Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/archive/October to early December 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the archive of Featured Article Removal Candidates for October through the first week of December 2005. For the active archive and list of previous arhives, click here.

Contents 1 Behistun Inscription 2 Roy Orbison 3 Windows XP 4 Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. 5 Academia 6 Charles Graner 7 Newark, New Jersey 8 Graffiti 9 The Wonderful Wizard of Oz 10 Julius Caesar 11 Sun Yat-sen 12 Poetry 13 Sino-Soviet split 14 Provinces of Thailand 15 All your base are belong to us 16 Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart 17 Iraqi insurgency

[edit] Behistun Inscription

Article is no longer a featured article

Not a bad article, but I don't think it lives up to today's FA standards. The most serious problem is that it is not comprehensive. Reading through it left me with a barrage of unanswered questions.

• The article says that Ctesias and Tacitus mention the inscription. That sounds very interesting to me and I'd like to know much more. What exactly do they say about it?
• The history of scholarship on the inscription seems to end with Rawlinson in the 19th Century. What's happened more recently? Surely there has been a lot of research?
• The inscription is a long text but the article tells us almost nothing about what it says. A decent summary would be appropriate.
• I realize that some of this should to some extent be treated in other articles but it would be interesting to know how reliable an account the inscription is believed to represent. What other sources corraborate or refute the information in it?
• I feel that more context is needed in understanding the importance of this inscription within Old Persian literature. Are there any other Persian inscriptions from the same period?
• I would like to know much more about the actual decoding of the text. What were the major hurdles? What were the major breakthroughs? Were there false starts? Was comparison with other languages important? And how does this text fit into the framework of Indo-European comparative linguistics?
• The article is just far too short for such an amazing topic. It prints on less than three pages. By comparison Hrafnkels saga, an article on another ancient text but one probably much less important, prints on seven pages (and I feel it could use two or three more as I outline on that talk page).
• From what I can understand of the article the inscription is a spectacular thing to behold. Black-and-white scans from 19th century books can't possibly do it justice. A free photograph may be hard to find but this is a featured article so I feel we can make high demands.
• The style of the writing is a bit flippant with parenthetical remarks like "oddly enough". This is no big deal, though, just my personal taste.
• The references section seems completely inadequate. Surely there is a lot of literature on this. What are the standard works? Where should I go for authoritative information on the subject?
• Again, this is a good article. I hope I haven't hurt any feelings by outlining what I think it lacks. I hope that the article is improved because this topic certainly deserves a featured article. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 20:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Remove. Definitely not up to current standards. Everyking 20:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Remove. This wouldn't be accepted as a featured article candidate today, there is a lot of room for improvement. — Wackymacs 21:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - as recent events have shown, I am probably completely out of step with community consensus on the requirements for a featured article (one of the reasons I have not nominated one for ages, perhaps) but I like this article. It says just enough and not too much, although I have added a few bits more. Haukur Þorgeirsson gives some excellent suggestions for areas where the article could be improved even further, but I think it is good enough. The main black spot for me was the lack of references. One of the external links was good enough to be a reference - [1] - and I also found this which repeats two other original references verbatim. Happy? -- ALoan (Talk) 21:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not happy :P, I just don't think this would be accepted today by the voters at FAC, I would Object to it for one. — Wackymacs 21:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, well, if the test of a featured article is whether it would pass FAC today, then about 90% of them should be demoted. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you. You've made a very good start towards fixing the problems I perceive with the article. Now I think the biggest gap to plug is to talk more about the contents of the text itself, summarize it a bit, maybe quote a part or two to give the reader a feel for it. If we could have some of that and a better picture I would be willing to give this a pass. I personally feel that rising standards are a good thing and that we should strive for true excellence in our featured articles. I would work on this myself except that I know almost nothing about it. I do Old Norse, not Old Persian :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Well, thanks for your thanks - don't do Old Persian or Old Norse, but I can read and summarise. In response to your specific points:

• I have added a little about Ctesias and Tacitus from the references, but someone more knowledgeable than I will have to look at the original texts.

• Definitely better than nothing, good job. According to the talk page the status of the Tacitus information is in doubt. Maybe that should be addressed in the article. - Haukur

• I have added a little about scholarship since Rawlinson.

• Again, thank you. Though more would be nice, especially something from a recent linguistic work. - Haukur

• There links to the full text. As the article says, "[Darius] arranged for the inscription of a long tale of his accession in the face of the usurper Smerdis of Persia (and Darius' subsequent successful wars and suppressions of rebellion) to be inscribed into a cliff near the modern town of Bisistun". That is it really - "I am the king, these people tried to rebel, I won."

• LOL! :) But still a sample would be nice, the article should stand on its own and not have to rely on external links. - Haukur

• Actually, it is rather the other way around: the text is quite close to, and was seen as confirming, passages by Herodotus (and as the article says, the parallel between the text and Herodotus made the first translation easier). But clearly it is Darius propaganda. I have no idea how you would test whether sources from two and half millennia ago are accurate - we are lucky enough to have them at all!
• The external links refer to many other inscriptions in Persian cities, palaces, etc, and there are heaps of cuneiform tablets, inscribed pottery, etc., etc. The difficulty is working out what they mean, and this text was the key.

• Okay, that's important context which should be briefly mentioned. - Haukur

• Sorry - I will have to pass on comparative linguistics. As the article says, Rawlinson was helped in that other scholars had already deciphered around a third of the cuneiform symbols.
• Rather succinct than flabby. Are you saying that Hrafnkels saga is not comprehensive too? Are you going to nominate that here too?

• Neah, it's decent enough. Though I do think it's a problem that it says nothing about English translations of the work. I hope to remedy that eventually. - Haukur

• Please, anyone, be my guest and take a photo when next you are in Iran!

• I appreciate that this is not a trivially solved problem but still. "I'm not going to Iran anytime soon so we'll have to settle for a b/w scan from a 19th century book" is exactly the kind of thinking I think we should try to avoid with our featured articles. - Haukur

• If the style irritates you, please copyedit.
• I have created a proper References section, and used the sources therein to check and augment the contents of the article.

Phew. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You've done lots of good work. That's exactly what I was hoping would happen when I nominated the article here. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Lets leave this here for a while and see if any further improvements are made, but would you reconsider your removal nomination if it stayed exactly the same? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I just read it all again to get a fresh perspective. It's definitely improved though some of the same things are still bothering me. I think I've found a better way to sum that up. The Behistun Inscription can be treated from at least three perspective - a historical perspective, a linguistic perspective and an archaeological perspective. It seems to me that the article is overly fixated on the archaeological facts. I'll admit my bias up front - I'm a linguist and I'd like to see more about the linguistics here. But you can also look at the Rosetta Stone article for comparison. It's actually a worse article but it has a better balance between history, linguistics and archaeology. I'd be willing to give the crummy image a pass if the text was comprehensive but I still don't feel it is.

Any discussion about removing the featured status of an article is based on what we perceive the FAs as being so I think I'll explain my point of view briefly. By selecting this relative handful of articles for promotion I feel like we're saying: "Okay, we know that a lot of Wikipedia is not that good but we're willing to swear by these articles." There's talk now and then about printing the FAs and when I feel that it would be a bit embarrassing to see a particular FA in print then I think it should be brought up here for consideration.

I'll try to help and edit the article a bit but my knowledge is very limited and I'd rather do less than do something that might be incorrect. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• I see that a picture was just added. It's not spectacular - one would like much higher resolution and perhaps something to establish the scale - but it's still quite an improvement. If we expand the prose a bit this might pass muster. I still haven't got around to doing anything myself. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 18:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Remove as per nominator; in addition, it needs a copyedit. Tony 01:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Despite the valiant efforts above, it still does not meet the criteria. Remove --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roy Orbison

Article is no longer a featured article

This article may have once been "brilliant prose" (it is a holdover), but it isn't now. Now it's a mishmash of uncited and probably apocryphal stories, miscellaneous trivia, and poorly sectioned and poorly written prose. For most of its recent life the lead was blatant copyvio. It contains two fair use pictures, neither one of which has a stated fair use rationale and one of which didn't even have its caption displayed until I added it. The article is junk, definitely not featured quality. It's on the Main page right now, and it's embarassing; it makes Wikipedia look as amateurish as its critics deride it as. Specifically, in regards to the FA criteria it fails to meet: 1. the prose is not brilliant or even grammatically correct in some places, 2. there is a total of one reference, one citation (not specific), to an article which looks to be chock full of things needing to be cited (stories about entertainers are almost always false in my experience), 3. it is full of peacock phrases and other non-neutral lauding, and there is a dearth of encyclopedic analysis, 4. the lead section (what remains of it) is not adequate, the heading system is underdeveloped, 5. images are not of a good copyright status nor are they very good, 6. it is not written in an adequately encyclopedic style (it included many instances of addressing the subject as "Roy" until I changed them). Not featured quality in the least. --Fastfission 00:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong remove, in agreement with nom. This article is unfortunately one of the shoddiest I've seen on the main page. Featured article candidates are now being held under much, much higher scrutinity than what this exhibits.—jiy (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• There is a sycophantic quality to this article, particularly in the assessment of Orbison's music; rather than viewing his contribution to popular culture in a critical light, the reader is met with hyperbolic, uninformed fawning. The writing is fan-club rhetoric, at best. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.68.240.41 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC).

• Remove, only two pics. It's a shame it was selected today to be presented on the Main Page. DaGizza ^{Chat (c)} 02:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Remove - I agree with all of the points in the nomination. My main criticism is that the article does not meet FAC criterion 2(b) "comprehensive" means that an article covers the topic in its entirety, and does not neglect any major facts or details. Specifically (this is from my recent post on Talk:Roy Orbison), I'm concerned at the lack of coverage of Orbison's musical craft. For instance, the article states:

he is revered for his song writing abilities. Master record producer and Orbison fan Don Was, commenting on Orbison's writing skills, said: "he defied the rules of modern composition." Songwriter Bernie Taupin (composer of many lyrics for Elton John) and others, referred to Orbison as far ahead of the times, creating lyrics and music in a manner that broke with all traditions.

However, there is no explanation of why he was so revolutionary and ahead of his time, of how he defied the rules of composition, only, perhaps, reference to his "operatic" voice and singing range. What exactly was special about his vocal abilities? How was his guitar playing? How did he approach songwriting? In short, "how did he approach music-making?" is not answered. Related is the absence of any clear discussion of his use of falsetto. The term is not even mentioned ("operatic" just doesn't do it), yet falsetto is part of his signature sound. --Tsavage 04:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: While I cannot track down a source, I vividly remember seeing something on TV once where someone noted that those high notes Orbison hit were real - not falsetto. As the article notes (unsourced, natch), Orbison had a three octave range, and he used it seemlessly. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: You may be right! I recently listened to a lecture on the role of falsetto in Western contemporary popular music, and Orbison was used as an example (along with Jimmie Rodgers, Marvin Gaye, the Bee Gees, many others). The technical issue of vocal harmonics versus regular high notes and verging on that "falsetto sound" is beyond me as a discussion topic (although in his case, it does sound like falsetto). Either way, Orbison is widely noted in connection with falsetto (for example, Google:Roy+Orbison+falsetto), so this to me is a significant hole in the coverage, which is why I specifically mentioned it here. (From the official Orbison site, in a page-long quote from kd lang as published in Rolling Stone: He also loved to express his voice in this upper range, in falsetto.[2] So, technically, maybe "false falsetto", but effectively, falsetto.) Editor's note: I'm just in a mode now, which I suspect can't last, where I believe FAC/FARC objections and supports should be fully...supported. --Tsavage 16:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Remove as per above. Saravask 04:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Remove per nom. Jkelly 04:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Remove per nom, also, it'd serve us well to get a picture from before he was dead. gren グレン 07:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Remove per Fastfission and the anon, as it really is lacking a great deal (an FA on a musician with no sound clips?). Too bad this wasn't initiated before it was main page'd. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Funny how an article can remain featured for such a long time, and it only appears here because it goes to the Main Page. For what it is worth, I suggested it on WP:TFA and did read it first. I must admit that I didn't (and still don't) think it is that bad - there are plenty of worse articles out there; on the other hand, it would rightly face an uphill struggle on WP:FAC as it stands today. Presumably Raul654 didn't think it was desperately bad either, otherwise he would not have accepted the suggestion. I wonder how many other featured articles (particularly the ones of this vintage) would receive a similar reception here?

Clearly our standards have improved somewhat in the 18+ months since this became a featured article. For example, in those days, references were not required, and there has been repeated debates over whether that requirement should become retrospective. I seem to remember that someone (Taxman?) has a list of poorly referenced or unreferenced featured articles somewhere. Has the time has come to remove featured status from all featured articles without references? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking of User:Taxman/Featured_articles_with_possible_references_problems. Anything promoted from FAC since this list was compiled should have adequate references. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

re: remove featured status from all featured articles without references? That could be an approach. I'd be completely against in any way sanctioning regular articles based on references, however, if FAC (therefore, TFA, as well) is to proceed in a most useful fashion, making sure the pool of existing FAs is "reasonably good" is important. Some research, perhaps? Isn't there a database query procedure available, where clever search criteria could at least produce (near real-time, on demand) an approximate picture of how well-referenced FAs really are? Is FAs with possible reference problems up to date?

Another, complementary approach (which I haven't thought through), is to establish informal FA guidelines for obvious problem subject areas (like many types of pop culture topic), and manually investigate. (I'm sure all of this has been discussed elsewhere; hunting down previous discussions is quite the task on its own.) --Tsavage 17:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I hadn't had a chance to check the status of this page in a while. No that page hasn't been checked through since July 2005. That page was assembled from manually checking every featured article at the time to see if they had a reference section. It really took quite a while and a database query would be a much better way to go about it. Since references/citations are called many things, it wouldn't be perfect, but could probably be a reasonable start and reduce the manual checking needed. There may even be a couple FA's that snuck through after the list was initially compiled. - Taxman ^Talk 01:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. For this article after it's been fixed up a bit, I'm inclined to vote keep. I'm coming to reallize the problem with FARC is that there are a lot more people willing to vote remove than there are people willing to dig in and do the work to improve them, so hat's off to Aloan for that. - Taxman ^Talk 01:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Remove: I discovered this was here when I went to it's talk page to nominate it myself. Its need to be removed for all the reasons given above. It's just not up to the standard expected today. I think ALoan has a point about unreferenced articles being automatically removed. Giano | talk 16:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Remove, per all above comments. A lot of the language ("astounding success", "powerful rendition" etc.) is written almost in the style of a hagiography or a fansite biography rather than an encyclopedia article. Unfortunately, this is the same problem that many other articles about musicians here have, and to one with such noticeable POV problems featured on the main page is rather disappointing. I think that, more than ever, this emphasises the importance of Wikipedia:Featured article review. Extraordinary Machine 17:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• WP:FAR... Yikes. I barely ever knew and had entirely forgetten about that. So it's WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:FARC, WP:TFA, plus Peer Review, and the current FAs—is that all of it...?! --Tsavage 17:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's not forget WP:FAD :). Extraordinary Machine 19:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Gosh - I wasn't aware of that one... also known as WP:FAHD (bit Arabian, that shortcut). -- ALoan (Talk) 19:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Remove per WP:CITE and WP:NPOV. Also, non-free images are not supposed to go on the main page. This is not so good. Chick Bowen 21:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Remove per all of the above. Peacock words are throughout; too many to outline here. The "Early career" section goes off on a tangent about international success up to the artist's death. The trivia is barely relevant to the subject (Example: "It is widely believed that he was the physical basis for the Marvel Comics character, Doctor Octopus." Widely believed by whom? Is this even important to anyone researching Roy Orbison?). This could be a good article. There is a wealth of published information to reference about him. I was excited when I saw this on the Main Page and disappointed halfway through reading it. --malber 23:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear. Is anyone interested in collaborating to salvage its featured article status? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

No? Oh well, I've chopped it about a bit and added some extra information cleaned from online biographies that I have added as references. Not being an expert, someone else will have to help me out with musical analysis. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Coment: I speedy demoted this, but ALoan asked me to reconsider. While I have not yet taken it off WP:FFA, I will do so if the article improves by the end of the two weeks. And ALoan has a point above - no article is unsalvagable, and anyone above who knows anything about Orbison can help the article. While I feel that the article could use a rewrite from scratch and go through WP:FAC, if all objections have been met in two weeks, I will relist it on WP:FA. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Remove This does not represent Wikipedia's best work. --Wikiacc (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Remove if only in protest of its style problems.

Put together by musical director T-Bone Burnett, Orbison was accompanied at a recording at the Cocoanut Grove in the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles by a who's who supporting cast, all fans and all volunteers who lobbied to participate.

Orbison himself was put together by T-Bone? Ouch. And the sentence disintegrates from there. There are also citation problems. In the next paragraph, we say the concert was critically acclaimed, but offer no specifics on which critics did the acclaiming. BYT 14:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Windows XP

Previous nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Windows XP/archive1.

Article is still a Featured article.

This article is clearly very incomplete. Among the biggest issues discussed in developer circles is the new TCP/IP connection limit per application. This is mentioned no-where in the article. I want to know (1) what the limit is, (2) why the limit is there and why Windows 2000 doesn't have it, (3) what a user can do about it, including whether Windows Vista will have the limit, and (4) what its impact was, i.e. the main problems it caused in existing and future applications. — I'm sure there are other, perhaps even greater controversies that I don't know about; as long as these are missing from the article, it must not be featured. — Timwi 18:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - It appears the article was nominated for removal before - Windows XP removal candidate discussion. Looking at the thread, I find a vast majority of remove votes, and yet the article was kept, supposedly for lack of consensus. That's odd and needs to be re-examined. — Timwi 18:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• A "vast majority"? I make it 7 for "remove" and 7 for "keep". -- ALoan (Talk) 21:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I disagree that the article is "very incomplete" - the only omission you mention is "the new TCP/IP connection limit per application", and that seems neither very crucial to the article nor very difficult to add if you wanted. "I'm sure there are other, perhaps even greater controversies that I don't know about" - this is hardly a reason to criticize an article. "It appears the article was nominated for removal before" - and the decision was to keep the article, and the article has been improved since then. Your nomination to remove the FA status of this article seems somewhat groundless. - Brian Kendig 18:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've resolved the only actionable part of the original complaint by adding this text to the article: In an effort to slow down the rate at which malicious programs can spread to uninfected computers, Service Pack 2 lowered the limit on outgoing TCP/IP connection attempts from 65,535 to 10. [3] There can be no more than this many incomplete outgoing connections being attempted at any one time; additional connection attempts will be queued. This limit can adversely affect legitimate software such as peer-to-peer applications. The "tcpip.sys" system file can be edited to raise the limit to its former value. [4] - Brian Kendig 19:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The nominator should have given this article sufficient time to address the issues. From what I see, it was put up for FARC before the issue was raised on the talk page. The nominator also put out-dated link to the FARC. I will give my review once sufficent time has elapsed and the article has had sufficient time to correct itself as I find it premature to discuss it now. I would suggest the editors to address the concerns raised by the nominator ASAP. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Invalid nomination—No notice was given on the talk page. This nomination should be removed so that the prescribed process can be pursued. Tony 11:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Invalid nomination. The article definitely needs some touch-up work (Wikipedia:Peer review could be a way to go here), but nominating an article for FA removal on the basis that it's missing an esoteric piece of information is in contravention of Wikipedia:What is a featured article?'s fifth attribute: "... tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail." Warrens 21:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I dislike Microsoft, & I only use Winders because my job requires it (I'm contracting at that well-known CPU manufacturer), but I find it hard to see just how this article could be improved upon -- unless Microsoft is willing to allow its developers to discuss operating system theory. Yes, the "TCP/IP connection limit" issue should be mentioned, but I honestly can't think of any other issues unique to this OS that has been omitted. (Although I have long suspected that it's called "XP" because extreme programming, aka XP, was a hot new fad at the time this version of Windows was begin developed -- & only later did someone outside of marketing actually to a hard look at what "XP" meant.) -- llywrch 01:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This article is very good - I'd like to see the TCP/IP stack stuff as well but (It is in there now... awesome!) basically every general point about XP is covered very well in this article and subarticles. More importantly it is free of the POV and other issues that often plague these types of articles. It is as it always was ^{T | @ | C} 09:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am taking down this nomination as invalid: beyond the issue which has already been addressed, the nomination is not actionable (it is based on "perhaps even greater controversies that I don't know about") and the nominator did not allow a chance for the issues to be discussed on the article's Talk page before nominating this article. - Brian Kendig 17:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Clayton Powell, Jr.

Article is no longer a featured article

This article was submitted for removal in April, but the status was kept. I think, however, that it is in a terrible condition, and by no means does it live it to todays FA standards, in my opinion. Jon Harald Søby \ ^{no na} 11:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

This nomination is also in a terrible condition. You've not made a single edit to the article page, talk page nor specified a single specific problem with the article on this page. Pcb21 Pete 15:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that. "Terrible condition" (from me, on the article) might have been strong words. The main issue I have with this article, is that it is way too short. It only has three real sections, the remaining sections being "See also", "Referenecs" and "External links". If you compare it to other featured articles about persons, you will see that they all are much longer than this one is. Also, it only has one picture, which is said to be fair use, but no source is given for the image. (I don't know if the image thing is a requirement for FA here on en:; on no: it is.) Jon Harald Søby \ ^{no na} 12:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Remove - I don't think that the article is long enough in the slightest. I've read through it, and it doesn't seem to offer any in depth information about him at all. Just a general overview of some important events. And his personal life section is just a collection of trivia. - Hahnchen 17:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Remove, for a black legislator who spent 25 years in Congress at the height of the civil rights struggle, you'd think there'd be a lot more to add; this is basically just an overview. There are gaps in the article (Vietnam, for example, was a very divisive issue for Democrats in the last few years of Powell's career, but there's no mention of his stance on the war). The "Personal" selection is a sequence of mostly unrelated one-sentence paragraphs. Our standards have gotten much higher since this article was approved. Andrew Levine 22:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oh lord, please remove! How disappointing that this ever got featured in the first place. Hydriotaphia 19:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. It's way too short and does not stand up to the other political biographies which are featured. David | Talk 21:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Remove, this is pathetic. If there are two books written about this guy, there should be alot more to say than this. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 21:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Academia

Article is no longer a featured article

Except for the sections on the ancient world and the medieval period, this article is very U.S.-centric, partly by showing a lack of awareness of other perspectives (see section "Recent_economic_changes"), partly by using U.S. examples, where, say, Italian, French or German examples would be more appropriate (as in the section "Rise_of_academic_societies"). Where it is not entirely U.S.-centric, international perspectives are mostly limited to England. The section "Eighteenth_and_nineteenth_centuries" is all about the U.S., despite America still being a backwater at the time. With all due respect for the University of Pennsylvania and Ben Franklin, in an 18th century history of academia, one would expect the University of Göttingen, the University of Leiden and a host of other European universities (and other institutions) to be more important to mention. And whatever happened to the renaissance, humanism, in fact the entire period from the end of the middle ages until the mid-18th century? Is the foundation of the Royal Society really the only thing worth mentioning from that period? (Note that there may also be non-Western institutions which should be mentioned. I am just focusing on the things I personally find most obvious.)

The article is not badly written, but a clear systemic bias, significant omissions, and a lack of proper referencing, makes it inappropriate for featured status. u p p l a n d 16:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Sad. One of the few featured WP:COTWs. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Remove. Apart from anything else, the article has one reference, and no indication what parts of the article are referenced by it. Jkelly 19:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Remove: the nomination says it all, really. There is more to the world than the English-speaking part of it. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Remove per nominator. Bishonen | talk 15:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Remove per nominator. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Graner

Article is no longer a featured article

This is my first FARC, I was thinking of putting this on the FAR, but decided against it, because I really don't think this article is of featured standard. Firstly, spotted around 2 months ago by User:Cafe Nervosa, the article claims in 2 different places that he married 2 different people in June 1990. Reading through it, other things just don't flow, the first I read of his children is when it talks about his weekly custody exchange with them and how that clashes with his overtime. At that point, I didn't even know he had kids, as they are introduced later. To me, the thing just doesn't read well, tiny paragraphs pepper the article, the "Life after Trial" section is 2 sentences. And I don't like the small font used for quotes either, I'm using firefox and text size is at normal, I can read it fine, but I need to put some extra effort in. Extra effort should not be required when reading a FA. - Hahnchen 02:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: apart from the problems cited by the nominator, there are also other issues, like some of the pictures (e.g. the courtroom sketches) being claimed as fair use without any stated rationale. — Haeleth Talk 19:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Newark, New Jersey

Article is no longer a featured article

This article has been featured for a long time, and I resisted listing it in the hopes that it would be improved, but sadly it has not been. It is basically one giant history section with almost nothing else. It hardly conforms to the standards set by other city featured articles for content. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 08:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Remove. Due emphasis between sections and sub-sections is off. Too many one sentence paragraphs have crept in. Pictures are poorly spaced and reduce readability. Marskell 10:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. Close, but not good enough for the mentioned reasons. And lead is inadequate as well.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't know how this article became featured. There are no records of the article's having gone through FAC. Pentawing 05:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I went in and cleaned up the article as much as I could. However, the fact that there is still no record of the article's going through FAC concerns me. Can anyone enlighten me on that? Pentawing 07:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Truly odd. It was tagged Feature in March, 2004 by User:Maveric149 who is still active. The log for that month and the two previous show no record of it however. I will contact him. Marskell 13:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Scratch that. It was User:Dinopup. Maveric simply formatted it. I will contact the former as well as Raul I suppose. Marskell 13:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Some articles just featured when there was no FAC system. Lots of articles have no record. See, some of them were considered good articles at the time so it became featured on a list with others. I believe if anyone objected to those then the article would not be featured. The rules weren't so strict then. 12.220.47.145 01:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Please Wait. It has been a while since I pruned this article, but I still think that Newark compares favorably with other City FAs. If there is no record of voting on Newark, that is because it was made an FA before we had that voting process. I did not self-nominate Newark to be an FA or unilaterally add Newark to the FA list (I would not even know how to do that).

I will expand the sections on Newark's neighborhoods and culture, though you cannot expect me to say as much about Newark's sports life and economy as is said about the sports life and economy of larger cities.

I just found out about Newark being an FARC and will work on the article immediately.Dinopup 19:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• I just did a lot of expansion and editing It's now thirty minutes later and I've addressed a few concerns that you had. I've expanded the geography and neighorhoods sections and removed disharmonious language and paragraphing.Dinopup 20:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks like a good cleanup effort has taken place, and while the lead could use another few lines to make it two paragraphs, this is now acceptable in my eyes. Harro5 09:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. Yikes, the article lacks any basic balance in coverage. It should be in Wikipedia:Summary style, covering each topic in relation to their importance. As such, the history needs to be massively shortened, and other sections need expansion. Teh one sentence sections in the neighborhoods should just be made into a couple good prose paragraphs. As it is they are very choppy. Sorry, but I don't think it's all that close to the quality of some of the recently promoted city articles. If you are able to fix some of this, let me know, I'll reconsider my vote, but if you can't do it in time, see if you can't fix the article up anyway and renominate it for FAC under the new higher standards. - Taxman ^Talk 23:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• NeighborhoodsI realize that the neighborhood section is short, but there are actually excellent articles written on almost all the major neighborhoods. See Ironbound, Forest Hill, Newark, New Jersey, Seventh Avenue, Newark, New Jersey, Broadway, Newark, New Jersey, Roseville, Newark, New Jersey. These neighborhoods are all in the article's sublist, if you just had followed the link you would have discovered this top notch content. The Newark neighborhood articles are better than most neighborhood articles you'll find on wiki and are better than what teh City of Newark has written. Dinopup 00:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Graffiti

Article is no longer a featured article.

(Previous FARC nomination)

• There are no adequate references. What was previously known as the "References and additional sources" was comprised of film documentaries and general websites, many of which are image galleries. There do not seem to be any print or scholarly sources used, and I'm confident there are plenty on this subject. Additionally, inline citations aren't used, so it is difficult to verify anything that is said.
• As a consequence of lack of adequate sources and inline citations, the text is littered with generalizations, weasel words, and what may be considered non-NPOV statements. Good example:

"Most of those who practice graffiti art wish to distance themselves from gang graffiti. Differences in both form and intent exist: graffiti art aims at self-expression and creativity, and may involve highly stylized letterforms drawn with markers, or cryptic and colorful spray paint murals on walls, buildings, and even freight trains. Graffiti artists strive to improve their art, which constantly changes and progresses. Gang graffiti, on the other hand, functions to mark territorial boundaries, and therefore does not transcend a gang's neighborhood; in the eyes of lovers of graffiti-art, it does not presuppose artistic intent."

• The article's coverage of the subject is incomplete. There are barely any sociological, psychological, or aesthetic/critical interpretations, and I'm pretty sure significant academic research has been devoted to this subject. Graffiti is clearly more complex a subject than history and legality.
• The lead is inadequate. Most of it is devoted to etymology.
• There are too many external links within the prose.—jiy (talk) 08:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove, the sourcing is inadequate. More importantly, the writing is severely disjointed and disorganized. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove as per Christopher. If anyone wants to see a valid warning posted on a talk page, this one is it. Thank you Jiy. Tony 01:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Wonderful Wizard of Oz

Article is no longer a featured article

I don't think the problems with this article are insurmountable, but it its current condition I don't think it qualifies as the best Wikipedia has to offer. On the whole, it needs a major copyedit and references. (Also, in my opinion, the plot summary is excessively long.) Some examples in more specific detail:

1. The article has no References section, though there are some references scattered throughout the article.
2. Articles are referred to without providing a citation. (e.g. Psychologist Sheldon Kopp demonstrated in a 1970 article in Psychology Today that the story has parallels to the processes individuals undergo during psychological therapy—but no citation to the article is provided.)
3. Confusing prose, such as: The Wizard tries to persuade the Scarecrow, the Tin Woodman, and the Cowardly Lion that what they lack are not brains or a heart or courage, but faith in themselves. But he still agrees to meet each of them and to give them (without their knowledge) a placebo which brings out the qualities they had all along. So the lion doesn't know he gets a badge of courage? The scarecrow is unaware of having received a diploma?
4. Inappropriate tone, such as: (Sure, the nation was slowly recovering, but this is still politics).

There are a lot more examples that could be given, but I'd like to hear other opinions. --Tabor 01:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Remove per nom. It needs a real good cleanup. I left a note on the talk page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Oz about this. *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 19:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Remove for other reasons as well. I'm a huge Oz fan, and I was never comfortable with this article's Featured status. The article devotes far too much space to the populism allegory debate, and far too little space to the history and evolution of this book. There is room to expand on the collaboration of Baum and Denslow, critical response to the book, sales, imitations, adaptations and pastiches, Oz fandom, the International Wizard of Oz Club, the role this book played in the development of American Children's Literature... and I agree, the plot summary is too detailed. --Woggly 22:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: In my opinion, the whole "is or isn't The Wizard of Oz an allegory on populism" debate should be moved to a seperate article. This is clearly a disputed aspect of the book, but it is far from being the most pertinent or interesting aspect of the book. I'd mention the debate in the article, and link to a seperate article, so as to draw the edit wars away from the main article. --Woggly 08:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Sad Remove I did add a references section, BUT have to agree with Woggly. I think maybe this article should be top priority to fix and get BACK to FA status. [[User:JonMoore|— —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 03:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. Problems right from the lead paragraph: "It is well regarded in popular culture and has been widely translated as the first American fairy tale due to its setting." Huh? Does that mean that it has been widely translated, because it is the first American fairy tale, or that the translations all make particular note that it is the first American fairy tale? Does that mean its setting makes it a fairy tale, or that its setting has made it well-regarded/widely-translated? And what does "well regarded in popular culture" mean? And is "the first American fairy tale" a verfiable/citable claim? ("Some consider it the first American fairy tale" would be unacceptable in a FA.) There's stuff like this throughout the article. I agree with JonMoore that bringing this back up to Featured quality should be a priority for the next few weeks. Andrew Levine 03:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Julius Caesar

Article is no longer a featured article

Please note that I have absolutely no personal issues against this article or any of the editors that frequent it. But in the spirit of being bold, I've decided to nominate this article after a failed attempt on the talk page to start a discussion about this article's quality.

I have two objections against the article retaining featured status:

1. Large sections of the article are not exactly verifiable. It is extremely long and few inline citations or sources are provided. Volumes have been written about Caesar over the centuries but yet only three sources are listed. As a consequence, doubts remain about the accuracy of certain statements within the article (please see its talk page). Also, if any of the external links provided was used as a source it should be properly referenced within the article and moved to the References section.
2. A recent copyvio (also documented on the talk page) made the content of the article unstable through the removal of much of its information. If that information is to be rewritten, it would have to go through the standard process of editing beyond the "improvements in response to reviewers' comments".

Another fact to consider (but not an objection itself) is that the FAC nomination for this article had only two votes in 2003/4. I understand FA criteria are more strict now and maybe this alone would warrant a review of this article's featured status.

That's all. I hope I don't cause too much controversy with this nomination. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 23:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Remove I agree with what Rune Welsh says, plus there are three sections (The literary Caesar, The Military Caesar and Caesar's name) which have no content except for links to daughter articles. *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 14:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Remove until it gets at least twice as many sources, at least twice as many images, the sections that are only links are given at least a paragraph or two, and the article is tightened; the first two sections are already starting to look like good candidates for getting their own articles, much as Charles Darwin has distinct articles for each stage of his life due to the sheer vast amount of information on it. Like you, I have nothing against this article; it's got a ton of strong points, and I intend to help improve it as soon as I have time. But this article has been featured since early 2004, and it's gotten fat and complacent in its status. Making it work harder to reclaim featured article status would help reinvigorate its editors and attract many new ones with a lot of new sources and information on Caesar's life. Though in the short-term we may be hesitant to "punish" an article that really doesn't have anything dramatically wrong with it, the long-term result would be nothing but a great improvement for one of the most important biographical articles on Wikipedia. Remember that the true benefit of the entire "featured article" concept is to motivate people to improve articles that are already good, but could be better. It's not purely a reward/punishment system to receive, be denied, or lose such a status. It's purely utilitarian. Also, what's good enough for one article may not be good enough for another—while you won't see a lot of people complaining about all the problems on an article like History of Arizona, because, come on, who cares about Arizona (don't look at me like that! you know it's true!), articles like Julius Caesar must be held up to vastly higher standards. -Silence 01:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that the image found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Julius_Caesar_Italian_marble_19th_c..jpg . Is not an young Julius Caesar, but an young Augustus Caesar (Octavian). Caesar's nephew and future emperor of Rome.

• Remove. 1) needs sorting of it's sources and addition of inline citations. 2) The chronology needs to be converted to an Easy Timeline. 3) There's several sections that only refer to a subarticle that need to be given a summary. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. While this is a good article, the lack of anything more than a few references and sources worries me. (As an aside, I also like that Rune Welsh raised these issues on the article's talk page, unlike the recent Sun Yat-sen FARC, where I still feel like a user was pushing a personal agenda with having that article removed.) --Alabamaboy 01:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • snide comment, eh? This is entirely irrelevant here, but if I happened to be under a "personal agenda", then I would like to know what this "personal agenda" was supposed to be. I would also appreciate it if you would name me directly ("User:Jiang was pushing a personal agenda") instead of trying to put me on a guilt trip by purposely leaving me unnamed. I don't mind if you want to accuse me of things, but please make the effort to come out clean and state it outright. --Jiang 10:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, it is totally relevant b/c the person who started this FARC first raisesd the issue on the article's talk page (which is good Wikipedia practice). I was using the previous FARC to illustrate poor process. I hope now that Sun Yat-sen is no longer a featured article (although, as I have stated with the admin who removed the article, I do not believe consensus was achieved on that) you will work to improve the article. Further comments about this are on your talk page.--Alabamaboy 11:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Though I stand by my actions, I am not opposed to you bringing me out to illustrate a process that was or was not followed. However, it is one thing to say that I put up the farc too soon and did not first post the objections directly on the talk page (a description of my actions), but it is another to say that I have a yet undefined "personal agenda" (a peronal attack). Yes, I plan to work on the article - enough to get it refeatured. You will see that after the initial promotion I already made some significant changes to the article that addressed a couple of my objections to the original fac.--Jiang 22:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sun Yat-sen

Article is no longer a featured article

Note: This article was promoted on August 15 (archive of nomination). Those reviewing this candidacy may wish to also refer to the original nomination.

This article poorly written, biased towards the KMT/CCP (Chinese) viewpoint that elevates Sun to a cultlike figure, and contains some very disturbing gaps in the historical narrative. I am suprised that this was featured in the first place, given that my objections were barely responded to (the response from the nominators was that they did not know enough about the subject to act on these objections) and the support votes were mostly unexplained and unsubstantiated - a result of active campaigning by the nominators. I have improved the lead section and the sections on the early part of Sun's life over my objections, but this article should not stay featured without a rewrite in the meantime, and should still need a renomination if it is rewritten.

Gaps in history that need to be filled:

• There is absolutely no mention of Sun's ties to the secret societies and Triads, which he established to recruit mercenaries for the revolution.
• Sun's role in the 1895 uprising, or for that matter, his role in all eleven uprising attributed to him (only on of which - in near Indochina - Sun directly participated in) must be more clearly explained
• Sun's major foreign contacts (eg Dr Cantlie) and connections should be mentioned.
• Sun's kidnapping by the Chinese Legion in london (which led the English media to propel him into fame) needs to be mentioned
• Sun's political theory must be traced from the beginning and deserved greater coverage. The section "Western ideology and Sun Yat-sen" assumes that Sun's thinking was the same from the start and remained unwavering. In fact, Sun revised his ideas many times (he was leaning towards reform rather than revolution at the very beginning and changed from being anti-Manchu, pro-West to being anti-Western imperialism after the revolution) and made a bunch of semi-conflicting statements to please the factions he was trying to unite. The Lincoln quote does not adequately explain his position on democracy (he did not believe in mass elections by an uneducated populace and followed the Chinese line of supporting democracy only as a means to strengthen the state). There also needs to be mention of Sun support of nationalism (very very important here, and what he meant by minzu zhuyi needs to be explained too) and communism and socialism (which he tied with Confucian harmony). Lincoln and Hamilton should not be mentioned.
• tied in with the earlier part of the Sun's revolution is his inability to be accepted by the reformists and gentry (because he lacked a classical education). His being rebuffed by Li Hongzhang and Kang Youwei (who not only refused to follow Sun but pulled Liang Qichao away from him) should be mentioned.
• why is there no mention of Huang Xing?
• Sun's activities following the 1913 failed uprising are inadequately explained. Perhaps this is blotted out of Chinese histiographies because Sun was politically isolated at this time
• the coverage of Sun and his revolutionary base in Canton is shaky. Wikipedia says he returned in 1917. It does not show that he was expelled and restored twice from 1918-1923.
• there is a lack of coverage of Sun's political leanings. this article does not give a clear picture of Sun's political associations. there is no mention of the formation of the KMT in 1912, the abandonment of the KMT after 1913, the formation of the Chinese Revolutionary Party, and later re-formation of the KMT. for someone who was the nominal head of the party (also not mentioned), I find this disturbing. Sun was also the leader of the Tongmenghui and a bunch of stuff. Wikipedia just says "he joined".
• the legacy section makes no mention of revisionist historians who think Sun had little to do with the success of the revolution.

Structural concerns:

• it does not make sense to exlude all mentions of overseas chinese contacts outside the legacy section. The overseas Chinese section does not belong under "legacy". It belongs in an earlier section that should include Sun's many contacts with some very diverse groups (westerners, Japanese, secret societies, bandits, outlaws, etc).
• it does not make sense to group all discussion of Sun Yat-sen thought (which is insufficiently explained) under "Sun Yat-sen and Western ideology" (what about SYS and Chinese ideology? and Japanese pan-Asianism?). His ideology evolved over time. It was not simply developed in full before 1911. It changed dramatically after then. Even the cited documents show that the chronology does not match. A problem is seen where the last sentence of "From exile to Wuchang Uprising" is redundant with the preceding section.

Neutrality issues:

• this article seems to be influenced by the elevation of Sun's stature after his death and fails to explain Sun's political isolation, especially after the Second Revolution and before the coming of Comitern (this isolation allowed him to be kicked out of Guangzhou twice).
• the explanation of Sun's ideology is pro-Western, pro-KMT. we lack a mention of Sun's pan-Asian, pro-communist, and later anti-western imperialism leaninings. The influence of Confucianism, especially datong, is unappropriately left out.

Copyright violations: text copied verbatim from http://www.wanqingyuan.com.sg/english/onceupon/onceupon.html

• "Sun Yat Sen's father, Sun Dacheng, was a farmer by day and a midnight watch beater by night."
• "His eldest brother, Sun Mei (Dezhang), was born in 1854."
• "Sun also had elder sister Jinxing, brother Deyou, sister Miaoxi and younger sister Qiuqi."
• "From absolutely no knowledge of English, Sun Yat Sen picked up the language so quickly that he was awarded a prize for outstanding achievement in English by King David Kalakaua. Sun Yat Sen then enrolled in Oahu College for further studies but he was soon sent home to China as his brother, Sun Mei was afraid that Sun Yat Sen would embrace Christianity."
• "...he studied English at the Anglican Diocesan Home & Orphanage (later renamed Diocesan Boys' School in 1913). In April 1884, Sun, 17, was transferred to the Central School of Hong Kong."
• "True to his brother's earlier concern, Sun was later baptised in Hong Kong by Hickley, an American missionary of the Congressional Church of the United States. Sun believed that the salvation mission of the Christian church was similar to that of a revolution. His conversion to Christianity was related to his revolutionary ideals and push for advancement. His baptismal name, Rixin, means getting rid of the old to welcome the new, and accepting new thoughts and ideas."

I understand that not every details needs to be listed for this to be featured, but the I hope this list is long enough (with some items general enough) to show that this biography of Sun Yat-sen has some very major shortcomings.--Jiang 13:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. All of the issues you raise are serious and the article should either be edited to reflect these concerns or the issues should be debated on the article's talk page. However, the simple fact is that this article was promoted to FA status just over a month and a half ago. The rules on this FARC page state that newly promoted articles should not be nominated for removal. In addition, I prefer to see people raise concerns with a FA article on that article's talk page and by attempting to edit the article before it is brought here. --Alabamaboy 14:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The rules on this FARC page state that newly promoted articles should not be nominated for removal because "such complaints should have been brought up during the candidate period". However, in this case, the complaints were brought up during the removal period and were under discussion when Raul654 unexpectantly promoted it. I did attempt to edit the article. Given the task at hand, it will take some time. This article should not stay featured if it does not meet the guidelines - that would be misleading our readers. Given the changes needed, we can always renominate the article once it is rewritten. I don't see how it is logical oppose removing FA status for the period before this article is improved. There are clearly defined guidelines for featured articles. The procedure is irrelevant.--Jiang 14:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The procedure is not irrelevant--it is clearly stated on the FARC page. I also repeat my strong opposition to someone asking for a FA to be removed without FIRST raising these issues on the article's talk page. You have not raised any issue about the article on its talk page in a number of months. Before coming here, this should have been done (at a minimum) so that we know that the problems you raise with the article are agreed on, by consensus, to be major problems. As I look through your list of issues, a number of them appear to be POV issues where there may be disagreements with other of the article's editors. This is why the issues should have been raised on the article's talk page, so the rest of us would know for certain that these problems are indeed major problems and not POV issues. Until this is done, I can not be certain that this article is not in the FARC process for political reasons. I would be interested in the views on this from other editors who frequent this FARC page.--Alabamaboy 17:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

One more thing: During the article's original FAC process, the importance of the issues raised above was debated by Deryck C. - the very original one

Deryck C. - the esperanza-enriched one, who nominated the article. Deryck C. - the very original one

Deryck C. - the esperanza-enriched one also asked why User:Jiang did not edit the article to address these issues. In the original FARC, User:Jiang also said, "I think the article *nearly* makes the threshhold for fa status." If it nearly made the cut in his opinion then, and another user questioned the validity of these issues, then I am unconvinced that this article should be removed. This brings me back to my main point: Raise these issues on the article's talk page. --Alabamaboy 18:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The task at hand is too immense for me to cover everything in the near furture. If this is removed, I do intend to improve it when I have time to get it back up to shape. Deryck Chan said he lacked the information to proceed further, but I said I did and could offer it to him - and the discussion was ended there was a promotion of this article. --Jiang 03:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Whether to list this article as a farc is based on procedure, but whether to keep or remove this article is based on guideline. These are two separate issues. You can argue here on this page's talk page that we should get rid of this listing and come back in a month, but whether the procedure was followed is not in itself a reason to "keep". If I removed this listing now, posted all of this on the talk page, and came back a month later, are you going to vote "keep" again because the farc "recently failed"?

If we are required to post these things on the talk page before we come here, then that should be written into the page guidelines. Please propose it at Wikipedia talk:Featured article removal candidates first and not induce uncalled for procedural criteria for listing. They are not in the rules and nowhere does it say that we must first post on the talk page before listing a farc. I believe this purpose is served by having {{farc}} added to the article talk page. This was previously accomplished when {{fac}} was added to the talk page.

I will go and solicit more optinions at Wikipedia:China-related topics notice board and among those who voted "support". The NPOV issue here is over coverage, not tone or wording. Different versions of history blot out different episodes. The debate over whether my objections are valid belongs on this page. This is what the two week holding period is for! Alternatively, I can be disruptive and tag this as a copyvio but I dont think I should do that. --Jiang 03:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

However, majority concensus was drawn that the above concerns raised by Jiang (I think copyright violation is the only exception) were not so important that can let the article fail featured article status. Please observe this fact. Deryck C. 02:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

This is simply not true. I made sure that every person who voted "support" in the original nomination was made aware of this farc. Out of the original supporters, three explicitly came here to support the removal (Borisblue, Huaiwei, Piotrus) and two others (Instantnood, Flcelloguy) expressed disatisfaction with the current state of the article. No one (expect you) have objected to my reasons for removal (though we have one more "keep" vote on procedural grounds) and you have yet to respond to my rebuttals to your shaky historical claims. I am still waiting for a response.--Jiang 03:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Remove Borisblue 14:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Remove - Jiang has shown there to be many problems. violet/riga (t) 15:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Remove, unless these problems are addressed in a fairly brisk timeframe. I don't see why we should compound failures of the initial process by preventing our failure-addressing apparatus from working. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep. More than a half of the "copyright violations" concerns raised by Jiang were simply unreasonable because those sentences that Jiang stated as "violating" were so short and simple statements that everyone will write the same sentence when he/she is addressing about the same fact:
  • "Sun Yat Sen's father, Sun Dacheng, was a farmer by day and a midnight watch beater by night."
  • "His eldest brother, Sun Mei (Dezhang), was born in 1854."
  • "Sun also had elder sister Jinxing, brother Deyou, sister Miaoxi and younger sister Qiuqi."
  • "...he studied English at the Anglican Diocesan Home & Orphanage (later renamed Diocesan Boys' School in 1913). In April 1884, Sun, 17, was transferred to the Central School of Hong Kong."
  • "Sun was later baptised in Hong Kong by Hickley, an American missionary of the Congressional Church of the United States."
  • I don't think one can identify a passage as violation of copyright just because of those SIMPLE statements were also put here. According to Wikipedia's language guide, wording must be concise. I don't see an alternative way that those details can be mentioned with concise wording without editing the sentences into these forms. --Deryck C. 07:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • In addition, on the "Western Ideology" section, the problems that you've arise can be solved by a simple means: Retitling (which I've already done so). After all, the title was inappropriate at its original state as it's Sun's influence by the ideology instead of relationship with the ideology.
  • "In 1924, in order to hasten the conquest of China, he began a policy of active cooperation with the Chinese Communists" is definitely an adequate mention of Sun's cooperation and relationship with the communists. After all, Sun himself is a pro-capitalist instead of a communist and he died shortly after establishing relationship between KMT and communists. Therefore, I strongly believe more mentioning of the fact will create excess details towards the matter.
  • Jiang's opinion "the legacy section makes no mention of revisionist historians who think Sun had little to do with the success of the revolution." is out of the question. The legacy section is suppose to talk about how Sun's life influence others after his death instead of the disputes and opinions about him after he was dead. --Deryck C. 07:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • In most time when Huang Xing was active Sun was in exile. Sun himself has little direct connections with Huang Xing and therefore one sentence or remark (as I've recently added) is enough to mention.
  • Sun was not the initial leader of Tongmenghui. The article will possibly become biased towards Sun's good side if he was mentioned as the leader of these small organizations (although they helped him in his way of revolution).
  • "The influence of Confucianism, especially datong, is unappropriately left out." -- this concern seems too trivial. Sun's later action didn't reflect much about his Confucian belief. --Deryck C. 07:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Given that the sentences are in fact long and complex and that any given author would be extremely unlikely to reproduce that information in exactly that presentation, and considering the fact that such correspondences appear multiple times in the article, it seems clear that if the source is in fact protected then the article contains copyright issues (and plagiarism issues) that need to be addressed immediately if the article is to remain featured. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Do you mean a 10-word sentence is long? Deryck C. 08:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Anything longer than a phrase is long. It is possible to rearrange clauses. --Jiang 08:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• The sentences copied are not simple. Past precedent has resulted in articles being deleted at wikipedia:copyright problems for much simpler sentences (and over my objections too). Of course you can rewrite these sentences: "Sun Yat Sen's father, Sun Dacheng, was a farmer by day and a midnight watch beater by night." --> "Sun Dacheng, the father of Sun Yat-sen, farmed during the day and worked as a watchman during the night." and "His eldest brother, Sun Mei (Dezhang), was born in 1854." --> "Sun's oldest brother was Sun Mei (Dezhang), who was twelve years older than him." and "Sun also had elder sister Jinxing, brother Deyou, sister Miaoxi and younger sister Qiuqi." --> "Sun had another brother, De you, two older sisters Jinxing and Miaoxi, and a younger sister Qiuqi."
• Your edit, did not solve the problems states. You are calling these "early influences" (by assumption before 1911), but you cite articles dated 1917 and 1921 (near the end of Sun's life). There is still no mention of Chinese ideology or Japanese pan-Asianism. There is no mention of the anti-Marxist, anti-imperialist, but pro-communist thought he was spreading towards the end.
• Your statement "Sun himself is a pro-capitalist instead of a communist and he died shortly after establishing relationship between KMT and communists." borders on absurdity. Sun always considered himself a socialist. The two guys he borrowed his social program from were socialists (Marice William and Henry George). Quoting Sun Yat-sen from memory (sorry, my reading materials are in another city): "Minshengzhuyi is socialism, it is communism". Henry George's land value taxation doesn't sound capitalist to me. The situation was that Sun was trying to please both the CCP and KMT right wing at the same time: he pleased the CCP by promoting socialism/communism and anti-imperialist, but pleased the right KMT by denouncing Marxism (he was for "harmony" of the classes rather than class struggle) and alluding to Confucian harmony. This is how he can say a revolution had no place in China, yet also promote communism.
• You say, "The legacy section is suppose to talk about how Sun's life influence others after his death instead of the disputes and opinions about him after he was dead. " I'm afraid part of the definition of legacy has to do with "disputes and opinions about him after he was dead" At least this article is doing just that, by explaining how well he is admired. But to be NPOV, the opposite side of the story must be given. This is how every major biography is being done. Some legacy sections of other featured articles: "Many historians rank Polk as a near-great President...", "Repeated polls of historians have ranked Lincoln as among the greatest presidents in U.S. history. Among contemporary admirers, Lincoln is usually seen as a figure who personifies classical values.", "Her achievements, however, were greatly magnified after her death."
• The new addition of "at that moment Sun was still on exile and Huang Xing was in charge of the revolution" after Wuchang is misleading. The mutiny was instigated by New Army soldiers infiltrated by the Tongmenghui, not Sun Yat-sen, Huang Xing, et al who never planned a revolution in that part of the country. I believe (again, I am without my reading materials), Huang favored a revolution around Shanghai and Sun favored one in his native Guangdong. Huang Xing's significance is beyond that. When Sun was president, Huang remained his right hand man as premier and practically ran the government in Sun's name.
• "The article will possibly become biased towards Sun's good side if he was mentioned as the leader of these small organizations (although they helped him in his way of revolution)." Again, a ridiculous notion. We are biased right now by withholding information on how politically isolated Sun was at various times and how to had to engage in power struggles within these revolutionary societies. Saying these organizations merely "helped him in his way of revolution" is pro-Chinese bias, claiming Sun was the center of the revolution. What historical grounding do you base this on? And the Chinese Revolutionary Party was important.
• "Sun's later action didn't reflect much about his Confucian belief" Again, this is outright wrong. I can provide you with the quotations, but Sun clearly associated democratic participation and equal land holdings with Confucian harmony.
• Even after these objections, we still have the structural issue of overseas Chinese, the need to mention secret societies and triads, Sun's role in the various uprisings, Sun's major foreign contacts, Sun's kidnapping by the Chinese Legion, Sun's courting the reformists, Sun's activities following the 1913 failed uprising, and Sun and his revolutionary base in Canton--Jiang 08:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• As an overseas Chinese myself, I brought up objection over the article as an FA when it was nominated over its scant (or rather non-existant) mention on the role of the overseas Chinese in his personal efforts made in gathering support from them. I managed to add into the article from my Singaporean perspective, but I mentioned it still lacks crucial mention on other localities, and it actually appears too biased towards Singapore with the lopsided availability of content. These has not been addressed even up till now.
  
  Contributors to this page actually said I should add the content related to the overseas Chinese, saying they are from HK. Are the contributors to this page more concerned over whether this page touches only on facts they happen to know from their geographical perspective, or the comprehensiveness of the subject matter at hand here?
  
  I was similarly concerned over the lack of mention over that London kidnapping incident, an incident so major it deserved its own section in a quick run-down of his history in this source, for example: [5]. He wrote a book on it, and there is even a play writtern about it. If this page can miss out on something like this, I wonder what else is possibly missing.
  
  The scant attention paid to copyright issues is once again brought up, and once again dismissed in a seemingly lax manner. Even a single word can be a copyright issue (some words are copyrighted), so please dont try to beat the system asking just how long or short lifted material should be before they violate copyright rules. It shows too little attention paid to copyright and effort made to avoid its violation.
  
  Given the above, I feel compelled to change my previous vote (itself a reluctant one) to a Remove instead.--Huaiwei 07:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Improve or Remove. I think that enough useful info has been raised above to allow willing editors to fix it. If this is done, let me know and I'll change my vote to support. However, since apparently the current article is not comprehensive, and possibly POVed, it must be improved or removed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Definite remove. Good article, but with serious problems that should have been addressed. Johnleemk | Talk 08:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Definitely need improvement. Having featured status doesn't mean no further improvement is needed. — Instantnood 13:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Have the copied sentences been removed now? It's unacceptable for any article, let alone a featured article, to have sentences or phrases copied directly from another source. This is plagarism — the stealing of another person's intellectual property. The length of a copied text should not matter; anything copied directly can be seen as plagarism and should be removed immediately. Thanks. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 22:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• NOTE: All phrases with suspectible copyright violation were re-written. Deryck C. 02:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• keep and improve. As those phrases are not long under suspectible copyright violation. Feature article is just a good article, never a prefect one. It is good that Jiang found some rooms to improve it. HenryLi 16:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Featured articles must not merely be "good". They must be wikipedia's "best". A featured article must be "should be well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable". This article is absolutely not comprehensive, minorly factually inaccurate, and not neutral. (b) "comprehensive" means that an article covers the topic in its entirety, and does not neglect any major facts or details. I have listed major facts and details this article is listing. My list was not simply one or two items long that could be satisfied within a couple hours (or I would have changed the article by now.) (c) "factually accurate" includes the supporting of facts with specific evidence and external citations (see Wikipedia:Verifiability); these include a "References" section where the references are set out, enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations (see Wikipedia:Cite sources) There are no inline citations. The printed matter listed under "references" spends entire chapters on some of my points but there is still no mention here. I highly doubt they were consulted at all. As I pointed out earlier, some of the historical claims are shaky. (d) "neutral" means that an article is uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) As stated above, the treatment of Sun's ideology and the exclusion of an entire decade of his life is not neutral, and in the very least, not comprehensive. --Ji[[User talk:Jiang|ang]] 19:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poetry

Article is no longer a featured article

This article was nominated for FARC in February, and was kept, though with significant doubts not addressed. The topic is extremely broad, and this article gets at it from a rather confused perspective--it is neither about the history of poetry nor about the theory of poetry nor about the form of poetry but rather attempts to cover all three in miniature. As a result, predictably, it is weighted considerably toward the present and toward Anglo-American poetry--there are four individual poets cited, all of them Anglo-American poets after 1800. There are major factual problems: the article confuses poetry with verse, for example (it is not true that plays contain poetry; they are not poetry by definition, but they can contain verse). Of the five requirements listed at Wikipedia:What is a featured article, section 2, it fails three: it is not comprehensive, factually accurate, or neutral. I really think we need to think hard about this one, even though it's been here a long time. If the article is rewritten with references, I would of course be happy to reconsider. Chick Bowen 21:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I'd prefer to see these issues raised on the article's talk page an an effort made to edit the article accordingly before it comes up for a FARC. It appears that several editors are heavily editing the article right now and I don't see why these issues can't also be addressed.--Alabamaboy 14:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Definitely remove. Absolutely no references — horrendous enough for an article on such a broad subject! The article is also surprisingly short — while I'm no poet, I have trouble believing that there's more that can be said about Mozilla Firefox or the King James Version of the Bible or even Hey Jude (all three are featured articles) than about poetry. Yes, it seems this article is not even close to being comprehensive. Remove it — it's an embarassment to FAC. Even Wikipedia:Good articles wouldn't accept it. Johnleemk | Talk 08:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. So short I can't believe it is comprehensive. 11k of text. Bias towards western modern poetry seems a problem. More than half the article is just a list of see also's--those should be moved off to list of poetry terms or something to that effect. There actually was a reference, but an editor removed it under the mistaken impression that the reference had to be mentioned in the text to be valid. But only one is not sufficent in my view considering more research could allow this to be properly comprehensive. What is there is well written, but based on the quality of The Cantos, I know Filiocht can do much better than what is here. All important aspects of poetry should be summarized and this just doesn't do it. - Taxman ^Talk 15:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Remove embarssingly short. Here is comprehensive........................................................................................................................................................................here is the article. *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 23:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Remove per nom. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Remove It is clearly not comprehensive. Some of the things missing: discussion of the different schools, styles and regional types; no reference to major poets like Heinrich Heine, Charles Baudelaire, Victor Hugo; no reference to major works like the Coran, the Nibelungen; etc... Vb 131.220.68.177 16:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed. I think there are two choices with an article with this name. Either it has to give a comprehensive history of poetry as you suggest, which would be huge and would require weeks of work by many editors, or it would be rewritten entirely in terms of genre theory, using almost none of what's here. Either way, it doesn't seem likely to happen any time soon. Alabamaboy was annoyed that I didn't try to work on it before I nominated it, but to be honest I didn't know where to begin. Chick Bowen 00:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Remove for the reasons stated above. CG 21:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Remove for reasons stated above. I appreciated the article's brevity on first reading, but since then, I believe the introduction has gotten longer and more confused. The section on rhyme also needs work. Evan Donovan 22:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sino-Soviet split

Article is no longer a featured article

No references (request outstanding since April this year. Lead is inadequate (too small). While this has the potential to be FA again (or rescued), in the present form it is not up to our standards. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, it should be removed unless this problem is fixed. I've alerted Adam Carr, who appears to have been one of the contributors. Tony 09:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Remove unless it's saved. Feel free to alert me if that's the case. - 131.211.51.34 11:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

That was me in case you were wondering. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Remove. - Taxman ^Talk 11:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Remove per nomination. Ganymead 23:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Remove—Main contributor says that he probably won't find time to rectify the problems. (See my discussion page.) Tony 12:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Remove for now. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it passed FAC during the period when References were not required. It should remain (with a request for references template on it).  ALKIVAR™ 01:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• I've left Adam a message on his talk page asking for inline citations. Don't act on this until he's had a chnace to response, please. →Raul654 03:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Although Tony had already informed User:Adam Carr of the Farc on the 19th, this listing shall be here for an extra seven days, until November 9th instead of November 2nd (unless Adam votes remove, himself). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Provinces of Thailand

Article is no longer a featured article

While the article is very informative, its formatting is a bit bad and it has a lot of lists. It would be much better on Featured lists, where it would be almost certain to be approved IMO.

Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 00:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Perplexing original nomination from 2+ years ago here.--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Move to Featured Lists as it still passes all of those criteria.  ALKIVAR™ 01:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Remove and nominate on featured lists. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - when the article was nominated as a featured article, what was actually meant was not just this single article, but the whole output of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Thai provinces, i.e. that article together with the 76 articles on the provinces. andy 08:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment:This possibly may work as a Featured topic. It couldn't make it as a featured list though. It doesn't have many pictures or anything to make it there. But the topic area is well covered. Falphin 00:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. Don't see why this was a FA article in the first place. As someone who's spent time in Thailand, I can state that this is a very good article/list. andy is also correct that the article's links to the various provinces are excellent. However, I don't think the quality of assorted related articles counts towards an article's FA status. If someone wants to nominate it as a featured list, that'd be ok with me.--Alabamaboy 14:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Remove and nominate for Featured list since this is what it is. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 23:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] All your base are belong to us

Article is no longer a featured article

I'd love to see a featured article on this subject, but this one isn't it. Passed FAC in February 2004 in a lightly trafficked nomination. FA criteria not met: 1) Unreferenced; 2) Probably original research; 3) No fair use rationale on images; 4) Not well structured (the article is about 25% prose and 75% meandering, disorganized lists). Again, I'm reluctant to do this, but the article doesn't seem to stack up to today's FA standards. BrianSmithson 11:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Remove—I agree with Brian, except that I'm not fussed if it never becomes a FA. Also slightly uncomfortable about parading something that arises from non-natives' foibles in their use of English. Tony 12:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• REMOVE. This is the worst example of a feature article I think I have ever seen. Even after rereading the lead several times the subject is still a mystery to me--someone who doesn't already know what the subject is about wouldn't be able to understand it. The rest of the article isn't much better. I also agree that it is original research and has too many lists.--Alabamaboy 13:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Remove; I'm not sure that the tiny little article that was originally FA'd [6] wasn't better than what's there now, but in either case, obviously neither are an FA today. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Remove, clearly has major problems. It does meet the first of the FA criteria though, so it would be nice to see as a featured article again. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove - but dont forget when it originally passed references were not a requirement.  ALKIVAR™ 00:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Emphatic remove. Poorly structured with a low ratio of information to silliness. Don't let the glory of FA status become diluted. Cheers. -matt 17:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article does show some special characteristics. Deryck C. 13:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Remove Poorly done list. Could be a nice article, but isn't. InvictaHOG 14:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Remove per nom. *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 06:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

Article is no longer a featured article

A holdover from the Brilliant Prose days of yore and main-page'd 20 months ago, this article is woefully inadequate when compared with current FAs. First and most glaringly, while there are copious external links and further reading, there are no references, which is an important distinction. There are many statements made that call out for references / footnotes. If needed, I shall illuminate them all. First FARC from 12 months ago. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep for now. The article is pretty good and the only major problems seems to be the lack of references. Why not wait a while on the removal and see if anyone is willing to put in references?--Alabamaboy 13:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Remove. Jeffrey, I didn't have the nerve to FARC this one, but I'm glad it has been done.

FA Criterion 2(b): "comprehensive", [meaning] that an article covers the topic in its entirety and does not neglect any major facts or details.'

Some five weeks ago, I complained about a major deficiency. Here's the exchange, pasted from the discussion page:

______________

Title: information on style is seriously wanting

For a FA, this article is deficient in that it provides absolutely no information on his style. Please see the guidelines at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers#Guidelines_for_musical_style. Tony 04:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

You are right. There wasn't a word in the article about style, influence, and so forth. I took a swing at it; it's a bit rough for now. Feel free to edit mercilessly, rearrange, whatever; it could be a huge amount of material, but I tried to keep it relatively short for the start. It might need subsections by type of composition, or perhaps should be mainly chronological. Antandrus (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

______________

My point was that the title of the article is not 'Biography of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart', but 'Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart'. Thus, in my view, to satisfy Criterion 2(b), the article should contain authoritative information on Mozart's style, preferably in the lead—in brief, broad, non-technical terms—and in the body of the text, ranging from non-technical stylistic information to that which might be useful for a serious, informed music lover.

Since I complained, this aspect has received some attention. However, it is still seriously deficient. Some statements in the oddly titled 'Works, musical style, and innovations' section don't mean much, or are jumbled, or are poorly written. For example, in the opening sentence, we have:

'his works spanned the chronological period from the early, Italianate galant style of his teenage years to the mature classical style of his later life, which began to re-incorporate some of the contrapuntal complexities of the late Baroque.'

• The function of 'chronological' is unclear.
• Does 'mature' refer to the classical style as a whole, or Mozart's own version of it? Beethoven brought the classical style to its maturity.
• 'Re-incorporate'—what, for a second time? And Mozart's counterpoint is typically not as complex as that of the late Baroque. It's only one facet of some of his later works, anyway, and only in particular passages; this statement implies a general shift towards contrapuntal complexity.

In Mozarts's hands sonata form transformed from the binary models of the baroque into the fully mature form of his later works, with a multiple-theme exposition, extended, chromatic and contrapuntal development, recapitulation of all themes in the tonic key, and coda.

Haydn did this before Mozart.

The points about psychological effect in the operas are on the right track, but need to be reworded to be tight and cogent. Nowhere are we told about his transformation of orchestral scoring, exploring a large range of combinations of wind and brass. The use of orchestral colour before Mozart was monochromatic by comparison, including Haydn's.

In 1782–83, Mozart became closely acquainted with the work of JS Bach,

This may be a little exaggerated; he knew Book 1 of the WTC, but not much else of Bach's.

There's no mention of a really obvious stylistic aspect: his use of Austrian folk music.

• Criterion 2(a): The prose should be 'compelling, even brilliant'

The prose not good enough for a FA. Here's an example of excessive writing, from which the italicised text should be removed:

At some unknown time during his early Vienna years, Mozart became personally acquainted with Joseph Haydn, and the two composers became friends. On occasions when Haydn was in Vienna, they sometimes played [together] in an impromptu string quartet together. Mozart's six quartets dedicated to Haydn date from 1782–85, and are often judged to be his response to Haydn's Opus 33 set from 1781. Haydn himself was soon in awe of Mozart, and on the occasion [when] he first heard the last three of Mozart's series[,] he told Leopold,.."

and

Mozart's musical ability started to become apparent [became apparent] ...

There are odd turns of phrase, such as:

Mozart had a special relationship with Prague [the lamp-posts?] and the people of Prague.

and

a frankly contrapuntal main theme'.

There are grammatical mistakes:

While none of these genres were [was] new

Here's a breach of the Manual of Style (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting):

In September of 1777

There are unexplained and probably not very important facts in prominent positions:

his name changed many times over the years.

Criterion 4: 'It should have images [read 'sound excerpts'] where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status.'

Just looking at the info page for the first sound excerpt, who is the copyright owner who is claimed to have released the item for use here? Who is the performer and recordist? When was the recording made? If it's commercially released, can we have the details of the CD and the Company, please?

I think it's a pity that the sound excerpts are lumped together in one location towards the bottom, without reference to the text. The genius of Wikipedia in this respect is its ability to knit together text and sound in a way that can cogently and lavishly illustrate the topic for both non-musicians and musicians.

Tony 13:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Remove. The needed updates and references have not appeared in the 12 months since the last FARC attempt. There is no indication waiting another 12 months will produce a different result.--Allen3 ^talk 23:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Remove, per Tony and nom. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Remove, per Tony and nom. The recent changes in the Style section have helped, I think, but the article is still definitely not of Featured quality. Opus33 14:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Sad Remove its so close to being current FA quality... but Tony is right in that it still needs work.  ALKIVAR™ 01:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• I accept Tony and nom's reasoning; it's a good article, but remove as FA. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Still produces good criteria as a featured article. 210.0.198.76 13:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Remove while playing his "Lacrymosa" in the background. *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 06:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Iraqi insurgency

Article is no longer a featured article

Copied from its talk page: This article is such an abominable mess that I'm summarily removing its featured article status. The writing is some of the worst I've seen on a Wikipedia article, it's in a state of flux, and it's full of unreferenced statements and opinion represented as fact. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC). Rather than summarily removing it let's discuss its merits and then decide. It was also nominated here three months ago: old nomination. Worldtraveller 12:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The original FAC is here. JDR 16:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Remove. Contains multiple images without any license and those that claim fair use have no rationale, and some aren't needed to illustrate the article. Like the blurry one of a person loading a missile. - 131.211.51.34 12:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

That was my comment. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Two points: 1) there is no process for summary removal, so well done for bringing it here, and 2) and I now change my vote to remove. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. While the article does have a lot of interesting info and decent references, it lacks the overall cohesiveness of a well-put-together article and instead reads as a list of items related to the Iraq insurgency. There are also a number of inaccuracies, such as this statement in the lead: "Much of the insurgents' violence is directed at the police and defence forces of the Iraqi government." In the last few months, the insurgency has focused on causing civilian casualties. I also don't see any info on the fighting that has occured between the different insurgent groups.--Alabamaboy 13:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment—Starts quite well, then the rot sets in. Appallingly written towards the end. Lacks cohesiveness. Someone had better repair it quick smart. Tony 13:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Remove-Normally I'd suggest just reverting to the revision for which it was made featured, but this is an topic that demands a continually updated and improved article. Those updates and improvements simply haven't been made. However, remember we're not voting to delete; I can see this possibly earning featured again in the future. Superm401 | Talk 16:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep From the various positons on it's becoming a FAC. The article covers the necessary view that "the resistance" as it isn't a singular entity, unlike most journalists on the topic. It has "heaps of info" (aka., list of items related to the Iraq insurgency) and "Covers pretty much everything" .... and, as to being in a "state of flux", something that goes along with being a "current event" . Sincerely, JDR 16:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. This article is an embarrassment and has been for some time. There is some good stuff in here no doubt, and the article does try to deal with the complexity of the situation, but it has been the victim of so many edit wars and POV-related edits that it will take a while to separate the signal from the noise here. It also probably will not be improved any time soon until people both pro- and anti-war stop trying to use this article as their political soapbox. Obviously there are important political issues here, but the language should be encyclopedic, not politically charged, and debates over the political meaning of terms (such as "insurgency" and "resistance") should not be elided or wished away.--csloat 17:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. Many thanks to Worldtraveller for doing what I did not. I removed the article summarily because I assessed that there would be overwhelming support for this action in the interests of Wikipedia (WP:IAR) but this turned out to be wrong so when the article was restored I did not pursue the matter further. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Remove regarding JDR's comment, the fact that something being in a state of flux goes along with being a current event is why we don't normally nom current events to be FAs. Re:stability criteria. Borisblue 21:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. I support Tony's rather rash decision to remove it even it may appear somewhat high-handed. He is absolutely right that this is a no-brainer since it's about a current event that might take years to stabilize, something which should've been recognized in the original FAC. Demanding a proper vote when it's blatantly obvious that it doesn't live up to the FA criteria strikes me as overly bureaucratic. / Peter ^Isotalo 15:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Remove From reading the FAC archive, the article was a good one at the time. But lately it seems to have been taken over by a group of pro-Bush POV pushers, whose standards of writing are not the highest. JMaxwell 03:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)