readers, most of the rest of the world does not know how this works. Secondly, as most American adults tend not to vote, I wonder if they really do know how the damned thing works. Filiocht 11:11, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Certainly agreed with Filiocht. Covering the basics of a subject so that it is understandable is not a reason to remove it from being featured. Currently the only elements of the featured article criteria this article no longer meets is the lack of references. It seems so far people are not willing to vote to remove articles on that basis alone. Though I personally do believe references are important enough that we should not keep FA's without them. - Taxman 21:10, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Taxman's evaluation is correct - the only criterion this article does not meet is the lack of references, and there is no consensus about how to apply that criteria retroactively. →Raul654 21:19, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. A lack of references should be a reason to remove FA status. If we can't even agree on this, how will we get people to take seriously Wikipedia's woeful failure to adhere to basic referencing standards? And, unless that is addressed, Wikipedia's enemies are much more likely to be successful in spinning the 'Wikipedia is not a reliable source' line. Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world --Neoconned 22:08, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Neutralitytalk 04:59, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The requirement for references is not retroactive. Johnleemk | Talk 12:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Its not now, but it ought to be. As said above, its been 5 months, more than enough time. We've got to take a stand sometime. Why not now. - Taxman 13:08, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. What Johnleemk said. Mark1 04:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is a change of style half way through, which is regretable, but otherwise it is fine. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Periodic table

Article is no longer a featured article.

This is one of the holdovers from the Brilliant Prose days (see: Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science). Even though I've done considerable work on the table and on many element articles, I haven't much touched the prose on this page. As is, it is not a bad article but it is still fairly incomplete: There is not much mention at all about periodic trends (which is the central reason why the table is so useful). An FA article on this subject should have an entire rather long and subsectioned section on the different trends. The structure of the table is also barely covered (note that groups are covered but not periods or series). The history section is way too short (and no, simply pasting-in History of the periodic table will not work). In addition, the lead section is inadequate and there do not appear to be any references. I do plan to fix all the major issues in the future but in the mean-time I don't think this article should be listed as an example of our best work. --mav 04:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Remove. Yikes, you're right. Definitely not FA quality now. I anticipate supporting once you make the above outlined changes. Please use good references and cite important facts directly to the source. - Taxman 16:46, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. The article is good as far as it goes and does Wikipedia no shame but it clearly isn't comprehensive enough to merit FA-status. -- Haukurth 01:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. The table itself is well-done, but the rest of the article falls way short of qualifying. --Michael Snow 17:41, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Not comprehensive enough, also needs references. Paul August ☎ 18:06, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove - needs references. --Neoconned 22:10, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Neutralitytalk 04:59, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm. It seems to be of featured qualify, so far as it goes - perhaps it could be moved to a more accurate title to reflect its limited nature. I would keep it, but I can see I am swimming against the tide. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] England expects that every man will do his duty

Article is still a featured article.

No references. Very short - only about 2 screens of text. I very much doubt it would get promoted today. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:01, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Remove. Too short and frankly nothing special. :ChrisG 13:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep "Some people feel that every featured article should have a certain length... However excellent short articles are also accepted." Wikipedia:What is a featured article. That this particular featured article is short was mentioned at the time it was promoted, and the response was that there really wasn't anything left to say - it is comprehensive. The reference requirement was added later, and that alone is not a criterion for removal. →Raul654 16:34, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Let me illustrate the shortcomings better, then. From What is...: (and this article isn't) 1) Comprehensive. The section on 'has entered the collective consciousness of the British' is limited just to lead, I'd like to see it discussed further, if this is supposed to be 'comprehensive'. 2) Accurate. Really? Lack of references... I won't mind if external links are used as references, but there should be some. 3) Lenght. I don't mind that it is short. I mind, however, that it is too short, and therefore not excellent. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. It's quite a good article, I think, especially in the way that it shows all the semaphore, but there's a bit of weasel language in it. I feel the type of short article that should be featured is one which amazingly condenses the thoughts of a long article into a tiny space, rather than one on a necessarily narrow topic to which little could be effectively added. Deco 07:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and lets not go down the road of deciding that certain content should not be FA. Narrow topics are just as valid as any other. Filiocht 09:36, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. For all the reasons in the original discussion. Length is irrelevant. --Auximines 21:26, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, for all the above reasons. Mark1 01:54, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove - a totally unreferenced article such as this one does not deserve to be an FA. Why should any user of the Wikipedia believe any of its contents? Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world --Neoconned 15:42, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Article makes some very broad statements including that the inscription on Nelson's tomb is wrong but that this article is right on the exact wording of the phrase. It claims in the text that ship logs and accounts of the crew were consulted but no information is given as to the source of these claims. For making such strong statements that is unacceptable. Without discussion of where these claims can be verified the reader is in the position of having to accept the text and nothing more. As to too short, that is not a valid reason to remove. Only being not comprehensive is. To claim not comprehensive you would need to find something it really should cover but doesn't. - Taxman 15:05, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I love this article. It's one of the most enjoyable articles I've read in a long time. Is it long enough? Yes. Is it comprehensive? Yes, enough so for me. It is, in my opinion, an excellent FA — provided, of course, it's all true!. Does it need references? Most definitely. Would I vote "support", were it to be nominated on FAC? No, the references thing. Should it be kept as an FA anyway? I don't know. What are the criterion for this? Must "old" FAs meet current standards? Or not? There does not seem to be any consensus on this. Paul August ☎ 17:11, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • There is not consensus; it seems to be split instead. So you can decide your vote and let others vote theirs. What is not under dispute is that the article no longer meets the current FA criteria. The only votes not to remove articles that do not have references come from those feeling that retroactive application of new requirements is unfair. I feel references are critical to the reliability of Wikipedia and are the only thing that can silence critics that can validly claim that an article without references is untrustworthy. Therefore I do feel lack of references, especially on potentially contentious points of fact, is enough to remove an article from being a FA. Any article that the only reason it would not pass FAC again is the lack of references would be very easy to make a FA again: just add the references. So why should it be such a big deal to remove articles that no longer meet the criteria? Wikipedia would be better now and better poised for the long term if every FA was well referenced. At least then we could point to our best articles and say they are reliable. - Taxman 18:51, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Length is irrelevant, provided the article is comprehensive enough. I can see concerns about "entered the collective consciousness of the British", and I've added a short "after the battle" section to expand on this (and to prevent run-on in the previous "signals during the battle" section, although I am also concerned that the article should not lose its commendably tight focus). The phrase really is very well known - what kind of reference do you expect? A survey? Most of the external links are actually references and support the contents, so I've added a "references" heading too. Some paper references would be a welcome addition, but the electronic ones are good enough for me. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:23, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Length is irrelevant. Well written article (some minor tweaks could make the transition to the semephone graphic better).
  • Keep. Problems (except un-fixable length) seem to have been addressed. Looks great to me.--ZayZayEM 01:38, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_article_removal_candidates_archive_January_to_March_2005_c7f3.html"