Wikipedia:Featured article review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reviewing featured articles Shortcut: WP:FAR This page facilitates the review of featured articles and the subsequent removal of the featured status of those that still fail to meet the featured article criteria after the review process. There are two categories in the process: the featured article review (FAR) and featured article removal candidate (FARC) lists. Articles cannot be listed directly as FARCs; they must first undergo a FAR. The ideal outcome of the review period is to have concerns addressed and the review closed without progressing to the FARC list. However, articles will be sent to the removal list if additional time is needed to maintain FA standards. Please consider only posting one FAR request at a time. We have limited resources! Older reviews are stored in the archive. Purge the cache to refresh this page	Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured pictures Featured lists Featured portals Featured topics Featured sounds Featured article tools: Featured article criteria Featured article candidates Featured article review "Today's featured article" This month's queue Main page requests Featured article log Featured article statistics Former featured articles
Featured article reviews (FARs) FARs are intended to facilitate a range of improvements to FAs, from updating and relatively light editing—including the checking of references and their formatting—to addressing more involved issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness and POV. When listing here, a nominator must specify these criteria and may propose remedies. The nomination should last two weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Here, reviewers do not declare "keep" or "remove". If the consensus is that the deficiencies have been addressed, the review is closed; if not, the article is placed on the FARC list. A nomination need not be made with the goal of removal. Minor reviews of articles that are generally up to standard, but may require a copy-edit, are welcome. Older FAs are held to the current standards. Articles that were recently promoted should not be listed here (three months is typically regarded as the minimum interval between promotion and listing here, unless there are extenuating circumstances). After nominating, consider notifying the relevant parties (Template:FARMessage—inserting the article name at {{subst:FARMessage|Articlename}}—may be useful). These include the main contributors to the article (identifiable through the edit history page), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the featured article log), and any relevant WikiProjects. Nominators are asked to improve an article that they nominate for review to the best of their ability. Please do not add reviews for pages that are Today's Featured Article or listed as one of the three recently featured. Nominating an article for FAR 1. Place {{FAR}} (upper case) at the top of the talk page of the nominated article. Write "FAR listing" in the edit summary box. Hit "Save page". 2. From there, click on the "add a comment" link. 3. Place ===[[name of nominated article]]=== at the top of the subpage. 4. Below this title, write your reason(s) for nominating the article, specifying the FA criterion/criteria that are at issue. Hit "Save page". 5. Click here, and place at the top of the list of nominated articles, {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/name of nominated article}}, filling in the exact name of the nominated article. Hit "Save page". NB If an article has already been through the FAR/C process, use the Move button to rename the previous nomination to an archive. For example, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Television → Wikipedia:Featured article review/Television/archive1 Featured article removal candidates (FARCs) Articles are listed as FARCs only after undergoing a review in the Featured article review section. Reviewers may declare "keep" or "remove", supported by substantive comments that focus on the outstanding deficiencies in relation to the FA criteria. Reviewers who declare "remove" should be prepared to return towards the end of the process to strike out their objections if they have been addressed. If, after a period of review, the deficiencies have not been addressed and there is no obvious momentum to do so, the FA status is removed. If consensus has emerged that the changes have brought the article back to standard, the review is closed.

Contents 1 Featured article reviews 1.1 Jim Thorpe 1.2 GNU/Linux naming controversy 1.3 Attack on Pearl Harbor 1.4 Doctor Who missing episodes 1.5 Moorgate 1.6 United Kingdom corporation tax 1.7 Dred Scott v. Sandford 1.8 Nuclear weapon 1.9 The Simpsons 1.10 Humpback Whale 1.11 Aquarium 1.12 Supreme Court of the United States 1.13 Cannabis rescheduling in the United States 1.14 Global warming 1.14.1 Possible Restructuring 1.14.2 Mediation 1.14.3 Unstable 1.15 Invasion 1.16 Tamil language 1.16.1 Progressing well 1.17 Yellowstone National Park 2 Featured article removal candidates 2.1 Seabiscuit 2.1.1 Review commentary 2.1.2 FARC commentary 2.2 Royal Assent 2.2.1 Review commentary 2.2.2 FARC commentary 2.3 Beverage-can stove 2.3.1 Review commentary 2.3.2 FARC commentary 2.4 Architecture of Btrieve 2.4.1 Review commentary 2.4.2 FARC commentary 2.5 Caulfield Grammar School 2.5.1 Review commentary 2.5.2 FARC commentary 2.6 Commodore 64 2.6.1 Review commentary 2.6.2 FARC commentary 2.7 Éire 2.7.1 Review commentary 2.7.2 FARC commentary 2.8 Torchic 2.8.1 Review commentary 2.8.1.1 What on earth is all this happening? 2.8.2 FARC commentary 2.9 John Major 2.9.1 Review commentary 2.9.2 FARC commentary 2.10 Presuppositional apologetics 2.10.1 Review commentary 2.10.2 FARC commentary 2.11 Chemical synapse 2.11.1 Review commentary 2.11.2 FARC commentary 2.12 Suzanne Lenglen 2.12.1 Review commentary 2.12.2 FARC commentary 2.13 History of Alaska 2.13.1 Review commentary 2.13.2 FARC commentary 2.14 Representative peer 2.14.1 Review commentary 2.14.2 FARC commentary 2.15 Genesis (band) 2.15.1 Review commentary 2.15.2 FARC commentary 2.16 History of Poland (1945–1989) 2.16.1 Review commentary 2.16.2 FARC commentary

[edit] Featured article reviews

[edit] Jim Thorpe

Messages left on User_talk:Jeronimo, Olympics, and Baseball --Miskwito 04:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Messages left at Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Indigenous peoples of NA, and NFL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Fails 1(c), and probably 1(a), 1(d) and 2.

I don't think the prose is necessarily 'brilliant' or even compelling in some places:

• "As a result, Thorpe did not handle his brother's death very well, and ran away from school on several occasions. Hiram Thorpe then sent Jim to what is now known as Haskell Indian Nations University in Lawrence, Kansas, so that his son would not run away again."

In others, it reads too much like a sympathetic book written on Thorpe, rather than an encylcopedia article:

• "Unfortunately every square inch of the film has been lost to time. One of the ironies of Thorpe's life is that no footage exists of him in his athletic prime."
• "It was not Thorpe's first try at baseball, as would soon become known to the rest of the world."

Which brings us to 1d, neutrality. Section titles such as "A rising star", "An Olympic hero", and "Declared a professional" are not NPOV, nor, I think, is writing like "In October 1982, the IOC Executive Committee approved Thorpe's reinstatement. In an unusual ruling, however, they declared that Thorpe was now co-champion with Bie and Wieslander, even though both athletes had always said they considered Thorpe to be the only champion. In a ceremony on January 18, 1983, two of Thorpe's children, Gale and Bill, were presented with commemorative medals. (The original medals had both ended up in museums, but were stolen and are still missing.)"

With regards to criterion 2, the "Legacy" section in particular is poorly-formatted, and basically proseline. The most serious problem with the article, though, is that it's barely referenced at all. "Legends" and quotes aren't cited (e.g., "Legend has it that, when awarding Thorpe his prize, King Gustav said, "You, sir, are the greatest athlete in the world," to which Thorpe replied, "Thanks, King.""), but neither are almost all other claims, including his claimed Meskwaki name, or very specific data (e.g., "In his lackluster career, he amassed 91 runs scored, 82 runs batted in and a .252 batting average over 289 games."). By current standards, this wouldn't even be close to a GA, let alone a featured article. --Miskwito 03:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GNU/Linux naming controversy

Messages left at Linux and David Gerard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Violates 1a for being too complicated, 1d for putting gnu/linux first, 1e because it is a long time since 2004 and the article has changed greatly, and all of 2 (2a,2b,2c). Qwertydvorak 03:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attack on Pearl Harbor

Messages left at Shipwrecks, Hawaii, MilHist and United States. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This article was featured in 2004 before the current process was in place and it falls short of the current criteria in a number of significant ways:

1. Point of view. The article is written from the point-of-view of the USA. The background section is a potted history of Japan, and the USA is scarcely covered at all. The 'strategy', 'plans', 'organization' of the Imperial Japanese navy get sections but only the 'preparedness' of the USA. This contextualises it in US-centric account of Japanese growth and aggression. It's perfectly possible to give a neutral account of Pearl Harbor in its historical context while still making it clear that this particular battle was an unprovoked surprise attack. The POV continues into the sections on the battle itself, with plenty of detail about the heroics of American servicemen, and even a list of the winners of the Medal of Honor, and little material about heroic behaviour of anyone on the Japanese side or honours granted.
2. Focus. The article strays too far from its subject. The Meiji Restoration and the 9/11 attacks have little direct relevance to the article. The article could be much shorter and better for it.
3. Style. The prose often falls far short of brilliance; there are stub-sections and list-sections.
4. Accuracy and Citation. Many paragraphs of the sections on the impact of the attack strike me as dubious. There are a number of 'citation needed' templates; there is plenty of contestable material which lacks citation.

Regards, The Land 19:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This article has gotten some work done on it recently. After a sensible discusiion by both sides, some POV comments were removed from the beginning of the article. I disagree with the viewpoint that it lacks in Japanese comments and an explanation of their reasons for the attack. To add more would mean to go off topic completely. The 9/11 and Hiroshima/Nagasaki comments can be removed. However, the idea that it is US centric is tough to dispute, since most of the contributors are going to be US citizens. How many British featured articles don't have a strong British POV, for example? Overall, the article is strong, and should remain a featured article, in my opinion. CodeCarpenter 21:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doctor Who missing episodes

Messages left at User talk:Khaosworks, England and Doctor Who. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

While this still seems to be a quite well written comprehensive article, it has just 3 inline citations (plus one note) hence violating 1 c).--Konstable 13:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of the references are from external book sources, as you can see from the bottom of the page, so the sheer number of inline citations does not matter, as the references are quite clear. Anything else? Smomo 17:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but there aren't enough specific inline citations for all the facts presented in the article's prose. While book citations are nice, they need to be more specific, i.e. what book (and possibly which page number) the sources come from for each fact presented. To cite all the necessary stuff could take a while. While I would like to help, I don't have enough time at the moment. For anyone who takes on this job, I would reccomend the site of the Doctor Who Restoration Team, which contains plenty of information on the restorations and conditions of episodes for citations. Green451 17:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The "References" don't provide page numbers, so to be considered to cover 1c they would have to do so. Harvard referencing or inline citations usually cover 1c. LuciferMorgan 19:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moorgate

Messages left at User talk:Juntung, User talk:Morwen, UK notice board, England, London, Architecture and UK geography. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this, it has been a featured article for about a year and a half. However, i am not sure that the article meets all the current criteria, particularly the verifibility of many of the sections. Even though there are refere, it does not cite these in the text and so the information doesn't seem to be verified. Look at 1) c). Simply south 21:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United Kingdom corporation tax

Messages left at User talk:Jguk, UK notice board, and B&E. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Article has no inline references at all. Nssdfdsfds 15:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. This has been on my long list ever since jguk pushed it to FA in early 2005. I will have to see what I can do. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This was my comment as well when I reviewed it for WikiProject Taxation. Good article but I'd like to see inline citations. For someone not familiar with UK corporate taxes, it is difficult to verify with just a references section. Morphh ^(talk) 14:18, 04 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone willing to start on a list of the facts that are the highest priority to be cited directly? Basically those most central to the topic and or most controversial if there are any. Even though I know nothing about the topic, I'll pitch in where I can over the next couple weeks, but I won't be able to get to it right away. - Taxman ^Talk 02:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dred Scott v. Sandford

Messages left at TUF-KAT, Law, and U.S. Supreme Court cases. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This article was a featured in November 2004, but currently seems to be in a state of stagnation.

• Certain sections of the article is almost void of citations
• The lead section is not organized
• There has been recent vandalism to the page
• The Historical impact assessment section is lacking

Ustimika 13:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear weapon

"Brilliant prose" promotion; message left at MilHist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a brilliant prose promotion which could benefit from a review and tuneup. See also and External links need attention/pruning (per WP:EL, WP:NOT, and WP:GTL). Citation needs should be reviewed (one source used — http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/ — doesn't appear to meet WP:RS). The WP:LEAD needs attention. At 17KB of prose, is the article comprehensive? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• comment 5 sources are in the footnotes. That really isn't enough for a featured article.--Sefringle 20:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: provide a short note of the sources at the end of each chapter, for example links to all internet sources. That can be done in half an hour. And wikify the url sources by adding the dates when you retrieved information from them. Wandalstouring 08:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Simpsons

All but one of the images (the picture of the writing staff) are missing source information (one screenshot has the source as "The Simpsons", which is insufficient). Until source information is given on all the images in the article, it is not of featured article quality.

EDIT: Though I (Helltopay27) no longer have any qualms with the article, Zagalejo has expressed concern over prose quality and lack of sources as other issues that may keep this article from being up to FA standards.

This article has been nominated for the main page on April 19, and this process should go quickly for it to meet its deadline. If it is not, then it should be removed from as a Featured Article of the Day candidate. Helltopay27 20:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, why don't you post this complaint at the talk page before nominating it for FAR. The people here has too much to do already. Anyway, I will try and fix your objection within a few days. --Maitch 20:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

...Because it's a featured article when it clearly violates the featured article criteria, and therefore, never should've been listed as a featured article to begin with. I think that would, you know, be a priority. Simply posting it on the talk page doesn't acknowledge the fact that it shouldn't be a featured article. Helltopay27 20:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

If you post your complaint first at the talk page, you can get it fixed without bothering everybody else. --Maitch 20:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I am bothering everyone? I'm sorry that I'm forcing everyone that I'm bothering into performing a standard function of this website. Helltopay27 20:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I noticed your complaint on the FP request page and we were already trying to get image sources before you even did this. -- Scorpion 22:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, thanks. The only thing that doesn't have source information is the cast photo. I've removed my objection to its main page appearance; however, it seems that some others here have issues with the article's featured status other than images. Helltopay27 22:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that image source queries belong on the talkpage, and that a month-long FAR process is unnecessary in regard to images. — Deckiller 21:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Maitch has given every image bar Image:Simpsons cast.png and Image:Simpsons on Tracey Ullman.png a correct source. I have asked the guy who uploaded them both originally, before they were FU reduced, to see if he can give the source. Gran² 10:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Helltopay27, per WP:FAR instructions, would you mind notifying WikiProjects listed on the talk page with {{subst:FARMessage|The Simpsons}} ? The original author is aware. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have done so. Thanks for pointing that out; I didn't notice it on the FAR instructions. Helltopay27 23:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment There are other problems besides the images. Lots of things lack adequate sources, and the quality of prose is inconsistent. The plot section, in particular, needs a major overhaul. Also, the article should say something about Education in The Simpsons, which is a major theme (at least it was during the golden years). I have a few other comments that have been sitting in the talk page; some have been addressed, but some haven't. (If my comments aren't clear, please say so!) Zagalejo 02:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • As said before, we can't mention every single theme of the series. If you could be specific with the plot section, it would help. -- Scorpion 02:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You can't mention every theme, but, in order for the article to be reasonably comprehensive, we should say something about Springfield Elementary and the all jokes about the American education system. In the golden years, at least, that was a huge component of the show. If you went through every episode, you'd probably find more school-related jokes than political jokes. (Indeed, I think the article exagerrates the importance of the show's political commentary. Until recently, the show almost never addressed topical political issues. Most of its political jokes were general comments about corruption and incompetence.)

There are several problems with the plot section.

• This is a poorly-constructed sentence: "Some examples include: Richard Nixon shown as a friend of the devil in "Treehouse of Horror IV", George H. W. Bush was portrayed as a cantankerous nemesis to Homer in "Two Bad Neighbors", Al Gore's seemingly banal personality being ridiculed, Jimmy Carter as a breakdancing hick, Bill Clinton claiming to have engaged in bestiality in Homer to the Max (Clinton also called himself "...a pretty lousy President." in another episode), and the United Nations is frequently shown to be an incompetent and bickering organization." Review the article on parallelism.
• I also contest the claim that "the United Nations is frequently shown to be incompetent." Off the top of my head, I can only think of one episode that joked about the UN (You Only Move Twice). There may have been a few more, but the article suggests that UN-bashing is a common theme of the Simpsons, which isn't true.
• Claims like "There are many episodes of The Simpsons which are less pleasing to social conservatives" need to be sourced. Find some newspaper or magazine articles to support this statemtn. Though it's probably true, I don't actually recall any public outcry about Homer's Phobia, which is one example used in the article.
• Does the paragraph abot social conservatives really belong in "Plots," anyway? The reactions section might be more appropriate.
• This doesn't concern the plot section, but what the heck is a "quaternary character"? Someone like Nana Van Houten? Zagalejo 05:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Does the fact that the article is under review mean that it won't be able to make the main page on April 19, because that is the day we really want for it. -- Scorpion 02:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It should still be on the main page. I think it's somewhat unfair that an image problem is going to turn into a fiasco, so I don't think the editors should be penalized. But it will be a good idea to make the most of these next 19 days. — Deckiller 03:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Zagalejo, having brought its page up to FA staus I'm entirely sure that there was no public outcry towards Homer's Phobia. The only thing I found against it was the fact that a Russian used to try and get The Simpsons from Russian television, and that the censors were completely against it. So that statement should probably be changed or sourced, the source can then be added to the Homer's Phobia article. Gran² 10:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Update. All images have sources now. --Maitch 09:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Humpback Whale

Message left at WikiProject Cetaceans cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 12:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Some issues that need to be fixed: 1a/2a) The lead is not brilliant, and the excess of numbers and parentheses makes the section hard to read. 1c) The article is severely short of references; there are only two inline citations. 2b) The sections are a bit out of order, in my opinion. For example, the "Threats Beyond Hunting" section could follow "Whaling" in order to establish a smoother flow. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I do see some issues here, lack of comprehensiveness first and foremost. Information about the species itself (reproduction, taxonomy...) is underweighted compared to its interactions with humans (whalewatching, whaling, trivia). MOS problems include external jumps, too many external links, unnecessary redlinks, and unitalicized species name(s). Also contains a burgeoning and useless trivia section. These can be fixed easily, but comprehensiveness is a biggie. –Outriggr § 06:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The good thing is that Blue Whale, Sei Whale and Fin Whale are all featured and provide a good model to re-format the Humpback Whale page. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 11:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

OK - the article needs a description of the animal as a priority. Pretty basic really. The other 3 articles have a taxonomy section too. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 11:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comments Problems with WP:LEAD, WP:MSH, and external links (WP:EL, WP:NOT, pruning needed). Footnotes aren't formatted (see WP:CITE/ES). Popular culture has stubby sentences. Is this a citation, or what? The ingestion of saxitoxin, a PSP (paralytic shellfish poison) from contaminated mackerel has been implicated in humpback whale deaths.[Marine Mammal Medicine, 2001] External jumps—examples A photographic catalogue of all known whales in the North Atlantic was developed over this period and is today maintained by Wheelock College (here). and Some scientists (see Mercado). Lots to be done here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I got the LEAD into two paras now and it sorta summarises the article, though it desperately needs a description subsection...cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 00:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• I see a problem with the very small number of sources. Most of the material is unsourced--Sefringle 20:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• • I as the author of the originally FAed article can vouch that it was all sourced from sources given. Any newer material... well I didn't write it so it is not for me to say. Pcb21 Pete 22:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly somehow a major chunk of description got deleted some time after FA-hood. There is now some activity on the saving front. Makes me wonder about some form of semi-protection for FAs as a first step to article stability.....cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 01:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Unreal. Good job, whoever restored it. It amuses me that there is now a poll unprecedented in size about the semantics of attribution policy, yet no one in a leadership role offers any indication that they care about protecting (that's the "meatspace" version of the word "protect") what we're hypothetically here to do: build comprehensive articles. (So if I ever get Auguste Rodin to FA, it's still only as good as my watchlist. Enticing prospect. One really needs to be a Buddhist here.) –Outriggr § 02:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: Pete, can you see anything else missing? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 01:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

PPS: It was promoted to FA on June 29 2004, at which point it had 6 references. I wasn't around then but I don't think inline refs weren't a prerequisite for Featured Articles at the time. Pete, it would be great if you could inline the points which came from the refs, and consderably facilitate it passing this FAR. A great read by the way, I don't see it as too hard to streamline this one through. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 02:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes things have changed a lot since this was promoted, including my greatly reduced participation in the project. I think a full-retro fit will be a lot of work that I (to be honest) won't have time for/could be bothered with :-/. If there were one or two key things that needed a specific ref I could take a look, but if the ref requirements have got still more onerous, maybe we should look at de-FAing it. P.s. thank you for the great work on improving the article that you've done recently. Pcb21 Pete 07:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, if anything sticks out as simple and easy to fix, I for one would appreciate it. I think this is readily saveable, especially with the other whales as templates and the work done already.cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 08:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aquarium

Messages left at User talk:Bantman, Zoo and Fishes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is well written, however, there is minimal references and no attribution in the text. It's unclear to me which "facts" come from which sources. MidgleyDJ 05:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Remove from featured article status due to complete lack of citations. A remnant of the 'briliant prose' era that needs work.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 08:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • We don't opine whether to keep/remove during review; that is done if the article moves to FARC after a review period. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There is so much wrong here it wouldn't make sense to list all of it unless someone intends to work on it. If anyone plans to work on the article, I can provide a long list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• remove lack of citations and footnotes--Sefringle 20:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia: A list would be most helpful. I'm trying to gather support at Aq. Fishes. Other than the lack of citations/references (which is why I originally flagged it) what else is wrong? MidgleyDJ 23:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

List for MidgleyDJ (in no particular order), in addition to the lack of citations:

• Because this is the type of article that attracts photo additions, someone should doublecheck FairUse on all images. I don't speak Fair Use.
• Stubby sections, one-sentence paragraphs, one-sentence sections. Some consolidation of text might also make for a trimmer TOC.
• I've never seen an article with so many links to WikiCommons; I'm not sure what can be done about that.
• My browser renders a big chunk of white space at the top of See also, due to the size of the image above it.
• See also has red links, and should be cleaned up. Per WP:GTL, See also should be minimized, and links should be incorporated into the article text where possible.
• Another big chunk of white space in references, due to image placement. Why the image in refs?
• Blue-linked URLs in References that need to be formatted, see WP:CITE/ES or cite templates.
• Incorrect use of WP:DASH throughout; hyphens, en-dashes and em-dashes need to be sorted out.
• Non-breaking hard spaces needed between numbers and units of measurement, see WP:MOSNUM
• Attention to Wikilinking will be needed: for example, horticulturists.
• Thorough copyedit will be needed. Sample prose:
  • Popularization was also assisted by the availability of air freight, which allowed a much wider variety of fish to be successfully imported from distant regions of origin that consequently attracted new hobbyists.
  • Aquaria can be classified by several variables that determine the type of aquatic life that can be suitably housed.
  • Replace sign: a salt level of < 0.5 PPT
  • Choppy prose: The largest bacterial populations in a tank are found in the filter. Therefore efficient filtration is vital.
• I can't evaluate for comprehensiveness; hopefully the fishes people will come on board.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia, Thanks for the list. User:MiltonT and I are working towards getting this article on track for good article status. It seems unlikely, however, that we can get it to featured article status in the time remaining. MidgleyDJ 22:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If work is ongoing, and you keep us posted, extra time is always granted. Just be sure to let us know, and ask for any additional help or review you need. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Just looked. Goodness, what do you mean you won't make it in time? You've already made a lot of progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Supreme Court of the United States

Messages left at User talk:Lord Emsworth, United States, Law, Politics, and U.S. Supreme Court cases. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There are several issues: 1a) Some areas are a bit disorganized, such as "Quarters"; this section is very short and lacks general information on the structure of the building. 1c) There are only 5 inline citations for a moderately large article. 3) The seal at the top is corrupted, and should be replaced. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur with everything you said. Let's see if anyone responds. Maybe if I have time I'll track down some of the people who helped make it an FA and notify them. Aaron Bowen 19:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I edited some sections for clarity, but I don't want to be the final arbiter of the entire article because some of it, particularly the historical sections, are outside my area of expertise. ---Axios023 03:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comments. See also needs attention, per WP:LAYOUT. Important articles should be incorporated in the text where possible, minimizing See also. External links should be pruned per WP:EL and WP:NOT. References are incompletely formatted and have no recognizable consistent bibliographic style. All web sources should have publisher, last access date, and author/pub date where available. Quotes section has one quote—could be worked into the text. Dashes are used incorrectly—see WP:DASH. Templates (e.g.; further information) are employed mid-section—see WP:LAYOUT. The current membership table is unsightly, with one long column last. Mixed reference styles—some inline, others cite.php. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• remove not nearly enough citations or footnotes.--Sefringle 20:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cannabis rescheduling in the United States

Messages left at Rad Racer, Pharmacology, and Politics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is POV. It is written from a perspective supporting rescheduling this drug of abuse. It does not contain views of those who support the present regimen. It is not written in an encyclopedic tone and it is incomplete and out-of-date. It has a number of unsourced assertions and inaccuracies. Argos'Dad 03:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This article contains a section on Arguments against rescheduling, seems encyclopedic in tone and reasonably well sourced. Some info seems a bit out of date (article was featured over two years ago), but how is this POV? Gimmetrow 21:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comments Lead needs attention per WP:LEAD. First section, right out of the gate has an unencyclopedic heading (background), is listy, and relies on a long quote, which is uncited by the way. Section headings need WP:MSH attention. All websources need publisher and last access date. Footnotes are completely unformatted. References are out of control; are they all used as sources, or should some of them be Further reading? Mixed formatting styles; some are imbedded inline, others use cite.php. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Most citations are inline links, which is not surprising for a 2-year old FA. The citation format and MoS issues can be handled. From a quick sampling, it appears a good number of the inline links correspond to something listed in References, although many of the actual links are now broken (eg, http://www.incb.org/e/conv/1961/ which is the last reference). The cite.php footnotes are mostly in one section expanded some time after FA promotion. Gimmetrow 02:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Are you thinking of trying to save this one? If so, and if no one else does it, I can eventually work on ref cleanup, but I wonder who will do the rest (don't like to work on refs if other problems aren't addressed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global warming

Messages left at WikiProject Climate change, WikiProject Environment, WikiProject Meteorology, Natalinasmpf, and Blue Tie.

This article blatantly fails to meet FA criteria 1(d) and 1(e), i.e. neutrality and stability. Since the first week of March 2007, there has been an ongoing POV discussion on the talk page, culminating in an edit war the last few days. During this conflict, NPOV and weasel word tags were inserted and removed. Yesterday, a mediatation was initiated, after which the article soon had to be protected to contain the edit war. This article clearly cannot be labeled as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community under these circumstances. The fact that stability is no longer achieved needs no assertion. And as long as a significant minority (or perhaps even a majority) disagrees that the article is NPOV, we cannot define it to be as such. Nick Mks 17:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

So long as a few of the weaselly words can be removed and some other minor points can be addressed, I think the NPOV can be dealt with fairly easily. It's up to the dissenters though to take the initiative and agree to remove the weasel words (or provide a source other than Wikipedia that reiterates the statements). On stability, I agree the article is not stable, and has not been for quite a while. ~ UBeR 18:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's some todo I think is necessary.

• Shorten the lede (not long enough to warrant 5 paragraphs)
• Terminology is very short, compared to the other sections. It should be expanded or moved, IMO.
• Get sources for every statement
• Shorten further reading (if some of them are references, they don't need to be listed twice)
• Pre-human Global warming and Pre-Industrial Global warming should be further to the top. It doesn't make sense to have the earliest stuff be last
• Mitigation should be expanded, given how important of a topic it is
• Attributed and expected effects should be later on, given that they're in the future
• Re-read and re-write to ensure it flows well

Hurricanehink (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is just fine. The problem is that there is one group of people (William Connolley, Raymond Arritt, Stephen Schultz, 'etc) who are interested in keeping this article factually accurate, well cited, 'etc, and another group of POV pushers who are interested in pushing their anti-global warming POV into this article (Rameses, Britannia, Blue Tie, 'etc). They don't have a leg to stand on, factually, so they complain of POV, because POV is subjective and therefore it's harder to show they are flatly wrong. Raul654 19:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong disagree. The users you mention (William Connolley, Raymond Arritt, Stephen Schultz, 'etc) are the ones who are stubborn about introducing weasel words into the article yet they flatly refuse to provide a citation establishing consensus. These users appear to believe that WP:A doesn't apply to them. --Tjsynkral 23:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong disagree. I completely agree with the above quote by Tjsynkral. --Sm8900 19:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong disagree. I stand with Tjsynkral & Sm8900. The machine512 00:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a whole article of sources available - the trouble isn't that they refuse to provide sources - it is that you refuse to accept them (even if cited on page). Subtle difference. --Kim D. Petersen 09:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The stubborn use of weasel words has been demonstrated (see this discussion as well as this one). William M. Connolley most notably said that he sees "no need for a precise definition of 'climate scientist'". And the idea of a consensus, being built from a presumption that all the anonymous scientists in the world agree since they have not expressed disagreement, remains original research. --Childhood's End 14:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, "a presumption that all the anonymous scientists in the world agree since they have not expressed disagreement" is pretty much the only way anyone establishes consensus isn't it, once those who want to have spoken? --BozMo talk 15:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

In this case, no. There exists no scientist on Earth that can wholly scientifically invalidate climate change predictions - they can only give opinions with regard to their specific fields of knowledge (climatology involves dozens of different fields of research). It could thus be that there are scientific agreement with regard to certain specific aspects of climate evolution, but when it comes to the whole idea of anthropogenic global warming, the idea of a consensus is OR. --Childhood's End 15:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence pretty much sums up the incredible huztpah of the "anthropogenic global warming is a lie" group. Even sceptical scientists now agree that human activities are resulting in a warming climate, but simply say that cannot ascertain how much. ^[1][2] . The scientists in related fields that do contribute to the article are under almost constant barrage by those who obtain their opinions from information sources shaped by political and/or vested interests. I agree with Raul, Connelly, and others that this article is stable, balanced, and FA-worthy. --Skyemoor 19:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Research yes, but not original research surely? The whole point of the IPCC reports and vast list of signatories for their reports which give huge ranges in forecast and conclusion is that they are a consensus. You have to have a prejudiced view about the IPCC not to accept this: now please listen when I say that there may be all sorts of reasons to doubt the IPCC, but those reasons (valid though they may be) are where we are lacking notable sources, surveys of scientists and where we are in the realms of OR. There is not any kind of serious grouping (e.g. not more than for evolution) who oppose the IPCC conclusions as far as I can see. --BozMo talk 18:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem, BozMo, is the inclusion of what is either original research, a simple POV, or synthesis (counts as OR). If no source is saying it, why should we? If you can't find a reliable source that is saying what you are trying to include in the article, it's inclusion is meritless. It's really a simple idea, and I do not understand why a select few of you wish to gripe with this policy. ~ UBeR 19:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's also about a misleading characterization of how the IPCC produces its reports. The contributors do not contribute to the whole reports, as the misleading concept of "climate scientists" wishes us to think. Each scientist contributes to a small part of them in his research field and has no scientific idea about the validity of the whole thing. --Childhood's End 20:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I am listening, but synthesis AFAICT is only original research if it is done "in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor". Without NPOV synthesis Wikipedia basically couldn't exist, we do it everywhere. So are you saying that the synthesis of IPCC is being done with a POV by WP editors, or that the IPCC reports themselves summarise with a bias or both? If the former, take me through what the IPCC summaries say. If the latter refuting a synthesis by a credible organisation is problematic and OR: lets find someone credible who has done it and quote them. --BozMo talk 20:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that if you do not have a source outside of Wikipedia for something you are trying to include (for whatever reason), then do not add it! I'm honestly trying to make this as simple and basic as I can so I can illustrate my point. Wikipedia isn't about truth; it's about verifiability. If sources aren't saying, neither should we. ~ UBeR 20:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And what we have said dozens of times is that we even have quotes of sceptics saying there is a consensus they oppose. As for quoting other references in WP (if that's what you mean), we follow WP:SUMMARY. --Skyemoor 00:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This same old argument, even after I explained it to you? Wikipedia is not a reliable source. (I can bold too, you know.) Here, I'll prove it to you with a quote: "Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation are not regarded as reliable sources." I don't know how I can make myself any clearer. Can anyone who actually understands my logic here help me explain this simple point? I mean, I could explain how the WP:OR policy supports this conclusion, but if this simple idea cannot be grasped, I don't think it prudent to even bother. As for WP:SS, this applies to overly long sections that merit summarizing main points from what might be a more extensive article. It, of course, does not bar references in the article it's being summarized in. It does, however, limit it to sections, not leads. Read over the policy again. ~ UBeR 01:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You avoided acknowledging the point above about skeptics agreeing that there is AGW, just not sure how much. As for referring to other portions of WP, please quote the portion of WP:Summary that states that one cannot refer to references from spin-out articles in the lede. I have asked this same question before with no answer. --Skyemoor 01:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You avoid acknowledging I'm correct. I don't care which skeptics agree there is AGW (could they really be defined as skeptics, as such?), because so long as you aren't citing them, it means nothing to Wikipedia. Wikipedia cares not for your original research, but rather verifiable data. If you're refusing to allow verifiability for what you're writing in Wikipedia, not much can be done. As for my discussion on WP:SS, maybe you're not looking hard enough. Try Talk:Global warming for starters. ~ UBeR 01:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Those skeptics who agree that there is some AGW are on the skeptic list at Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming and I indeed cited 3 of them above (which you avoided acknowledging above). You have again refused to support your claim about the lede being limited to what can be referenced, so we are left without any basis for your claim yet again. --Skyemoor 13:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as stability here is the diff for the last 500 edits, to March 5. 500 edits in three weeks is not all that uncommon for a high profile article like this. Furthermore, if you look at the diff, the content itself has barely changed - it's almost exclusively confined to changing the style of the references. In other words, there is no stability problem here at all. Raul654 19:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It is possible that Raul is correct about stability. However, if my experience on that page is an indication, the reason it is stable is over-zealous protection by a few editors who will revert and remove contributions by other editors in short order. Hence, their contributions remain stable over time.

I have already suggested a re-structuring of the article on the talk page. Other reviewers here have also suggested restructuring in this FAR. So it might be a reasonable idea. But it is rejected by the current guardians. --Blue Tie 02:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Raul. The article is stable, as the diff shows. The NPOV and weasel tags are spurious. The medcabal case is irrelevant. I disagree with some of Hh:

• The lead can be re-paragraphed, but thats trivia
• Terminology needs to be high up to be useful; it was once a side-box and was better as such, IMHO
• There is no reason to list things in chronological order. Pre-human stuff is of minor interest and so is best low down
• Mitigation is a sub-article
• Attributed and expected is important so needs ot be near the top

William M. Connolley 21:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC) (belated sig - date wrong by about 2h)

Not to get in the middle of high emotions, but a factor in reviewing this article has to be how much of the article is or should be for Global warming as fact or against. People have used Undue weight as an argument, but that would presume that Global warming is believed by most people or scientists, or that that matters more than science. Science is not subject to peoples opinions or emotions, so perhaps this article needs extensive copyediting for neutrality rather than de-featuring. Judgesurreal777 21:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree what you said. Science is not a subject that allows emotions to take its course. They need facts and theories to back up the findings. This is why scientific journals (e.g. Nature) requires extensive scientific community peer review prior to publishing articles. OhanaUnited 01:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not contributed any of the text in the article but have been around it reverting vandalism etc for a while. I supported the request for a review but the summary at the top of this FAR bears no relationship to the reality of the article. In my opinion the article easily meets the requirements for neutrality and stability (compare it to a random choice from a couple of months ago: it evolves slowly thats all). The problem with the article is that it represents a fair selection (tip of the iceberg) of the spectrum of scientific view and gives due weight to small minority views, whereas a small number of editors have repeatedly tried to get undue weight to these views. The article does not reflect my own views on Global Warming, but it does reflect consensus in the scientific literature as far as I can tell. This review will be useful if it achieves one thing: making other Wikipedians with a scientific background aware that a flagship article is in danger of being seriously undermined by a narrow interest group. The behaviour of the attacking minority has been raised repeatedly at WP:AN/I but they always manage to swamp the complaint with so much additional material nothing much comes of it. --BozMo talk 09:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There is really too much personal attack and defense going on here. It should be about the article and its quality. I view it as a weakness of those declaring the article to be of high quality that they should personally attack the individual editing instead of focusing on the article and the facts. If these are in your favor, there is no need for personal attack.

As far as a "flagship" article.. it is very good, but it is not perfect. It has NPOV problems. It appears that the article is suffering from ownership problems. There is no baby being killed here, but perhaps the main editors of the article feel like they are under personal attack when their article changes. Other editors may suggest changes and these should not be immediately condemned as they are. The whole process on wikipedia is to discuss. It does not happen on this page though. Instead, new editors are insulted. This page is not so wonderful that it cannot be significantly improved. And if it would take the fall of a so-called "flagship" article to bring some civility to the talk page there then I would vote for that in an instant.--Blue Tie 02:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There is >300 kb of talk page content in just the last three weeks. It does get "discussed", but a large part of that discussion is pointless because a number of people don't approach it in good faith but rather use the talk page merely to advocate for their own preconceived notions, without any concern for seeing the other side. I've followed global warming since way before it was featured, and I don't believe the presense (or absense) of the featured label will have any lasting effect on the amount of conflict it generates. Dragons flight 03:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you and it is sad to think about. --Blue Tie 03:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This artical sucks. It is totally a position artical and should only have facts, not oppinions. Leave the opinions to the consumers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.86.167.112 (talk • contribs).

What specifically is opinion in this article? It looks like there is a citation for most sentences, and only two "citation needed" tags. Overall, pretty good for a controversial topic. Gimmetrow 21:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe the article should be featured -- yet. I believe it can be greatly improved in terms of structure (but perhaps not in content). I also believe that it is not exactly neutral. I believe that this is a matter of experts with too much depth in the subject and passion for the subject editing it. I would also add, that I have been falsly accused of being a POV pusher. That is a false charge. --Blue Tie 23:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe a lot of the people complaining on this FAR about this article (specifically its neutrality) have no interest in doing productive work on the article. With their "help" this article would never have become a featured article. So claiming it's not a featured article "yet" is transparently disingenuous. Raul654 16:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with these accusations or their very appearance here, but at least you are open regarding your biases. One of the standards for defining ethical behavior is to ask "What if everyone behaved like this?" With you I would ask: "What if everytime there were disagreements, each side truly believed the other side was not interested in productive work but just disruption?" This is in direct opposition to the standards on wikipedia that say we should assume good faith. That is a standard that you, especially, should hold up high and live by example, yet you do not as you cop to above. How can others be expected to behave to a level of quality that wikipedia leaders do not abide by? Yet you will sit in judgment upon them. I have tried very hard, and am continuing to try to work with serious intent to improve the article, yet I have not been given a moment of consideration. No hard feelings about that, but your accusations would not hold up to scrutiny nor do your attitudes comport well with policy. --Blue Tie 17:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. - Wikipedia:Assume good faith Raul654 18:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Raul654, I strongly suggest you retract your previous statements declaring those who have discussed in this FAR have no intentions in contributing in good faith and productively on global warming. Wikipedia asks you assume good faith. Because you disagree with them gives you no right to avoid this rule, considering you have no evidence to the contrary. ~ UBeR 19:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The evidence is manifold - Tony's off-wiki attack site (Right to Race), the sockpuppeting I uncovered using checkuser (Rameses, Britannia, Persephone), your now-deleted hit-list, and the blatantly biased edits you and others have been making to this article. Contrast that with William et al's infinite patience in putting up the never-ending supply of POV warriors who attack that page, and leave a month later only to be replaced by someone else - yourself included. William et al have gotten this article up to FA status despite the handicap of having to deal with such users. Raul654 19:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Considering you have not been involved in the article or this dispute whatsoever, your judgment is very poor. Considering you have made no real observations of either of latter claims, your faulty logic will be ignored. ~ UBeR 22:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

A small POV section of editors (who come, go, and for the most part are replaced a few months later) have been waging war against this article for years now. It's been made a FA despite their efforts, and should stay that way. The controversy here has no correlation to reality. Mostlyharmless 10:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Raul654 16:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps even non-POV editors come and go because the guardians are so strict and even abusive that it discourages people from participating. --Blue Tie 17:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any evidence of this, unless you mean strict in the sense of enabling the pillars of WP. --Skyemoor 15:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the article has been protected. It is not going anywhere for now. Would editors please be so kind as to state their objections to the current revision. As far as I can tell Hink and William Conelley are the only ones who have stated their objections clearly, but these don't seem to be enough to remove this article from Featured status. Please be civil and cool-headed beyond this point. Thank you. -RunningOnBrains 17:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a poll on the talk page to unprotect the page and revert to a particular old revision, which curretly has a high degree of support. Raul654 18:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That I can see. Still, I'd like to concentrate on the FAR, as discussion regarding that must occur here. Otherwise it will by default retain its FA status, and I'd rather see one of our project's articles removed than a sub-standard article remain an FA. I have not read the article fully yet, but I'd like to know if the consensus is that it needs reviewing or not. -RunningOnBrains 20:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The article seems to suffer from a severe case of WP:OWN. Any attempts to raise attribution, POV, or synthetic OR concerns get reverted on sight, preventing other editors from being made aware of issues on the article. --Facethefacts 22:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

To Running: Yes per nom and Facethefacts and the rest of the discussion above. ~ UBeR 01:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

To Running: No Support FA Status, per the discussion above. The complaints are from some who have a particular POV that only has tiny minority status among scientists, though there is still much discussion amongst politicians and pundits. Since the article is focused on the science, any political/punditry predilections should be identified on Global warming controversy. The article retains the quality required to continue its FA status. --Skyemoor 15:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Have to agree with Skyemoor on both counts. I haven't written more than a couple of words in the article but am often on the talk pages where these accusations keep being made. I keep asking what the substance of the POV complaint is and just get non-sequitors and abuse back from what seem to be a minority group of people who want to slant the article with fringe views and upset everyone in the process. I find it rather tiring and have complained at AN/I Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive198#Personal_attacksWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive77#Reigning_in_Uber.27s_trolling but this hasn't stopped e.g. [1] --BozMo talk 15:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

BozMo, I urge you to retract your statements. Once again, you fail to assume good faith. Is the view that statements should be sourced so fringe? Oh, really, BozMo? Is my view that original research should be withheld from articles a fringe view? Oh, really, BozMo? Is my view that attribution should be given to sources a fringe view? Oh, really, BozMo? Admittedly, it might upset those who insert their POV and unsourced claims, because these rules prevent this very thing. But that is not a good enough reason to ignore them. You you should also note the author of the previous complaint was unable to convene any evidence for his unfounded claims. Shame. ~ UBeR 22:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The views you present are mixed. I am happy to acknowledge that some of your contributions are appropriate and that some of the changes you make are improvements. However, I still find the way you conduct yourself often uncivil, personal and aggressive however good faith you are. And although with good faith I am happy to believe you are convinced that there is a valid POV complaint I still find your replies full of non-sequitors and don't know what the real complaint is. --BozMo talk 15:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I thought we already discussed this. I'm trying to figure out how I can make my message any clear, but it's difficult. I do not see how if a statement isn't sourced it does not follow that it should not be included in Wikipedia. Sequitur. It follows. However, note the current version is fine. ~ UBeR 22:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It is unclear to me how people can claim that this article has the stability a FA requires. In the 30 hours following unprotection, there have been 53 substantial edits to the article, a countless number of them involving (sometimes full) reverts or POV/weasel word allegations. It is also my conviction that if a minority (no matter how small) continues to be of the opinion that this article is not NPOV, their concerns should be taken into account, or at least acknowledged on the article page. Not by allowing them to include whatever they want of course, but ignoring or supressing their opinion just because some of them are alledged trolls (if I can believe the above, I'm not choosing sides here) is just as unacceptable. And certainly if this is done to preserve FA status at all cost. I hate to make the comparison, but look at George W. Bush. This is also a flagship article (as you like to call this one), it's even one of the most edited articles, but due to constant problems is not featured either. I'm afraid this is just something we'll have to live with concerning controversial subjects. Nick Mks 15:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Apart from a couple of page blankings (and there's a semi-prot on now) I don't see any of the changes in the last 30 hours as substantial? The odd word or reference here or there but personally I would have been happy with any of the versions in this time: not that I wouldn't want the odd bit of polish. --BozMo talk 15:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Support FA status I personally have no qualms with the article. It is an ongoing issue, so of course there will be frequent edits to the article. However, it remains balanced and reflects scientific opinion on the subject very well. As other editors have already stated, the complaints about POV stem from very small minority viewpoints, and there is no reason to give significant weight to them. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 16:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Support FA status Concerns about stability don't seem to have enough merit; I've seen real edit wars and this seems more like some minor quabbling over some wording.

I do have a few minor qualms however:

• "Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming and sea level rise are expected to continue for more than a millennium even if no further greenhouse gases are released after this date." This could use a source, it is an important assertion.
• The "Global dimming" section is a stub, either merge it or expand it from the main article.
• Fix the few "citation needed" areas.
• Why does a single scientist with an admittedly minority view get a whole section? ("Pre-industrial global warming") If he is notable enough to mentioned so prominantly, there should be some sort of reference to the effect.

Other than that, I don't see many problems. Of course, I wasn't looking too hard for weasel words, can anyone spot any? -RunningOnBrains 18:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As for weasel words, I have pointed in an earlier discussion that "climate scientist" is weasel wording and it remains a problem in this article (2 occurences as of now). For example, in the Mitigation subsection, we have "The broad agreement among climate scientists that global temperatures will continue to increase...". To who does this refer exactly? Each is left to guess. Please read these discussions (see this as well as this). This sort of wording is stubbornly used by climate activists roaming this article in order to give a false feeling of authority to claims that cannot be verifiable otherwise. Besides, I'm all willing to support the FA status if this sort of problem can be resolved. --Childhood's End 19:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

To answer one of your points, Brains, Mr. Connolley has reverted any content added to the global dimming section. As to why Pre-Industrial Warming has so much content and very little helpful information, I do no know why it is expanded so much, especially considering his data is disputed. ~ UBeR 22:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to ROB for some helpful comments. Continued warming - its essentially obvious, but the AR4 says it bottom of p17. I've put that in. Global dimming - is nothing but a pointer to the GD article. If there is a better way to link it, I'd be happy to hear it. Pre-ind warming is a fairly short section (I'm afraid I don't understand so much content and very little helpful information). The view is marginal but not obscure... its not big enough to be its own article (yet). In scientific terms, the view is probably as well supported as the solar variation stuff, which gets far more prominence William M. Connolley 22:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the removal of the protection, this article has been steeped in POV edit warring by both sides. It is not stable due to these continued efforts to push one side's extremist view or the other's. There is no middle ground, apparently. Recommend de-featuring due to lack of stability and, apparent, POV problems. Kyaa the Catlord 04:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since unprotection we have done fairly well. While there still is quibbling about some details, very many of the edits are constuctive (if small).--Stephan Schulz 08:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed: it has been rather peaceful and constructive for a bit/--BozMo talk 14:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There is not even a question that this page has a completely warped and biased point of view about Global Warming. The graph to the upper right of the page is labeled "Global mean surface temperatures from 1850 to 2006" and shows a huge increase over the last 20 years. However the index is labeled "Temperature Anomaly" with a spread of -.6 to +.6 C. Which is it? To a high school student it looks like global temperatures are increasing wildly which is I'm sure the point of view that the hysterics would like to convey. Either show a graph with actual temperatures for that time period or label it correctly to negate the clear slant in POV that there has been some huge increase in temperatures. Why am I the only person to point this out? I'm not even a Climatologist and I can see this without cracking a book? Connelley edits this page to correct grammar but yet ignores this type of gross misrepresentation and you wonder why people question the wisdom of being locked out of correcting this page.

The above critique of the article was left by Showman, deleted by Raul and then returned to the page by Showman. I believe that it is a fair critique of a graph in the article, one that I had also wondered about, and should not be deleted. However, I have moved it from the top of the section nearer to the bottom where it should have appeared originally. --Blue Tie 20:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see a POV problem. It in no way pushes a point, and all axes are clearly labeled. If someone is too lazy to even read what is represented on the graph, of course they are not going to get an accurate idea of what the graph is portraying, but how can we guard against that?? Why is it our responsibility if the person doesn't actually read anything?-RunningOnBrains 23:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That is because I added anomaly to the description after he pointed it out. ~ UBeR 23:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the scale of the graph was also an issue somehow. Perhaps the idea being that a few degrees is not a big deal? I think that with a long-enough time period displayed, the difference from a mean is the better way to go. But perhaps a graph that shows average temperatures and not difs from mean would be interesting too. --Blue Tie 14:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The actuals are not known as well as the anomalies. But since all it involves is shifting the whole graph up or down by a constant, or rather adding a constant to the labels on the y-axis, what difference would it make? If we're down to this level of trivia, the articles FA status is secure William M. Connolley 14:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that the chart is a problem, an appropriately labeled and discussed, it is fine. ZBut I think the comment creates an interesting sort of problem. It would seem, based upon what I read, that the person writing there wants to see what they would call the "real" temperature. Maybe degrees C above zero. I think what he or she is getting at is the relative difference of temperature. Expand the scale and the numbers look smaller. But then, the only absolute temperature scale I can think of is Kelvin and that would too substantially minimize the graph. However, recognizing that this is the line of thinking that some folks may have when they see such a graph, somehow it would be a good thing to include words or discussion about the "how" of measuring the warming trend. I do not exactly know how to do this efficiently but I think somehow, some folks will think "Oh, only 2 degrees? When the "average" is maybe 25, thats not so bad." The article should help (or should direct to an article that helps) improve this understanding. I am also thinking of tipping points. In superconductors, bathed in LN or LH, you can get a localized hot spot that will raise the local resistance. This is unstable and can spread through the whole mass, sometimes with interesting results. But the localized hot spot might only be a few degrees different from the rest. I see it as analogous. Anyway, I do not think this added education of the casual reader is necessary for it to be FA, but I think there can be other improvements.--Blue Tie 15:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Restructuring

In addition to issues with regard to POV on this page, one of the criticisms of wikipedia articles is that they are created and edited "piecemeal" and as a result they lose a sense of consistency and cohesiveness. In addition, the overall structure is sometimes a bit hodge-podge. I think this article suffers less than most but I also think that the POV in the authors caused structure issues and the whole article could be improved by re-organizing the current content and then filling in holes or (in a few cases) deleting extraneous material or moving it to a better page. I have noticed in other articles that go through a restructuring process that starts with an outline, that some huge holes emerge that were previously overlooked.

I am currently working on a re-organization along the lines of:

• Introduction (Summary)
• What Global Warming is (and how it comes about)
  • Factors that may produce Global Warming (The science of how it works)
    • Greenhouse gases
    • Solar Radiation
    • etc?
  • Factors that may mitigate Global Warming (The science of how it is reduced)
    • Aerosols
    • Volcanism & Disasters
    • Clouds and Albedo
    • etc?
• How Global Warming is Studied (and the history of its studies)
  • Historical Global Temperature Studies
  • The (alleged) role of civilization on Global Temperature Variation
  • Projections of Global Temperatures
• Possible effects of higher temperatures on other Climate and Environment factors
• Debates over Global Warming, forecasts and actions
  • An explanation of the difficulty in developing and interpreting evidence
  • Debates over the existance of the phenomenon
  • Debates over the role of man in the phenomenon
  • Debates over climate forecasts
  • Debates over efforts to mitigate anticipated warming

Where there are separate articles that cover these sections, they should be summarized reasonably and linked. The introduction should summarize these sections and should be written both first and then scrapped and re-written over again after everything is consolidated. This would produce a better article that would not face as much resistance if the old article were not FA. --Blue Tie 20:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The article excellent as is. There is no reason to do a rewrite. And your rewrite is a POV whitewash of massive proportions. Case and point - where does your rewrite mention a no-so-tiny detail like how much temperatures have gone up as a result of global warming? The 16th paragraph. Raul654 20:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not consider it a re-write. I consider it a restructuring. I used the outline described above. I have not changed any wording from the version that I brought over from the article page. I just changed the order of things along the lines of the outline above because the current article is sometimes a bit convoluted and jumps around a bit. I created the outline without any particular agenda in mind except to present the subject in a logical order. I would expect all aspects of the various elements, including temperature increases to be described in the lead (or lede as some say it), which I have not written because I have not finished anything yet. First restructuring. Then wordsmithing. I am not finished restructuring.

I am trying to improve the article. I think it needs improvement enough that it should not presently be FA. I know you disagree -- even to the point of removing valid but negative comments from this page -- but in my opinion the current article still needs more work. --Blue Tie 10:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

While I agree the specifics of global warming should be in the lede, I fail to see any POV in that format. However, I believe that a re-write is exactly what this article doesn't need; it needs to reach a stable solution, and there is little wrong with the current version. -RunningOnBrains 02:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope you recognize that I am not really calling for a re-write. I was suggesting that, after the bit here and piece here editing of the article a comprehensive re-structuring, to follow a logical presentation of the subject matter should be done. THEN, if it becomes clear that some parts need to be smoothed or that some information is missing would writing take place. I believe that the restructuring is appropriate prior to FA. I think the article is not quite as well rounded as it should be if you look at it in the outline I describe above. Regardless of how that outline gets structured in terms of order, there are bits that seem to be missing. --Blue Tie 10:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comments. External links need pruning per WP:EL, WP:NOT. See also is a wreck; pls refer to WP:GTL; to the extent possible, important articles should be linked into the text in order to minimize See also. Further reading is all over the place as well, not alphabetical, with no particular order or formatting style. (In other words, all of these aspects combined show that some POV is probably in play here, with many different editors wantiing to get their two cents in.) Publishers (author and pub date where available) aren't mentioned on all sources, examples — Climate Change 2001: Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Retrieved on March 14, 2007. and Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Retrieved on December 19, 2005. Last access dates as well, example — ^ Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, Chapter 12. Ref cleanup is needed after the article rewrite is completed. See WP:LAYOUT, see also templates go at the top of sections, not bottom. Of course cite needed tags need to be dealt with, as well as POV issues. This is out of place in the lead, which should summarize the article: (See: List of Kyoto Protocol signatories.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well, SandyGeorgia, the further reading actually was ordered alphabetically. One or two of them had the authors first name in front of their last name, perhaps making appear as if they were not alphabetized. Only one was not in the correct order, and it was the most recent one added. I fixed those issues. I try to work on some of the others issues you pointed out. Should any of the links that appear in the article be removed from the "See also" section? ~ UBeR 04:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes; articles already linked in the article need not be included in See also. Yes; journal is publisher. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Purged the see also of all duplicate links. Deleted the see also to Kyoto signatories. Further reading was cleaned-up quite a bit, but still requires more work. Will try to get all missing info from References added, to the extent possible, later. Cheers, ~ UBeR 23:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Also, most of the references are to scientific journals. In my experience, it is very unusual to give the publisher of these. Of the 96 journal articles in my private BibTeX file, exactly one has a publisher (and yes, this file is used to generate references for scientific publications). --Stephan Schulz 08:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Citing the journal without a publisher is fine - I mean, {{cite journal}} will not accept a publisher parameter. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Because the journal is the publisher. :-) ~ UBeR 08:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Exactly. If the reference is missing the journal parameter, though, then that's a different story... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

An anon added what I think is nothing but noise here. If you want to re-insert it... I wish you wouldn't William M. Connolley 18:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose FA ststus This article fails the comprehensive criterion in as much as its omission of information that is vital to the global warming debate.

1. For starters, the article treats the issue as purely scientific. There is no information on the part played by the media is the portrayal of global warming (for example, how the media may or may not have exaggerated the issue)
2. Secondly, it fails to summarize the argument surrounding the Kyoto protocol. Why have some countries failed to ratify it?
3. This is obviously a pro-global warming article. Any opposing opinion is not adequately addressed, but simply linked to at the bottom of the article. That is unacceptable. We need a section devoted to this. As it currently stands, I'm surprised that this article passed FAC at all. Orane (talk • cont.) 17:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The subject matter is scientific. Other side aspects have their own articles, such as Global warming controversy. Kyoto Protocol has its own article as well. As this article is based on the scientific evidence, that which is contrary to the prevailing view is in a tiny minority. --Skyemoor 09:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Just want to let everyone know, this article is currently the subject of a mediation case. You can view it at the following page. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-25 Global warming. I will also place this information on this review's talk page. thanks. --Sm8900 00:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unstable

The article is apparently unstable without protection. Protected twice in two weeks because of so many edits and reverts. FA Articles should be better constructed so as not to result in such disputes.--Blue Tie 23:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is largely stable; the main ideas, structure, and text has remained essentially the same for weeks or months. The text has been superficially cleaned a bit, and there were some edits before it was protected the second time which will take some further review, but for the most part the article is fairly constant. In fact, in a previous section you yourself said it was stable, and thought this stability was (in a sense) a problem with the article:[2] . It would seem the actual problem you're driving at is that edits by a handful of editors are not being accepted by most of the editors of the article. This does not seem to speak to the article's instability, it speaks to its stability in the face of controversy. --TeaDrinker 00:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The edit warring and OWN issues on that article really need to be killed before it can even be considered a GA. I continue to recommend removal of FA status. Kyaa the Catlord 04:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. If there is a chance of a controversial article being featured, the Global warming article is it. Global warming fits FA criteria as well as an article on a poltically controversial topic can. It accurately presents the science, has established scientists edit the article, and retains an accurate view of the science in the face of political pressure. I certainly support restention of FA status. --TeaDrinker 06:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to Blue Tie, hence the single colon. GW fails criteria 1(b) in that it currently minimizes or simply dismisses large sections of GW, the political, social and economic aspects of the phenomena. Until it overcomes this and the editors who stubbornly stand in the way of anyone seeking to expand the coverage of such aspects in the name of "science", it should not be a FA. It also has historically had problems with 1(e), it is a hotbed of edit warring. Kyaa the Catlord 06:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

GW is inherently a scientific topic. Other topics are generated as a result of its attention, such as Global warming controversy, Effects of global warming, and so forth, though these have their own article niches and should not pollute the explanation of the science. Other FA articles receive high levels of attention and editting, even to the point of protection, though they remain FA as well. --Skyemoor 09:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Other FAs do not undergo tens of edits containing the comment rv without being followed by vandalism in two weeks. Nick Mks 10:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Near the end of the last protection, an editor explicitly expression the intent to continue inserting what most editors thought was pov pushing, even in the knowledge that it would be reverted. Is that vandalism? It is not simple vandalism er WP:VAND, although I would call it disruptive. It warrants a revert, but calling it vandalism may be inappropriate according to a strict definition, and in any event, would only would serve to inflame. I don't think is it reasonable that reverts of edits made in questionable faith, even if not marked vandalism, should be taken as evidence of instability. --TeaDrinker 15:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my remark was meant to be funny, but obviously it made my sentence too complicated to understand. I meant to say that many rvs were made to this article in terms of edit warring and content disputes, while normal FAs only undergo rvs as a result of vandalism. Nick Mks 16:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

On a second read, it seems to me that you did understand my intentions, but disagree. However, if you do not consider a surge of (pure) vandalism-unrelated, dispute inspired reverts a sign of unstability, then what is? Nick Mks 16:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is only unstable because some editors constantly attempt to push their POV into the article (in fact, these are in part the same editors who wish to demote the article from FA status). I do not mean to comment on the contributors rather than the contributions, but it is the most rational way to explain the stability issues, in this case. Before this edit war started, the article was much more stable. Besides, the nature of many of the edits are without a doubt disruptive, as TeaDrinker already suggested. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 17:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

So what? WP:FA says [s]table means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day; vandalism reversions and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. (emphasis mine). It does not provide an exception in the case that the majority thinks that the edit war is caused by a minority of POV-pushers. That leaves two options:

• either have that minority blocked as vandals or (since they are a minority that should be easy) by having them violate WP:3RR, or;
• acknowledge that the above option would be POV-pushing from the other side and admit that, whoever is right, this article in its current state is unfit to be termed stable and neutral. Nick Mks 17:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and concerning the people who are trying to demote the article being the edit warrers, I'm the nominator, I have made exactly 0 edits to the article and 3 to its talk page (all pertaining to the FAR). Nick Mks 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invasion

Messages left at MilHist and Kafziel. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel really terrible listing an article for FAR, but it's a learning experience as I've never done it before. Well, basically I think the article isn't quite up to FA standards. It's close, but I think the criteria back then is different to the very high standards now. Well, the bottom of the list feels a bit listy, with a very short description of a select group of invasion examples. The see also section is in the wrong place (I'd do it myself, but I thought I'd leave it for now to show the article's state...) On top of that, it is a lot shorter than one would hope for a large topic such as this. Other minor stuff is there, but over all I think the article needs a big expansion & removal from the listy elements (Maybe a larger section on the invasions?). I have no intentions of removing the article's status, merely hoping for it to get a makeover. Thanks Spawn Man 11:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Spawnman, can you please notify any relevant WikiProjects (usually listed on the talk page) and original author (usually on the FAC) with {{subst:FARMessage|Invasion}}? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I did actually (forgot author though). Thanks for making me feel like a newb again who doesn't know how to edit on here.... :( Spawn Man 23:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry — I didn't mean to do that :-) Just trying to get more nominators to do that work, as it's so tiring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• remove not enough material is sourced--Sefringle 20:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tamil language

Messages left at Sundar, Ganeshk, India noticeboard, Tamil Nadu, and Languages.

I am far from a regular participant in areas related to featured articles. But I know when something at least comes close to acheiving featured article status. I appreciate the work that has gone into this page, but this, I'm afraid, is far from featured article quality at present. There are justifiable {{fact}} tags littering the intro and pretty much all of the rest of the article, and some of the prose is vague, unsupported and/or weaselish. Examples: "Tamil is one of the few living classical languages and has an unbroken literary tradition of over two millennia[citation needed]." No citation or mention of this at all in the body of the article. "However, there are many purists who would argue against the use of such characters as there are well-defined rules in the Tolkāppiyam[citation needed] for Tamilising loan words." Who's "many"? This barely begins to describe the woes of this article. Grandmasterka 07:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• The infobox contradicts the lead (giving the rank as 13-17; lead says 18, with cite-needed tag). Only four (!) footnotes for the entire article--the scattered {{fact}} tags Grandmasterka mentions don't even tell the full story...because barely any claims in the article are referenced, not just claims with {{fact}} tags by them. It gets worse, though: all four of those footnotes are from one section, "Legal Status"; more specifically, they're all from the second paragraph of that section. Three of them are citing a single sentence. So for all practical purposes the article cites two claims, those two claims being in two successive sentences. Totally unacceptable. As it stands now, I agree the article is clearly not FA-quality. --Miskwito 02:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, there are 7 inline citations I missed, in the form "author (year)". --Miskwito 03:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• If citations are added, it could still be a featured article. Also there is the issue of red links in the languages of the Tamil Family like Kaikadi. Even if these are tackled, think this could only become a Good article. --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 02:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please Consider the following references

Tamil has been declared a Classical language by the Indian government. This has been done after an extensive research and a political process. See:

• http://presidentofindia.nic.in/scripts/eventslatest1.jsp?id=587
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3667032.stm

• http://www.ciil-classicaltamil.org/ Centre of Excellence for Classical Tamil

This article assumes some basic Tamil background knowledge from the reader. Continuous literary tradition is well established. Please do some background reading about Tamil literature and, one can understand that statement. The above web site would be of value in that regards.

Counting only the first lanaguage speakers: Tamil is #15, according to the following paper: http://www.frenchteachers.org/bulletin/articles/promote/top%20languages.pdf

If second language speakers are counted it drops to #18, according to Ethnologue. http://www.davidpbrown.co.uk/help/top-100-languages-by-population.html

13-17, probably due to uncertainty or same number of people speaking some other lanuages.

I am an editor at Tamil Wikipedia. This article is well researched, and written by informed contributors. Let me know if I can be of more help.

--Natkeeran 05:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• See my response to this editor in his talk page. Grandmasterka 06:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

This article has gone under a very calculated vandalism. The article’s primary monitors are not highly active at this moment. The statements are being manipulated to degrade the quality of this article. I urge those with good spirit to compare the actual FA or a stable recent version (before vandalsim), and the current status and revert the vandalism as much as possible.

I can assure that the quality of the article was much better before. But, now it be being down graded little by little. Particularly, the into and history sections have been badly degraded.

--Natkeeran 06:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I responded on the article's talk page. This is the approved featured article version, when the standards were much lower, which still has the more significant problems I pointed out. Grandmasterka 08:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are probably right about the references not being adequate, but when the content is being manipulated the references can not match. There is vandalism taking place. I can sense by reviewing the edit history. I have notified other contributors, they may be able to help us improve and/or recover the article.

For example, see the contradition in the following two statements:

External chronological records and internal linguistic evidence, however, indicate that the oldest extant works were probably composed sometime in the 2nd century CE.

The earliest extant text in Tamil is the Tolkāppiyam, a work on poetics and grammar which describes the language of the classical period. The oldest portions of this book may date back to around 200 BCE (Hart, 1975).

--Natkeeran 07:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Example 2: Why is the following statement necessary in the first sentence? When did UNESCO became the primary authority to declare a language classical or not. It could be a footnote. Not necessary in the first sentence.

"(Recognized by the Indian Government and still not yet recognised by UNESCO)"

Example 3: The below statement is totally opposite to what was before.

The ordinary form of the modern language used in speech and writing, in contrast, has undergone significant changes, to the extent that a person who has not learnt the higher literary form will have difficulty understanding it.[clarify]

Due to continuity, classical Tamil is understandable with some study. The statement before was “The written language has changed little during this period, with the result that classical literature is as much a part of everyday Tamil as modern literature. Tamil school-children, for example, are still taught the alphabet using the átticúdi, an alphabet rhyme written around the first century A.D.”

In other words, the claim that the modern Tamil writing changed significantly is an arguable claim. The fact that school children are able to understand ancient work with little study shows that Tamil writing has not changed that much; relative to other classical languages.

Example 4: Recently added comments...

"But unfortunately the word "Sangam" originates from Sanskrit word "Sang". This throws some light on origin of Tamil from Sanskrit. The "Aa", the first alphabet of Tamil resembles Semitic "Aleph". Tamil words for house, town etc seems to be originated from Proto-Hebrew. Tamil words for king, life, god etc seems to be originated from Sanskrit. Recent researches show that Tamil is a borrowed complex language than a self-evolved classical language."

This article has been vandalized with an intent to demerit Tamil as a classical language, (along with perhaps other motives), and of independent origin of Sanskrit. This is a well established conflict. Please do not engage in this controversy at Wikipedia. Take a 'live and let others live' attitude. Please let your views know in the discussion page before making erratic changes to a FA.

Thank you. --Natkeeran 08:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see here. I have responded to Natkeeran's dubious claims. Sarvagnya 10:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

His respose has be shown to be inadequate. But he has identified the problem as content dispute, and not random vandalism, which is a good thing. I urge a reasonable discussion.--Natkeeran 20:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Dbachmann

I might give it a {{GA}} in its present state, but only just. Observations:

There were number of stable versions. I will try to note the versions. So, please reserve your judgment.

• the 'ஃ' section is completely superfluous and belongs merged into Tamil script

• You may be right, it can be added to Tamil script. However, that letter has cultural significance, and a special use that can justify its own subsection.

• a clean presentation of a romanization system is missing. Tamil script gives a transliteration scheme, but doesn't identify it. It is imperative that a romanization scheme is introduced before various romanized forms are discussed. Is it National Library at Kolkata romanization?

• Is a presentation of a romanization system mandatory requirement for all languages. Please explain.

• the "Sounds" section has a "Phonology" subsection. This should be re-arranged, i.e. the h2 section should be called "Phonology". Create a main article Tamil phonology to stash the gory details. The "tongue twister" link belongs under external links or "see also".

• Yes, I agree. This section can be improved.

• the grammar section is fair as it is, but it discusses morphology under a "parts of speech" header for some reason. Treatment of nominal and verbal morphology is very brief compared to phonology.

• the merit of the "example" section is somewhat questionable (I would merge it into Tamil grammar), it should in any case be cleaned up to get rid of the crappy ASCII transliteration scheme.

• the Literature section looks fine, but it should perhaps be broken up in a "grammar/lexica" section vs. sociolinguistics studies etc. (compare Arabic_language#References). Which are the standard works used in academia?

• Which academia? Tamil Literature is an important conceptual scheme in the Tamil context.

• the pdf screenshot Image:TolkaappiyamExcerpt.png strikes me as useless and unencyclopedic. If we don't have a nice manuscript image, the section is better off without an image.

• You ignored the content of the image, which was the main part. If you read it. It is very understable to most Tamils. It is there to illustrate the accessibility, and continuity of the Ancient work. Sure, if there is a better way to present it, that would be nice.

• the "Vocabulary" section needs its citation requests worked out, and should maybe be merged with "History", since it discusses historical layers of loans.

• The vocabulary section is under a “Content War”. Reference requests are being used as a weapon. But, you are right to point this out.

• the article absolutely needs a "Literature" section summarizing Tamil literature.

• Yes, you are right.

• ah, and of course the intro needs to be kept free of empty hype. The "one of the most ancient languages of the world" statement has no place here, just say it is attested since 200 BCE and be done.

• Intro is being highly contested at this point. It is not stable.

Overall, your observations are valuable, and positive. You have concretely identified some weakness in the article. I can help address your concerns. But, the Content War must stop. Otherwise, there is no point in the cycle of insert/delete recover/degrade saga.

I primarily contribute to Tamil Wikipedia. There we are working on a Language Article Prototype. We have discussed the following structure.

• General Intro
• Language History History of Tamil Language
• Classification and Language Family
• Speakers and Geographic Distribution, including Official Recognition
• Cultural Context and Language's philosophical and/or metaphysical setting (important for Tamil)
• Language Phonology (spoken language) - Tamil phonology
• Language Dialects Tamil Language Dialects
• Language Writing System (Alphabets and/or other systems) - Tamil script
• (Spoken and literary variants)
• Language Grammar Tamil grammar
• Language Vocabulary
• Language Literature Tamil literature
• Language Modernity (Use in Science, Technology, Commerce, Politics etc) Contemporary use of Tamil and/or Modern Tamil
• Language Learning - Tamil Studies or Tamilology
• Language Institutions Tamil Language Instituions
• Language Media (can be included with institutions) Tamil Media

You seems to be an expert in the lanaguage front, I would welcome your comments about the above structure. I can suggest this for Tamil language in enWpedia as well. I was not very involved in the early editing, so I am hesitant to make any significant changes. --Natkeeran 20:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

dab (𒁳) 16:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Content War

Wikipedia allows for multiple view points, but not replacement of view points. The native Tamil view points are being edited out. The purpose it seems to be show:

• Tamil is not a “global classical language”; which is not true. It is or it can be under any reasonable set of criteria. Please provide the criteria, and one would be able to show whether it is “global classical language or not.”
• The second attack is from Sanskrit Extremists, who are playing out external political battles in Wikipedia.
• Why was ranking changed to 20?

If there is a content war, then request for reference becomes a weapon of war. Lets discuss content issues in the talk pages. And not get into insert/delete, recover/degrade cycles.

--Natkeeran 19:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

“global classical language”;..... which is not true. It is or it can be under any reasonable set of criteria.

'Reasonable set of criteria'? Would you mind spelling out what that 'set of criteria' is? Would you first start by providing proper references for Classical languages and answering the concerns of other editors on Talk:Classical languages. And I request you to stop your conspiracy theories NOW! Sarvagnya 20:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

http://www.ciil-classicaltamil.org/ Centre of Excellence for Classical Tamil; [3]

It is the official Indian government's website. It has some best minds in the field. Visit that website. It is in English. You can get a sense of the entire scholarly and political basis and process behind the assertation that 'Tamil is a Classical language'. If you have a bias, or some dispute, please declare. I can try to help you address your concerns. --Natkeeran 20:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, the Indian governments criteria for classical language can be a starting point. --Natkeeran 20:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Both of the articles you cited about are in dispute already. If you can provide credible criteria, I can show whether Tamil fits or not. If I come up with or use a criteria that I put forward, you can still accuse me of bias. --Natkeeran 21:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Unreasonable expectations - The primary readership of this article includes Tamils It is unreasonable to expect that all English speakers should understand completely an article about Tamil without any background study. Wikipedia science or technical articles would not expect everyone to understand complex subjects immediately. Similarly, an article about a language has diverse readership.

A primary source of readers about Tamil are the Tamils themselves. It was written in such a way to provide valuable information to Tamils, alnog with others. It is a reasonable assumption. Why Ayutha Eluthu is important can only be understand in its cultural context.

Of course, Wikipedia is open for everyone to contribute. But, it works because there is certain level of respect shown towards other contributors, and there is an effort to learn the contexts of an article. --Natkeeran 19:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure why you are bringing this up on FAR. Criteria for the Tamil language article are the same as for any other language article (excepting the English language one, of course, since English is the only language knowledge of which is intrinsically required on en-wiki). Fair examples of language FAs are Swedish language, Aramaic language, Bengali language and Russian language. dab (𒁳) 20:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the examples. I am not sure what FAR stands for, but I must say it is difficult to write articles about a lanaguge. I have tried to address and/or provide some comments about your concerns above. When I say backgrond study, I did not mean language study, but perhaps some knowledge about basic linguistics or and some awareness about the cultural context of the language. --Natkeeran 20:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

FAR is "Featured Article Review", which is what you're reading right now. This is a subpage of the main FAR page, which is getting clogged up by this thing. Grandmasterka 21:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Sarvagnya I feel that the article is well short of FA quality. No doubt it is a well written article and lot of effort has been put into it by editors like Arvind and Sundar. But the article badly needs more solid referencing. I get the feeling that the editors have taken lot of info for granted and have failed to think from the lay reader's perspective. In other words, what might be 'common sense', 'common knowledge' to the editors of the article may not actually be so for the lay reader even if he has some background in history and linguistics. This is just genuine oversight and I am sure it can be remedied simply with the addition of references. I have added some fact tags where I feel references are a must if this article is to be FA quality.

In other places, I feel the language sounds a bit confused and I have added some "clarifyme" tags. For example, the article says,

"The origins of Tamil, like other Dravidian languages, is unknown..." - Does it mean that origins of all non-Dravidian languages are known?

Then it goes on to say, "...but unlike most of the other established literary languages of India, are independent of Sanskrit..."

Kannada is an established literary language in India. Does the above sentence imply that Kannada is NOT independent of Sanskrit? Clarify please and/or at the very least reword.

Sarvagnya, I agree that the sentence could be reworded, but "the other" literary languages excludes Kannada as a preceding clause clubs the Dravidian languages together for exclusion. However, it still would be a problem for an Indian language belonging to a third family. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 14:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And a request to Natkeeran, please sign every single comment of yours and keep your discussions germane. Please spend some time on making your comments intelligible(indenting etc.,.). Thanks. Sarvagnya 22:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

To all interested/involved editors, please shift detailed discussion/suggestions (or whatever) to the talk page of the article. Hopefully, all these discussions will result in adequate improvement of the article, so that the article retains the FA status. After or during the improvements, summary of improvements done can be presented here in the review. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sarvagnya that the article as it stands falls short of FA quality. Not all that far, an expert editor could fix it in one or two hours. I am not sure this is going to happen, however, and it may be better to revoke FA status until the concerns voiced above are addressed. dab (𒁳) 07:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the FA standards were lower when this article was promoted. I've added a copule of refernce to address {{fact}} tags. I'm contacting Arvind (the primary contributor) asking for help. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 14:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm in France on a research trip at the moment, and the only materials I have deal with esoteric points of French legal history, but give me a few days and I'll see what I can do to address the points that've been raised. Let's not be in a rush to de-feature it if it can be salvaged, OK? -- Arvind 17:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added references and rewritten chunks of the text. The section on Sounds / Phonology still needs a good overhaul. I'd suggest hiving it off into an article of its own and leaving a well-written summary here - any volunteers (hi, Sundar)? The section on dialects could do with a little polish as well, especially re caste-based dialects. Apart from that, are people's concerns starting to be met? -- Arvind 22:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in, Arvind. I've copied the Sounds section to Tamil phonology blindly and have attempted at a modest condensation. Would try summarising it tomorrow. I hope the article will soon meet FA standards with some help from other volunteers. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 15:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Progressing well

Great job guys, I never would have thought this would be salvageable anytime in the near future, but I can see a light at the end of the tunnel now. I never expected this outpouring of editors to come along and fix it. I'm still not sure it will be a FA when the smoke clears, but it will at least be relatively close. Grandmasterka 22:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is in very good shape to be retained as FA. If there are still areas of concerns, it is best to point them out here- so that it can be reviewed and addressed. --Aadal 13:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)--Aadal 13:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think most issues identified in this page have now been addressed. As Aadal says, if there're any further issues, it would be useful to have them enumerated so we can do something about trying to fix them. -- Arvind 15:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think pretty much all the issues have been addressed. The only thing I'm really concerned with is that the grammar section isn't very referenced, but I don't necessarily think that's a huge, major deal right now. --Miskwito 20:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comments Work to be done. Mixed reference styles; cites in infobox should be converted to cite.php to conform with the rest of the article. The note in the lead has an unprofessional appearance; is there a better way to incorporate that information, for example, in a footnote? Footnotes are not formatted, for example, the first note is ^ Top 30 languages of the world. We need to know at minimum publisher and last access date on websources, and author and publication date when available. Examples are available at WP:CITE/ES. External links should be pruned per WP:EL, WP:NOT. References would be easier to deal with if they were listed alphabetically by last name of author. Pls see WP:DASH; I changed one as an example—there are many more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC) PS, as an aside, is it possible to combine some of the eight sections above? This review has taken over the FAR TOC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I've tried fixing problems mentioned by Sandy above. Please check out. I'd need someone else volunteer to fix dash style issues. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Refs still aren't done; I left a few samples which include inline comments that must be addressed (I wasn't sure what date format is used in India, so one date I entered may be wrong, and one of the sources is a Wiki link going nowhere, Wiki isn't a reliable source). Another example of an incomplete ref is a b Statement by George L. Hart Who published it, what date, last access date needed on all websources. What is this ref? the report submitted by Tamil Nadu State Government to Central Government of India to claim the Classic Language status. I'll work on the dashes unless someone already did it. There are empty ISBNs in the list of books (?)—they should be left off or completed—in the infobox on my userpage is an ISBN finder. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC) I think I caught all the dashes; can the suggested merge be dealt with ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I've added a {{Cite Web}} with all the available details for Hart's statement. TN govt report is not available. http://www.tn.gov.in/policynotes/archives/policy2003-04/tdc2003-04-1.htm is what I could find and even this is a mere assertion. Let's not use it. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to send this to FARC on the basis of the prose in the lead alone. An article on language, a beautiful and powerful language at that, deserves to be described in the best English, and to be organised logically on the clause level.
  • Second sentence—category problem: " It is the official language of the Indian state of Tamil Nadu, and also has official status in Sri Lanka and Singapore." What's the difference between official language and official status? Remove the redundant "also".
  • Third sentence: "With more than 77 million speakers,[2] an ancient history, a rich and continuous literature, and an international and modern presence Tamil is one of the major languages of the world." What's a "continuous" literature? Is this necessary? What's a "modern presence"? Comma just about mandatory after "presence".
  • Fourth sentence: "Like the other Dravidian languages, Tamil is characterised by its use of retroflex consonants and by its agglutinative grammar, where suffixes are used to mark noun class, number, and case, verb tense and other grammatical categories." The problem here is cohesion: "retroflex consonants" vs "suffixes". I'm confused, so most of our readers will be too. Are these suffixes strictly consonantal?
  • "Like many languages with long tradition, Tamil is also characterised by a marked diglossia, with three basic styles ...". Why "with long tradition"? ("a" is required after "long", by the way.) I don't think "styles" is the best term here; are you referring to acrolect, mesolect and basilect? Some linguists use "dialects" as the generic term here. "Di" means "two", so is misleading in this case.
  • "Tamil literature has an unbroken literary tradition of over two millennia." Again, this continuous thing; what does is really mean? One artist took over exactly where one died, in a continuous chain? Who cares?" "More than" is more elegant than "over".
  • "The earliest epigraphic records date to around 200 BCE,[5] and the oldest literary works in Tamil were composed between the 200 BCE and 300 CE.[6][7]" Again, cohesion is at issue. Use the same wording for both; here an ellipsis can be used, and the year range rationalised: "The earliest epigraphic records date to around 200 BCE,[5] and the oldest literary works in Tamil to 200–300 CE.[6][7] Tony 21:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The terms ‘official language’, and ‘official status’ have legal connotations. Official language generally implies, it is THE language of the government. “Official status” implies that the language speakers have legal rights related to language, but the language is not necessarily the language of the government. ‘and also’ may be replaced with just ‘and’.

The term “continuous literature” refers to the tradition of literary work over 2000 years in Tamil. The term can be replaced by “a rich and continuous literary tradition”. The Tamils continuous literary tradition is not just an empty description, but a consciousness and a conceptual framework. It is understood by most Tamil scholars. It is a very important historical statement to make.

“WHO CARES?” The notable contributors to the article care. I care. Tamil people consider that tradition as one of their important contribution to human civilization. The knowledge and memory invested in that tradition will only become evident when one learns that language, and its literature.

If you want to improve the prose you are welcomed to provide the alterantive version in the talk pages. If the integrity of content is preserved, then we can replace the prose.

--Natkeeran 15:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yellowstone National Park

Talk messages left at Protected areas, Maveric149, Volcanoes, & Montana. Ceoil 10:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have spent the over a month updating this current featured article. I have added a lot of information, clarifying misrepresentations and making sure all the references are accurate and as up to date as possible. This is the amount of change that has been incorporated. As this article was last reviewed as a featured article in 2004, I wanted to make sure it continues to meet the standards. Since this is an article about the worlds first National Park, I am determined to ensure it stays listed as a featured article, so any advice would be helpful. My biggest concern is that the article may not be "brilliantly written" as I know I have a tendency to be good at gathering evidence, but not so good at creating great prose. I definitely don't want to remove anything referenced from the article, even though it exceeds the recommended length...there is a lot to talk about, and a lot of the information is already expanded in subarticles that are linked.--MONGO 21:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Tempted to cite WP:SNOW. Tight prose, and the article is well attributed, and is generally authoritative. The images are largly free, and taken from commons; while one is a former featured picture. No issues here. Ceoil 00:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the edits...that is pretty much what I wanted...some copyediting.--MONGO 05:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Please, let's leave SNOW off of this page. Part of the initial intent of FAR was as a place for relatively light copy-editing. Marskell 07:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Apology, it was meant as a complement to the editors of the article. Irony and computers don't go well together, I suppose. An origional author putting forward his own article for comment is refreshing. Ceoil 08:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Thumbnail images are not supposed to have hard coded pixel widths, it conflicts with user preferences. Jay32183 15:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Adjusted, thanks.--MONGO 06:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Mongo, can you please notify any WikiProjects mentioned on the talk page and involved editors/original author (probably Mav) with {{subst:FARMessage|Yellowstone National Park}} ? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitely, thanks.--MONGO 04:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I've been monitoring Mongo's progress on the article for over a month. Everything I've seen him do so far was an improvement and was similar to what I had long planned to do with this article (my second ever FA). That said, I will take a closer look in a day or two to make sure everything works together. --mav 03:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Looks like a potential keep without FARC; I will print and read entire article in the next few days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I did some minor copyediting, added a very few cite tags, and found some issues that should be addressed. I think the article will definitely retain its star, but there's some work to be done still.

• I saw copyediting needs, fixed some myself, but perhaps you can ask Deckiller (talk • contribs) to run through the article before we close the review. In particular, there was a strange usage of semi-colons; I caught some of them, but I doubt I got them all. I'm also not sure on the capitalization of the seasons in Forest fires and Climate sections. I also added hyphens to mid-date occurrences. There were several sentences that started with numbers, and I also found several occurrences of hyphens rather than ndashes separating date ranges (seee WP:DASH). I did some redundancy reducing, but I suspect there's more. I also removed some instances of "currently" and made them more durable. There is some inconsistent capitalization of animals that should be checked, like lynx and Lynx. Generally, it would be helpful if an experienced copyeditor ran through the entire text again. I'm not sure if "first national park ranger" in the Park creation section should be capitalized. I saw some awkward text, but didn't feel up to the task of repairing it.
• Many of the Government websources are dated; I added some of those dates to the references, but they should all be checked.
• Reference number 11 is messed up; it actually includes several pages, so that text isn't verified to the page listed. They need to be split out.
• There seems to be a problem with the park visitation numbers (5,000 by 1883). First, it should say "annual" or "yearly". Second, the Annual Park Statistics number says something different than the sentence cited to ref 11 (which I couldn't verify on ref 11). Also, if 5,000 were coming in by 1883, but 1,000 automobiles entered the park in 1915, the numbers don't seem to jive—1,000 automobiles doesn't translate to a lot of visitors, 30 years later? Can this be resolved?
• There are at least two pieces of text which don't seem to remain tightly focused on the subject; I suggest they should be removed, and there may be others.
  • (This doesn't relate to Yellowstone, rather areas to the north, not sure it's needed.) It is believed that the moister conditions found north and west of Yellowstone and the lack of historical levels of wildfire due to increased suppression, are the primary reasons for the decimation of the whitebark pine communities in those areas.
  • and was classified as an F4 tornado by Ted Fujita— who developed the fujita scale for classifying tornado intensity. (The info about who he is should be contained in his Wiki article and isn't needed here; I suggest ending the sentence after F4 tornado.)
• I added cite tags on the entire paragraph about how the park got it's name (couldn't find that anywhere in the text) and the bison estimates (they just don't resonate with what I read/saw when I visited Yellowstone, Montana and Glacier), and the comment about learning from the army (acccording to whom?).
• I'm not sure what this sentence is saying, it seems redundant, and the punctuation is off:
  • Other rare mammals such as the mountain lion have been reported to have a population estimated at 25, while the wolverine is known to live in the park, actual population figures are unknown.
• Now, to the biggest problem; the lead should be rewritten. The WP:LEAD is supposed to be a stand-alone summary of the article; it's not. Not only does it not summarize the article, but it has two entire paragraphs which are too much detail for the lead and contain text which isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article. The last two paragraphs of the lead should be moved into the body of the article, and a summarizing lead should be written. This should probably be done last, after a copyedit. Also, both of those paragraphs should be cited.

I think all of this work is very doable during FAR, but don't be alarmed if Marskell moves the article to FARC just to keep it on track timewise—that doesn't mean the article will be delisted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Thank you for the time you have spent looking things over and making some adjustments as well. I have added numerous new refs in the history section, breaking up the same link for #11 into direct webpage links. I made amendments to the 1883 visitation issue and tried to address the 1,000 cars thing...I imagine, but can't find out exactly when they banned horses on the roads due to increased vehicle traffic...but the ref says it happened later than 1915 by the way it is worded. I removed the whitebark pine expansion and the part with too much detail about Fujita. I found a ref for where the name for the park came from, and moved that paragraph to the history section. I cited the management policies that were adopted by the NPS from the army. I'll work on fixing the mountain lion sentence and developing a better intro in the next day or two.--MONGO 13:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment — I agree with Sandy's pointers. As for the prose, I'll try to make some time tomorrow afternoon. Tony's back, so he might be able to help as well. — Deckiller 03:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

  I believe I have made most of the adjustments mentioned by Sandy...I just added a summary intro which I think is a big improvement. I don't tend to ref the intros too much since they are usually better detailed and refed in the article body. A good copyedit would be helpful and let me know if there is anything else that needs to be referenced, adjusted or expanded. I appreciate the help with this effort.--MONGO 06:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Once the prose experts are satisfied, I'm good with a keep without moving to FARC, but does anyone think the lead is too long now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• It is longish. I admit to be an average writer overall, much better at finding references than creating brilliant prose, so what the article needs more than anything at this point is a good copyedit.--MONGO 20:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Status: are we done here or are there concerns left? Marskell 08:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy, but I'm not the prose person :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article removal candidates

Place the most recent review at the top. If the nomination is just beginning place under Featured Article Review, not here.

[edit] Seabiscuit

[edit] Review commentary

Message left at GWO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Messages left at Seabiscuit and Thoroughbred racing.

Doesn't satisfy 1(c). One source, and for something that barely matters in the article. Doesn't really satisfy 1(a) either. Jerichi~Profile~Talk~ 15:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jerichi. We don't "sup", "opp", "rm" or "kp" at this point. We try for a couple weeks of commentary, and hopefully improvements, and then move the review to FARC. Marskell 16:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

My bad. I'm a little new to the Featured Article area; I tend to work more around the GA area. Jerichi~Profile~Talk~ 19:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• remove there are no secondary sources, and only one thing is sourced.--Sefringle 20:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is citations (1c), and prose (1a). Marskell 08:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Additional concern There are two unfree images, neither of which contain a fair use rationale. Jay32183 18:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Remove for deficiency of references. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per 1c. Send me a message if things change drastically change. Quadzilla99 09:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - If anyone can help add citations and fair use rationales, let us know. This article needs a lot of citations and the two unfree images must contain fair use rationales. This article really needs a lot of work on the citations and fair use rationales on the two unfree images. Sjones23 20:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, wait, prose is needed. Sjones23 20:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added "citation needed" tags to various places where applicable. Anything else? Sjones23 20:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Remove per all of the above. This article needs a lot of sources and fair use ationales on the two unfree images as Jay32183 said. Sjones23 01:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Assent

[edit] Review commentary

Talk messages left at Emsworth and Law. LuciferMorgan 17:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Messages left at UK notice board and Politics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Another Emsworth classic, which needs more inline citations, proper image tags and a fixing of the section noted for worldview problems. Judgesurreal777 19:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you specify what needs citations and why?

Peter ^Isotalo 12:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are currently whole paragraphs without citation, which could use at least one, maybe two per paragraph. They are needed because in-line citations are a current standard for Featured articles, so all articles past and present are held to present standards. :) Judgesurreal777 03:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps those "whole paragraphs without citation" don't actually need citations? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless they are self evident, like the sun is hot, then yes they do :) Judgesurreal777 18:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

FCOL - do we have to have this same argument every week? The relevant policies (whichever page they are on this week) say that there should be specific inline citations for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged - not for information that is not "self evident". Plenty of information is not "self evident" but is also not likely to be challenged on any reasonable basis, and so does not need a specific inline citation. HTH HAND :) -- ALoan (Talk) 09:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, don't argue with me, as you say people have argued this intensely, and it was decided that inline citations are needed because its current featured article status. Judgesurreal777 17:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"don't argue with me"? It takes two to tango, you know.

You said that this article "needs more inline citations" ... "at least one, maybe two per paragraph" ... "[u]nless they are self evident". With respect, I believe that that is incorrect as a general principle. As far as I am aware, it most certainly has not been "decided" (by whom? where? when?) "that inline citations are needed" as a general matter, save, as I say above, where there are direct quotations or facts that are likely to be challenged. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If they are required in FAC, they are required here. I gave that as general advice, since it was not one or two particular phrases that were unsourced, but many. Judgesurreal777 18:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because FAC has a fixation with dinky footnotes does not mean that we have to repeat the error. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), and images (3).

Comment: Leaving aside the 1c debate, this article has serious problems in terms of TOC, stub sections, non-formatted notes etc. Marskell 11:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Remove per 1c and also the article concerns highlighted by Marskell. LuciferMorgan 21:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Remove short stubby sections, mixed reference styles, external jump, unformatted references, blue-linked URLs in footnotes, poor prose ( ... though it was used by Swedish kings when they ruled Norway (see, for instance, under Wikipedia article "Dissolution of the union between Norway and Sweden in 1905.") ) and weasly statements like "Scholars have discussed circumstances" and "Some legal scholars have suggested ... " SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Remove largely uncited, non-formatted footnotes, stubby sections. Jay32183 20:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beverage-can stove

[edit] Review commentary

Talk messages left at Sj and Backpacking. LuciferMorgan 17:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Found this one while going through hiking-equipment articles for the newly-created backpacking project. Approved back in the days of looser standards. Well-illustrated but sorely lacking in citations. I as surprised to see the gold star; it would not be approved now. Can it be fixed or do we have to remove it? Daniel Case 03:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is probably as comprehensive as it needs to be, however it is listy and comprised of stubby sections and paragraphs. Ceoil 21:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), stub sections etc. (2). Marskell 10:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong remove. Very lacking in comprehensiveness and citations. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Remove. Not many people seem interested in fixing this one, and it's trending this way. Daniel Case 02:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 21:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per 1c. Jay32183 20:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove - it would be a good GA though.. Baristarim 04:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't pass GA as it isn't well referenced etc. LuciferMorgan 04:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Architecture of Btrieve

[edit] Review commentary

Talk messages left at Ta bu shi da yu and Computer science. LuciferMorgan 17:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Very simply, this was made an FA almost two years ago (21 1/2 months, to be exact). It contains zero footnotes/citations and only six references, along with no external links. This is the only real problem I see with the article (I have no idea what Btrieve is or how it works, so I can't really say if it's well-written, but it looks comprehensive enough and NPOV), but it's a pretty severe problem for an article that's supposedly of Featured quality. -- Kicking222 18:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Kicking, per the FAR instructions above, would you mind notifying the original article author/nominator and the WikiProjects listed on the article talk page, with {{subst:FARMessage|Architecture of Btrieve }}~~~~ Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I already did notify the nominator last night. Sorry for not mentioning that. Here it is, five minutes after I posted this FAR. As for the WikiProject, I just left a message on the talk page of WPCompSci. -- Kicking222 20:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In my own defence, this was a FA at a time when footnoting wasn't really a requirement of FA. I did think that things weren't going to be removed due to footnoting issues. However, all the material for this article is in the references section. Perhaps that could be taken into consideration here? The information is good. Btrieve, incidently, is a database, which is what is stated in the lead section. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this; adding footnotes with the exact pages where one should look for the facts stated in this articles (which are undisputed and uncontroversial) in the documents mentioned in the references sections wouldn't hurt, but is far from essential. Both Btrieve and Architecture of Btrieve are quite short by today's FA standards, perhaps the should be merged? —Ruud 22:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

At the time, the article was about 50KB or so. I think that's a little large. Best to keep split, but then again I'm biased :-) Ta bu shi da yu 07:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is citations (1c). Marskell 10:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 21:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per 1c. Jay32183 20:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caulfield Grammar School

[edit] Review commentary

Talk messages left at Harro5, Schools and Australia. LuciferMorgan 02:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Original FAC shows indecision:

This article passed in 2005, when standard for articles was a lot lower than it is now. It currently does not meet FA criteria.

• 1a) It does not contain brilliant prose. Some paragraphs are two sentences long. Some of the grammer may be questionable. A thorough copyedit is required.
• 1b) Leadership program is not mentioned. Extra-curricular academic opportunities are forgotten. Information on school philosophy, motto, song, past achievements, mission etc. are not given.
• 1c) This is the biggest problem. Half of the article is unsourced. A featured article shouldn't have ^{[citation needed]} tags lying around everywhere.
• 1d) The article contains a very pro-Caulfield point of view. For example: "Five debates are held each year, and Caulfield teams debate against other Melbourne schools - both independent and government schools - on various current interest topics. Debaters in Year 12 compete in the A-Grade division, many having begun in the Year 9 D-Grade and been involved in all four divisions of the DAV competition." It gives a feeling of experience and strength in debating when this is quite the norm in all schools in Australia.
• 2a) The lead doesn't summarize the topic. Mentions of the fee and of the school mission statement are not made in the rest of the article. Two paragraphs of the lead are unimportant and don't belong there.
• 2b) Very minor but the history seems awkwardly sorted into ToC.
• 3) More images might be nice.

Those are my views. Sfdasfr 02:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sfdasfr, per the FAR instructions above, pls notify the original article author/nominator and the WikiProjects listed on the article talk page, with {{subst:FARMessage|Caulfield Grammar School}}~~~~ Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

They have been notified. Sfdasfr 02:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Lucifer (just thinking it's time we started prompting nominators to do this, per instructions.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you have a point. Perhaps we can instruct them to do so and give them two days before we take action ourself? LuciferMorgan 21:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I will do it next time. Sfdasfr 05:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries. LuciferMorgan 09:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm the main contributor to this article, but am currently not able to edit very much. (Hint: Great Firewall of China). I will do what I can to address any concerns, but need more specifics from the original comments. Harro5 02:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe most of my comments are fairly specific. I have added cn tags in places in which the comments are not verifiable. The school uniform is unsourced but I'm being lax there because it's harder to find a source for. There are numerous other completely sunsourced sections. There is pro-Caulfield POV in places. The VCE section is POV and unsourced. The Nanjing campus section is POV and unsourced. A major copyedit would do well. The article isn't deserving of FA status in current times. Sfdasfr 04:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No-one at all is working on this article and the problems have still not been addressed. Should we go to FARC?? Sfdasfr 06:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b), citations (1c), and POV (1d). Marskell 13:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Remove - I don't see anyone ready and knowledgeable enough to fix the problems this article has. It certainly doesn't meet the standard of currently promoted FAs. Sfdasfr 05:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Remove No real progress to fix 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d. Jay32183 20:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove—the four criteria specified; no progress. A school FAC has to be pretty special, IMV. Tony 08:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per Jay's reasoning. LuciferMorgan 20:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commodore 64

[edit] Review commentary

Talk messages left at DanielNuyu and Video games. LuciferMorgan 02:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Original FAC page.

Well written article. Cman 19:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, unless I'm missing something this article is currently a featured article ?!?! Dr pda 20:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No, but it was a feature article back in 2005. Cman 20:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

So you want this featured article to go under review? See WP:FAR. CloudNine 21:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrongly listed at FAC, but moved to FAR by myself per WP:BOLD. Now it's here, what criteria does Cman feel is at fault? LuciferMorgan 21:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

At quick glance, perhaps only 5 inline citations, a picture without a source, and a gallery (which isn't used anymore)?--Clyde (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't think it was Cman's intention to have this at FAR. Rather I think the intention was to have it appear on the main page again. So far no article has ever appeared on the main page twice, and it's not likely to happen in the near future. FAs are being produced faster than one per day, so there is no shortage. Gimmetrow 23:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  Well this'll end up on FAR sooner or later regardless - fails a few criteria points. I think it should stay here to be honest. LuciferMorgan 23:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  That's fine, if you will be taking responsibility for this FAR nomination. Gimmetrow 23:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  Me? I'm not taking responsibility for anything at FAR other than my own FAR nominations after recent FAR events. LuciferMorgan 23:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what that encompasses, but I could help.--Clyde (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  I don't think I have the knowledge or drive to handle the major work this thing needs to stay FA on my own (I certainly know the work amount in an FA). Drop some messages, see who comes. I know it fails 1(c), 3, and maybe 1(a).--Clyde (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  Agree that although it came here via a strange route, it does need to be here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  If all reviews by the FAR regulars is going to be in checklist fashion, then we'll have to make sure that those checklists are applied correctly. FAR is not about footnote counting, so please produce some detailed and constructive criticism. And don't do it by simply adding random fact tags that simply amount to "I don't believe this but I have no counterarguments for my doubts". As far as I'm concerned it's a mild form of WP:POINT-making. Try to show some commitment to your task as reviewers and produce reasonable doubt or justification for the blanket accusations of "not enough inlines". Peter ^Isotalo 12:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  I kind of take offense to that. I've never worked in a FAR before, and whenever I read about them, they always start by listing the criteria that the article fails. This came here in a weird fashion, so I was under the impression that needed to be done. The reason why I thought this was short on citations is because many FAs around now have at least 1 citation per paragraph. In this case, history has only two, and there are zero in hardware or software. There is a group of references at the end that need to be integrated, which might help take care of the lack of citations. According to you, I can't help the citation problem by adding fact tags (it's violating WP:POINT apparently), so I guess we'll have to wait for someone who knows a lot about the Commodore 64 to come around and specifically tell us what needs to be citied. I don't understand, stuff like "Due to its advanced graphics and sound, the C64 is often credited with starting the computer subculture known as the demoscene (see Commodore 64 demos)." probably needs a fact tag. There is enough stuff like that in there that it wouldn't have to be random. Oh, and by the way, I doubt there will be much "commitment" or "reasonable doubt", since there is no one who wants to see this burn unless it's improved, and there's no one who really wants to save it.--Clyde (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment A good first step would be eliminating the gallery of fair use images, it violates the fair use criteria. Jay32183 00:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Should the article have KiB or kB? At the time of promotion it had kB, and this was the common use during the period this article is about. Gimmetrow 16:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer KiB to avoid confusion. Most people will assume the modern usage of kB. Jay32183 20:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The article was only converted to KiB in early March. I would prefer kB for historical computers, but as long it stays with KiB (no "kibinybbles" please), it's probably tolerable. The fair use image for the game doesn't seem justified; the other images appear to be PD or freely licensed. Gimmetrow 05:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The article only has ONE reliable inline citation. That's horrible. How did this become a featured article? --Teggles 06:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), images (3), and prose (1a). Marskell 13:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Remove While images have been removed and some terminology has been changed, nothing is being done regarding inline citations; there are currently 6. If work gets done please notify me or if I'm away and it get's a significant amount of citations disregard my comments. Aaron Bowen 20:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 22:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per 1c. Jay32183 17:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per Aaron Bowen, also notify me if anything changes. Quadzilla99 09:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Éire

[edit] Review commentary

Talk messages left at Ireland and Countries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• 1a, prose is not brilliant, in my opinion the most obvious example of this is over usage of parentheses.
• 1c, very light on inline citations, and has dubious statements, some of which have already been questioned on the talk page.
• 1d, although possible not an issue, POV has been brought up on the talk page
• 2a, lead section is too long, especially considering this article is smaller than most featured articles
• 2b/c, 5 headings and no subheadings, heading names include the title of the article, also section sizes vary widely
• 3, only 3 images, one of which violates fair use

On a side note, this article was featured an indeterminate but long time ago and has no FAC page. Vicarious 13:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I add the following:

• 1a: footnotes: the Browne/MacBride and Lenihan footnotes are chatty (and utterly irrelevant).
• 1b: there is no mention of:
  • the fact that many foreigners mistakenly think that Éire is the official name of the country in all languages, and that many Irish people hate to see/hear "Éire" used as such in English, French, etc, and may even view such usage as egregious ignorance or a calculated snub. There was an amount of contentious and uncited assertion along these lines (see Talk page), now reduced to the inadequate "Since 1949, the term Republic of Ireland has generally been used in preference to Éire, when speaking English."
  • other etymological theories besides the etiological "Ériu"
• 3: the map of Ireland serves no purpose in this article other than decoration.
• 4: aaaaaggghhhh! I get the impression the article was written with much youthful enthusiasm in the early days of Wikipedia and crammed with various goodies to get it up to what passed for Featured Article status then, and has since been left to twist in the wind while other articles covering similar ground have caught up and overtaken it. It seems originally to have served as "History of the Irish state from 1937 to 1949". A grossly misleading infobox to that effect survived until 3 weeks ago. Most of what is still there belongs on another article. Éire should be about the Irish word Éire, its etymology, official and unofficial usage and meanings; even if it covered that far more comprehensively than now, I doubt there would be enough substance for FA status. The entire Éire#From Éire to the Republic of Ireland section should be removed from Éire and merged with Republic of Ireland Act and/or Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949. There is also overlap with Names of the Irish state, British Isles (terminology)#Ireland_2 and Constitution of Ireland#Historical origins. A co-ordinated reworking of all these would certainly help; at the end of that daunting task, I think Éire will be left with very little content.

I think there is no hope of this article regaining FA status any time soon. jnestorius^(talk) 23:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Its unfortunate but a majority of the article should be merged into the Republic of Ireland Act. The text is blatantly partisan (see treatment of both Costello &, oh dear..."the controversial" Noel Browne). Prose is weak in places: "in front of an affronted Costello". Ceoil 20:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Progress is unlikely, propose a move to FARC and a merge with Republic of Ireland Act, which when neutralised will be a very strong article. Ceoil 20:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I take it you mean merge the relevant section(s)? We still need a separate article about the word Éire. jnestorius^(talk) 23:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I mean those sections only. Ceoil 14:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), citations (1c), LEAD (2a), TOC and sections (2b&c), and images (3). Marskell 10:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Remove as insufficient content, coverage, and citations, as well as prose issues. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 22:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per 2a, 4 (too much detail on 1930s and 1940s), 1a and 1c. -- Avenue 10:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Torchic

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at HighwayCello, Video games, Nintendo, and Pokemon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This article has horrible sources. It fails WP:N and (1c) of the FA criteria. Some references don't even back up the claims made. There are some references that don't mention the subject at all. User:A_Man_In_Black has highlighted some of the problems Here on the article's talk page. Funpika 01:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

My commentary from talk, in toto:

This article is pathetically sourced, and seems to fail WP:N miserably. I was looking at the references closely, and they don't stand up to scrutiny.

Some highlights:

• Many of the cited references don't even back up the claims made. For example, take the reference to [4]; this isn't cited as a source that Combusken is a flying Pokémon; it's cited as a source that it isn't a flying Pokémon. WTF?
• The claim of the origin of the name, a debatable linguistic analysis, is sourced to a Pokémon fansite.
• Reference #3 is directly to a Japanese-English dictionary, which makes no reference to Torchic at all.
• At least a third of the references (I gave up counting) are to poorly-written, not-at-all-analytical anime episode summaries on Serebii.
• The references to Gamespy, IGN, and Gamespot don't mention Torchic at all.
• The article is laden with references to primary sources for facts of questionable importance. How are any of the toys important? Nobody has seen fit to comment on them but Hasbro. How is the recall important? The only party to comment is the recalling party.

Additionally, this article doesn't have a single word on the creative process that led to the creation of Torchic, nor a single word of sourced analysis or critical reception.

I'm not sure if this is FA quality. I'm not sure if this is GA quality. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

In reply to the comment about the article's notability - notability is not a consideration for the FA process. We inherently presume that all articles nominated are notable (FAC and FAR are not AFD and should not attempt to replicate its function). So that criticism is irrelevant. Raul654 06:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that the subject isn't notable, but that its sources don't allow for any sort of useful explanation of the importance of this subject. Would you not agree that an article that fails to explain how the subject of the article is important isn't a comprehensive article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of the problems should be fixable. If there isn't any analysis in the anime or manga sections then the Serebii refs can be replaced by citing the episodes and issues directly. The comprehensiveness problem will probably be the hardest issue to tackle. Will there actually be sources about the creation or reception of Torchic, or any Pokemon other than Pikachu. This doesn't hold a candle to some of the other featured articles on fictional characters. Jay32183 04:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't solve the problem that this article is completely lacking in critical analysis from reliable sources, just the fact that Serebii isn't a great way to cite things. I don't think Torchic can actually support a comprehensive article; this is filled out with inane, empty fragments of fictional stories or settings. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I'd just like to push WP:PCP away from using Serebii as much as possible. Jay32183 04:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually wondered about the reliability of Serebii before, given that I had been misled before in their gaming sections. I guess the issue hasn't died down yet. Hbdragon88 04:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, every discussion seems to go....

• Hey, is Serebii really a reliable source? It's run by one person, often has long-uncorrected errors, is a fansite, often doesn't update pages, etc.
  • So what else are we going to use?
    • ...

Thread gets archived

We need to actually do something about this, this time. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I know. That error totally screwed up my Gardevoir. I stopped EV training halfway before it would have completed (as I was under the impression that they would be doubled), so I have a personal vendetta against that place. (Fortunately, those EV reducing berries in Emerald fixed that problem). Hbdragon88 05:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

let's keep discussion of serebii to a minimum - only what is pertinent to the article, we can discuss it further at the project page. For a rebuttal, if we were to guage accuracy with the amount of content that serebii covers (450+ anime epiguides; 3 advanced pokedexes for RBYGSC(251 pokemon), RSEFrLg(386), DP(493); 2 attackdexes (354 and 467); several detailed pages on game mechanics; complete item lists; walkthroughs and strategy guides for 29 games; not to mention the detailed lists on manga, movies, and the TCG) their error rate is probably as low as wikipedia's and wikipedia's is reportedly lower than Brittanica's and the errors eventually get fixed. There are several other issues, like this one that i brought up on Highway's talk page, which was never fixed. I guess he was trying to quote serebii epiguides to say that the show promotes people liking it because of its attractiveness, but the real arguable claim, "...Torchic's popularity is partially due to its aesthetic appeal." is completely unsourced. In fact, a comparison is made to the previous fire starter (no Stephen King jokes) Charmander and the source isn't the one making the link, i think it is meant to establish the fact that Charmander's popularity has to due with aesthetic appeal, but that source is just some personal website gallery of Charmander merchandise. At least the Hasbro stuff is from a more legitimate website. Of course this is only one example. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 05:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Um. Serebii isn't a reliable source not just because of the errors, but because of the source of those errors. Serebii is full of mistakes because it's one guy's fansite. It's not even close to independently reviewed. It's just not a reliable source.

It doesn't help that this article's relatively best references are to a fansite noted for being somewhat flakey among Pokémon fans. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The last spur was meant in jest, of course I'm not going to want to revoke Torchic's FA status merely because Serebii gave me incorrect game guide info (they're unrelated). But there are other outstanding issues with Serebii. AMIB is willing to argue them. I'm just in the background. Hbdragon88 07:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Serebii is a self-published source, therfore it fails to be a reliable source. The claims that nothing else could be used doesn't matter because if there isn't a reliable source then Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on it. Jay32183 18:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I picked a couple of Serebii citations at random. The first one: Synopsis of Pokémon Adventures manga; Chapter 183. "VS. Mightyena" Serebii.net. URL accessed 13 May 2006. -- shouldn't this be citing the the manga directly? There seem to be quite a few citations of this type. The second: Bulbasaur Pokédex entry - "A seed was planted on its back at birth. The plants sprouts and grows with this Pokémon." Serebii.net. URL accessed 5 July 2006. -- I don't see that quote on that page. Even if Serebii were a reliable source, there are still issues here. Side note: citation 6 is broken. Pagrashtak 19:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

When no analysis is being performed then citing manga, anime, or the video games directly is perfectly acceptable. The lack of analysis may keep the article from being comprehensive, but that's no reason not to cite the most reliable source available. Jay32183 21:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

With no analysis whatsoever, this article's prose is far from brilliant. It merely slaps together trivial scraps of plot and setting. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be noted that a lot of things can be cited directly from the appropriate media - episode guides are a backing, but seeing as to their source, and some inaccuracies that could come in that source, it's best we stick to simply citing the media. Since Torchic is full of citations that could be attributed to media, that too, should be rectified. And, agreed with AMIB. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 09:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What on earth is all this happening?

• Keep for sure - The article has been provided with all possible sources and if we keep questioning their reliability, the project will never get another FA and we'll rather lose this one and the other one too!

Never shall the official site give us episode guides, game guides, manga guides etc. So eventually either the project fails in its aims because of one criterion. Then why not introduce another two citations at all places where Serebii can't be relied on? Criticism is easy, after all!

The Internet has 1 billion web pages and none of them is 100% reliable; they are all 99.99999999.......%. Still those who don't rely can glide across Google and locate and compare many more sites. Or best is to play the game and clarify all the so-called doubts.

And all the minor problems with a few sources can be rectified with ease or removed presuming them as OR. There's absolutely no need to dethrone the article for that. Vikrant Phadkay 12:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The thing about this is, if Torchic continues to fail to meet the requirements (as it has been doing even since its nomination) its position here should no longer be held. It fails attribution, the article itself isn't so well-written, and writing compatible sections isn't going to happen like magic. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 12:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

On that note, it was bad enough that when it appeared on the front page, editors immediately and consistently picked on its citation problems. Not very good at all. And this isn't a vote yet; it's a discussion to address the shortcomings that need to be addressed before we all either feel it's still eligible or whether we need to bring it up for removal. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 12:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a reminder, the internet is not the only resource. Serebii is not reliable by definition because it is a fan run website. The article's worst shortcoming is it's comprehensiveness, meaning the article is incomplete. There is no discussion of creation or reaction, which is required when discussing a fictional character. Jay32183 18:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns is quality of citations (1c). Marskell 10:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Article appears to additionally fail "comprehensive" (1b), as suggested in discussion. Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 21:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Remove. The prose does not seem brilliant; nor are the citations. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Remove It appears that no attempts are being made to replace the unreliable sources, such as Serebii. Jay32183 02:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Remove. It's not at all our fault that unreliable sources aren't being replaced, because there aren't any others that source all the information in the article. But that doesn't make it featured material. -Amarkov moo! 03:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Remove. Support is gradually building to deal with individual Pokémon as components of an encyclopedic whole, instead of trying to force the treatment of them as individual subjects. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Remove as per users A Man In Black and Jay32183. Citations aren't good at all, and the efforts are low on improving it and the prose, the lack of commentary on what was suggested, or anything else. It's deadbeat. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 06:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per above Hbdragon88 07:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per above reasoning. LuciferMorgan 21:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Remove — 1a, 1b, 1c.

• There is no out of universe information. How was the character created? Cosplay? How was the pokemon received by critics? I suggest looking at Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. If you can find translated interviews from Japanese magazines (which is about as reliable as we can get due to these topics being from Japan, translation reliabilities aside; work with what you can for the subject at hand, because people will understand if you can't exactly find a new york times interview, heh) or secondary analyses that in turn cite sources, then 1b will be met. If not even a borderline reliable/self-published source (which may be fine in relation to this subject) can be found with out of universe information, then this needs to be transwikied, then compressed and merged into a article about this generation of Pokemon. I don't have a problem with most the sources being used, to be honest; it's the fact that if you're using this level of sources (which is probably quite accurate in relation to this subject), why not find out of universe material at least on this level?
• Prose issues throughout.
• 1c. Some of the sources are just plain unreliable, like fansites. Usually, the only things good from fansites are sourced analyses with an author and contact, and interviews with contact information or sources (were they taken from a magazine? if no source is provided and its a fan-run interview, I recommend not using it to be safe). We must be careful when using fansites. — Deckiller 03:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Remove. Unacceptable sources. Thank god people are considering that rationally now. - Taxman ^Talk 02:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Major

[edit] Review commentary

Brilliant prose promotion. Messages left at Bio, UK notice board, Politics, and Political figures. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is full of loads on unsourced statements and has only a few references! NO Feature article should have a statement like "By the 1997 general election Major had come to be seen as an unfashionable, ineffectual and grey figure unable to control an increasingly divided and sleaze-ridden party." Not only should this phrase be reworded but the article status should be changed. Its a B class at least. It definately needs to go through a review process and needs improving. Other examples include unsources quotes e.g. "when the curtain falls, it is time to get off the stage". Similar examples include:

Major's recent low-profile political career was disrupted by the revelation in September 2002 that, prior to his promotion to the Cabinet, Major had had a four-year extramarital affair with a fellow MP, Edwina Currie. Commentators were quick to refer to Major's previous "Back to Basics" platform to throw charges of hypocrisy. Max Hastings in his book Editor in 2002 also commented on Sarah Hogg, a colleague at The Daily Telegraph, "Sarah knew Major intimately, in a way none of the rest of us did".

There is a lot of stuff here, just in the one above paragraph that would support its review. I would argue that the article does not meet FA criteria any more. This is because it is

• 1.) Not Well written, the prose is not good, the article is fragmented.
• 2.) The article is not "Factually accurate" - there are loads of unsourced statements, only two references to any of his comprehensive biographies or those about his government and there are no page numbers!). LordHarris 23:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • In addition, the lead does not summarize the body of text and there is a trivia section. Jay32183 00:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment There were two seperate honours section! Have merged the two, needs a few references though. Also removed the see also category (as only had a link to Majors cabinets) and moved that to the PM section of the article. Have tidied up some of the last sections, moved the wiki link to the end and put them together. Ive also removed the ridiculous speculation (unsources) that John Major was the PM in Harry Potter! Ive also edited the introduction to introduce Major and his PMship better, as well as summarise in reference to the above comment.LordHarris 17:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Have done a bit of a tidy to media representation section, as well as a few references and a quote box. Ive picked up a biography of Major from the library, will try to add some references over the coming days. Some help in the review on references would be most appreciated. LordHarris 18:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added about 10 more references from news sites to his 'since leaving office' section. There were two '1997 defeat' sections and have merged those into one, making it flow until the after office section. Ive added some citation needed facts as well.LordHarris 19:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Have tried to improve, but its still several grades away from being an FA. We need more users to try and tidy up the article + provide references. Definately think this needs to go to FARC at this rate. LordHarris 18:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comments. Full dates are not wikilinked when they should be, and solo years are linked when they shouldn't be. The footnotes are a wreck of blue linked URL's; they need to include title, publisher, last access date, and author, publication date when available, presented in a standard biblio format. (cite templates can be used if editors don't know how to format refs; see WP:CITE/ES). It's surprising that very few book sources are used. There are punctuation errors and numerous cite tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are factual accuracy and citations (1c), POV statements (1d), and prose (1a). Marskell 10:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 22:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per 1c and 1a LordHarris 08:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Remove. Per above.--Yannismarou 15:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove above concerns not addressed. Jay32183 20:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Presuppositional apologetics

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Jwrosenzweig, Religion, and Christianity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As one of the primary contributors to this article, I don't think it meets current FA standards. In particular, it doesn't cite its sources. --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As a minor contributor to the article, I deferred to Flex's expertise throughout my work there, so I won't disagree fully. But, Flex, I wonder if we shouldn't simply decide what needs citations and add them, rather than decertifying and recertifying the article? Certainly it's informative, and accurate as far as I can tell, and there are a few citations (although I admit more could be added). Anyhow, if we are going to de-FA for this reason, maybe some kind of list should be made of what, specifically, needs citation so that it's clear what work is ahead? Jwrosenzweig 01:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for making it fit the current FA criteria and keeping it an FA, which would certainly mean adding the sources of which you speak. However, I have my hands full working on other articles at the moment (trying to get Christianity and alcohol to GA and then to FA). So if that can't be done in relatively short order by someone other than me, I tend to think it should be demoted for now. Making a list of what needs to be sourced, as you suggest, would be a good first step and would allow multiple people to contribute to the improvement effort. --Flex (talk|contribs) 01:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

All right, some fact tags were there already, and I added an exhaustive list of my own. In my opinion, some of these tags may be a little unnecessary, but resolving them would prevent any allegation that a key piece of information is unsourced. Sadly, I lack expertise to track sources for many of these topics. Here is the list, as described by me:

1. the basic definition of PA
2. its origins and current use in Reformed churches
3. the "key discriminator" of PA from other types of apologetics
4. PA criticisms of the "block house" method
5. the evidentialist conclusion about the Bible
6. the central idea of the Van Tilian argument
7. a quotation of C.S. Lewis
8. two paraphrases of Van Til and Bahnsen in a parenthetic remark
9. a paraphrase from Romans
10. Frame's perspective on the Holy Spirit
11. Clark's axiomatic approach,
12. Clark's translation of John 1:1
13. Clark's allowance of competing worldviews,
14. the distinction between Van Til and Clark
15. Clark's dismissal of Thomistic arguments,
16. the allegation of circular reasoning
17. the beliefs of Van Tilians about presuppositions
18. the Van Tilian approach to fideism
19. a defense of the concept of circular argument
20. Clarkians' reliance on the axioms of Scripture,
21. the unbeliever's demonstration of the truth of theism
22. the use of evidence to argue in "broader circles" by Van Tilians.

Daunting, I know. All of these are currently marked with fact tags, and appear in the order I have listed them, should any of my descriptions be confusing or vague. I will copy this list also to the article's talk page. I guess we need volunteers to help resolve these questions. Anyone? Jwrosenzweig 01:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the lead section should say something very briefly about the history of the subject e.g. when it started. Andries 21:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is citing sources (1c). Marskell 11:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 10:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per 1c, and the "references" and "notes" sections need a better organization.--Yannismarou 12:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chemical synapse

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at 168... and Molecular and Cellular Biology. LuciferMorgan 17:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Message left at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine Announcements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviewed in May 2006 here. Parker007 brought this article to my attention, and I agree that it needs some work to get back to featured article quality. I'm concerned that an article of this length is not comprehensive; specifically, it lacks any historical information about the discovery of chemical synapses, and each section is only one paragraph long. It was also a very poor read for me since the jargon used is poorly (if at all) defined. There are very few inline citations too. I know science articles have their own guidelines for that, but I don't see why the citations can't be of the same quality as those in Proteasome. ShadowHalo 07:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I also want to state that the section "Anatomy and physiology" is in horrible condition and I removed 2 sentences and left this message on the talk page of the article:

Second Sentence

• The biological membrane of the two cells side each other across a slender gap, the narrowness of which enables signalling neurotransmitters to pass rapidly from one cell to the other by diffusion. This gap, which is about 20 nm wide, is known as the synaptic cleft.

• Which 2 cells? --Parker007 06:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Third sentence

• Such synapses are asymmetric both in structure and in how they operate.

• Which such syapses? --Parker007 06:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

--Parker007 20:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've mostly reverted to the version from before this review started, saving some minor changes. Basically all edits had reduced article quality. To Parker: (1) The two cells talked about in the previous sentence. (2) The prototypical synapses that have been the whole topic of the section thus far. I really don't see how you would have trouble with this, nor do I see how simply deleting the sentence is helpful. That said, the article could use some work. It doesn't appear, for instance, to treat metabotropic receptors, instead discussing NT receptors only in terms of ion channels. In general there is an awful lot to say as this is a pretty fundamental article for neurobiology. On the plus side, inline citations do not appear to be a serious problem; this is all pretty fundamental and unlikely to be challenged. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(1) The two cells talked about in the previous sentence. So can you name the cells? Because it is very ambiguous. --Parker007 04:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC) (2) The prototypical synapses that have been the whole topic of the section thus far. What is a prototypical synapse? --Parker007 05:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

A prototypical synapse is a synapse that is prototypical, that is model. I have changed the term to archetypal to make this clearer. The two cells are any two cells at a synapse, I am not sure what you mean by naming them. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• The problem probably stems from the fact that there are many related articles that could form part of a greater article. For example Postsynaptic potential, Neurotransmitter, Neuromuscular junction, Receptor, Electrical synapse, etc. could all form part of this article. Maybe we can work to have clearer redirects to the sub-articles. Otherwise we could basically have a whole encyclopedia-length article on Synapses alone. Nrets 00:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b), and citations (1c). Marskell 11:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 09:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Remove, 1c. Some improvements during review, but not at all adequate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove. Per 1c. Notes and references need some cleaning. And why all these words in bold?--Yannismarou 10:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suzanne Lenglen

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Jeronimo, Biography and France. LuciferMorgan 18:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• No inline citations, only one very generic reference, too short lead, sub-FA prose level (one-sentence paragraphs)... would be B-level now. —Onomatopoeia 12:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Some inline references I have added. What I find missing in the article is mention of her influence on women tennis in terms of style, dressing sense and her media darling image. STTW (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comments WP:LEAD is inadequate; WP:DASH review needed—incorrect use throughout; footnotes need publisher and author, publication date when available, and last access date on websources; the article has a lot of unattributed opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Work needed per WP:LEAD, and the structure should be tweaked. Referencing is a problem. Ceoil 23:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), and LEAD (2a). Marskell 09:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 09:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per 1c & 2a. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Remove no improvements to list of deficiencies above. (Gosh that's a long sig ahead of me :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Alaska

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at the article's talk page and Wikispork --Miskwito 00:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Messages left at History, United States, and U.S. states. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Fails 1c; there are very few inline citations. A number of reliable print references are cited at the bottom of the page, however, so I think the main task is just indicating which statements in the article itself come from which reference source. Otherwise, the article seems excellent. --Miskwito 00:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comments Numbers and units of measurement must have a non-breaking hard space between them. Is it "The Department of Alaska" or "Department of Alaska"? (Pls see WP:MSH). Full dates (Month day, year) should be wikilinked; some are not. Footnotes should include publisher in all cases, author and publication date when available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Sooooo...15 days later, and nothing changed. I don't have any Alaska-related reference works to dig through for citations myself (nor does the topic really interest me enough that I'd be able to focus on doing that for very long). I'm not sure who decides when to change this to a FARC, though...? Or if that's appropriate yet, since hardly anyone has weighed in? --Miskwito 04:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• I am absolutely 100% against removing this article. Soapy 05:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, do you have a reason? The problem is that the article is simply not well-cited. For example, the Spain's attempts at colonization section (seven paragraphs) doesn't have a single in-line citation. In fact, very few sections have more than one or two in-line citations (by which I really mean <ref> tags--of which the entire article has a total of 15), if they have any at all. Of the 17 sections, I count seven with no references cited (including five in a row, beginning with Spain's attempts at colonozation through District of Alaska). Russian Alaska (eleven paragraphs long) has only three references cited--one in the first paragraph, one in the second, and one in the sixth. And it goes on like this. I don't think it's necessary for an article to cite every single sentence to be FA-class, but this is pretty unacceptable, in my view. --Miskwito 05:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree that there is not enough citation but that should not mean deletion/removal of this article. It needs to grow, not be torn down. Wikipedia has enough problems with editors vandalizing (not you) and deleting articles. In my opinion you are only adding to the problem, not solving it, and you seem to be in a hurry to remove it. That got me looking at your contributions to see if there was a clue as to why. I saw mostly Native American articles you have edited and I can't help but think there is an underlining issue at stake here for you. I am sorry for what seems like a personal attack. I am just being honest in my thoughts.

It's just sickening what Wikipedia has become in a short amount of time. There are far more important problems in Wikiland to worry about than deleting an article that lacks citations. Very recently I had to abandon the Alaska article and several others because I just could not keep up with the vandals that attack literally by the hour. This is a problem I would like to see you and others sink their teeth into, not trying to delete articles that just need help. No, I won't take the time to work on this article as I already have other pressing projects, but I admit the history of Alaska is very important to me and I would like to see this article stay around. If you still feel the need to delete then go ahead. I have done my best to get a hold of Wikipedia about the main problems of vandalism but have never heard a word from them. I was invited to come to Wikipedia a few years ago but I resisted because I knew the problems it had at that time would only get worse if left unchecked. That prediction has come true and Wikipedia still won't fix the problem. All it would take is a mandatory sign-in to edit an article but Wikipedia won't implement it. One by one the articles I watched and edited have become more of a burden than a joy and one by one I opt to abandon them due to daily having to fix the vandalism. Vandalism is not a problem on this article but I guess perhaps I will stop watching it as well because I just don't want to be there when you actually delete it. Wiki can ignore the problems but that does not make them go away. Lastly, I want to report that a couple of weeks ago my daughter's high school history teacher announced to his classes that he will no longer accept Wikipedia as a reliable source of information on their projects. Vandalism is to blame not lack of citation. That about sums things up. I apologize for digressing. Soapy 23:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think people might be misunderstanding what a Featured Article Review is...this isn't the same thing as nominating the article for deletion. I definitely, definitely don't want the article deleted! What its purpose is is to try to fix some potential problems with the article, and if that isn't done, then to have a discussion on whether the article's status as a "Featured Article" should be removed. It would still exist, and it could still be renominated to be a FA in the future. I'm sorry for any misunderstandings. --Miskwito 22:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Miskwito, I apologize to you. I mistakenly saw you as just wanting to destroy rather than build. I went to the Far page again and see now that I was mistaken with their definition. Wiki needs to clarify that page better. They also left out what becomes of an article once it is removed from Featured Article status. Does it become a Stub? Soapy 00:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Snowy, don't worry. The page isn't turned into a stub, deleted, or in any other way altered. It may lose the little star in the corner, but that's all. Of course, if improvements occur it can also keep the star. Marskell 09:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), and formatting issues (2). Marskell 09:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 09:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per 1c. Jay32183 20:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove for citations. It would make a fine WP:GA if nominated, though. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove—1c and 1a. Tony 08:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Representative peer

[edit] Review commentary

Message left at Emsworth. LuciferMorgan 20:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Messages left at Scotland, Ireland, British Government, UK notice board, and Peerage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Another Emsworth work, needs some inline citations to keep it at Featured Article status. Judgesurreal777 22:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Inline citations are not specifically required, but excellent as it is, the article lacks sources in general. I'm puzzled by the sentence "Following its disestablishment in 1871, the Church of Ireland ceased to send spiritual representatives". Ceoil 21:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

  Just so you know, they are required, as has been discussed on this page in the past. :) All the best, Judgesurreal777 21:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

  They are not specifically required. They are de facto inevitable. Marskell 13:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• All of the cited sources are online (except for the 1911 EB). I suspect that dinky footnotes could be added if one so wished. But what needs inline citation? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The section on Scotland has not one inline citation. That would be a good start I think. Judgesurreal777 19:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is insufficient citations (1c). Marskell 13:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 09:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Remove Judgesurreal777 19:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per above. — Deckiller 04:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per 1c. Jay32183 20:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per 1c—Pity. Tony 08:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I realise this is late in the day, but can this be held for another day or two. Ceoil 14:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Tell us soon. I was just about to close it, but won't. Marskell 14:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I've finished citing where I though it was needed; though fact tags are welcome. Ceoil 20:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks a ton better now. Judgesurreal777 20:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• keep — modern standard has been reached. — Deckiller 23:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Article is now cited. Jay32183 00:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genesis (band)

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Arejay and Biography. LuciferMorgan 03:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Although this is now one of my favourite bands, I am nominating their article for review per FA criterion 1c (a trifle for a newer FA, which was promoted last April). For starters, three statements have {{fact}} attached to them, hence conflicting with the proper requirements:

• "However, Collins, in a Genesis history video, explains that the whole story is about a split personality." (referring to The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway)
• "The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway strained relations between members of the group, particularly Banks and Gabriel."
• "Phil Collins, whose backing vocals had featured previously in the Genesis sound of the Gabriel era, was given the job of coaching prospective replacements, including Jon Anderson of Yes."

I sense rightly it must be the only thing wrong with the page. If there are any other issues, feel free to tell me about them. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 01:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I have addressed the concerns above here. However, I will go through the article again to eliminate weasel/peacock words and anything that seems to be an interpretation of Genesis' work rather than a statement of fact. AreJay 15:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Many of the music samples are to long. Samples can't be longer than 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the song, whichever is shorter. (see: Wikipedia:Music samples)— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 19:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comments Footnotes are not formatted to a consistent (or any) biblio style, including publisher and last access dates; See also templates are used incorrectly at the ends of Sections; dashes and hyphens are used incorrectly throughout (pls see WP:DASH). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Have not read article yet, but a number of the sound files lack a fair use rationales. The most usual justification is that a file is used to "illustrates an educational article that specifically discusses the song from which this sample was taken"; little evidance of that here. Ceoil 21:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), and various formatting issues (2). Marskell 08:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: Fair use rationale added to sound files, although some exceed the typical 30 second cut off point. Have tidyied up the refs, however most are from 2nd hand reproductions of reviews/interviews, and a number of the links are dead. The copy needs extensive repair, which I may or may not get round to (really don't like Genesis). Ceoil 01:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: Have worked on the article, the copy editing needed was relatively light; think this is close to a keep. Ceoil 01:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

My only concern is the number of ogg files. Ceoil 10:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep — looks pretty good on the whole. — Deckiller 04:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I haven't had time to read it, but I don't see any major problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• I agree, from a cursory look. Tony 08:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. In "Phil Collins era: 1976–1996" there is a picture that should be replaced or removed.--Yannismarou 10:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Poland (1945–1989)

[edit] Review commentary

Original author aware. Message left at Poland. LuciferMorgan 21:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Message left at History. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Promoted to FA status quite a long time ago. Has 4 decent references at the bottom, but could use some in-line citations. There are some citations of online sources in a few rare places, but they are not presented in the proper <ref> format either.--Konstable 05:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

On my to-update-list. Please notify WP:PWNB. We will see what can be do to bring it to modern standards.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Some random concerns:

• The lead has a bunch of images that causes it to look extremely awkward on high res.
• Misplaced formality throughout, such as "in order" to, "prior to" (instead of "before"), vauge terms of size ("a number of"); very minor stuff.
• Five solid references, but only 2 footnotes.
• The article is a bit on the long side, but it's already a subarticle. Perhaps a 10-20 percent trim, if possible?

On the whole, it could use inline citations and a copy-edit by a group of editors. It's a long article, so it's going to take some time. However, it is still a very good article, so elevating it to modern standards should not be a huge challenge. — Deckiller 10:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• • I will see what I can do about inline citations. Copyediting is not my forte (as I am not a native English speaker), and I strongly object to 'trimming' (Wikipedia is not paper). That said, splitting excessive details into subarticles is always a good idea (I just object to the suggestion that some info may be uncessary and can be deleted).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Subarticles will be a great idea; sort of like what's going on with the B-movie article. I'll work on copy-editing with the other FAR people, but it looks like this article will get a lot of modernization, which is always great! — Deckiller 22:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    • A hint for anybody willing to read a little: a more recent FA of mine, History of Solidarity, has a lot of great inline ctiations for much of the facts covered in part of that article (late 1970s-1990). So feel free to see which ones can be copied and added here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree. HoS being a POV-fork of this has a lot of stuff that needs to be moved where it belongs. --Irpen 04:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Shame nobody supported your POV-fork claim during HoS FAC. Why don't you try FARC for that article, as long as you are here?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Only because time constraints cannot allow me do all I want to do. --Irpen 06:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: I have significantly improved inline references in the article. That said, there is still room for improvement - but I believe this FARC comments have been mostly addressed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citation format and sufficiency (1c) and prose (1a). Marskell 08:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Remove unless size is addressed; 66KB of readable prose significantly passes WP:LENGTH guidelines. Also, websources need last access date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I am removing my objection based on size; the article size is now within WP:LENGTH guidelines, and the article complies with WP:MOS issues. I am not supporting as I don't know enough about some of the references used to be certain that the article is free of POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per Sandy's reasoning. LuciferMorgan 17:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Remove, but really only because of the massive length. The citation concerns seem like fairly minor points. Peter ^Isotalo 09:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I can hardly believe size is an objection: at 66kb prose (91kb total) the guideline states only that 'Probably should be divided' - hardly a reason for FA delisting. Yes, the article has grown since it became a FA (69kb in July'05), and yes, some small parts can be split off per our summary size - but by becoming longer it has only become more comprehensive and even better then when consensus was to FA it. Again, while I support trimming the article, I cannot believe that becoming 'too good' can be a reason for FARCing it...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional keep — I'm turning away from the length issue, to be honest. It looks like most of the refs have accessdates, although you might want to double check to make sure. Also, the lead is somewhat cluttered — is it possible to reorganize that? — Deckiller 00:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I have trimmed the lead. Comments welcome on talk as to what and where to split to trim the article further.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I was mostly talking about the amount of images in the lead. Honestly, I don't mind the length whatsoever. Perhaps you can move the Partia image down? — Deckiller 01:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Partia is actually the defining image for this article. But feel free to move the images for better layout - it looks fine on my comp, though.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Ok. It seems the major issue left is fixing those citationneeded tags. — Deckiller 19:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. There are 3 ^{[citation needed]} that should be fixed. Note 31 has no page. To be honest, I did not read into detail the article. 66 kb of prose is a bit more than the usual. Maybe sub-articles could be created.--Yannismarou 16:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There are still numerous sections which are large enough to benefit from summary style to bring the article in line with WP:LENGTH. But length isn't the only problem; the citation needs extend well beyond the cite tags added. The article is replete with hard data that is uncited, as well as political statements that need attribution. I'm still a very strong remove unless the article is cited and summarized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The last section, added after FAC, that was poorly referenced and contained all of the three citation requests, has been split to Culture in modern Poland. Thus the article is both better referenced and leaner :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I moved the section on minorities to Historical demographics of Poland (actually, it was a copy of that text anyway) and added a sentence with link to that article elsewhere in the article. Those two recent changed moved the article from 99kb to 81kb :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Piotrus has made good improvements on the article since the FAR. I am in the process of addressing the concern about too many photos. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Length (the only argument that's left) is not a reason to de-FA an article. Besides, my experience shows that FA articles divided onto several sub-articles are not the best option and most of the sub-articles are seldom (if ever) updated by the readers (check the Warsaw Uprising series to see what I mean). //Halibutt 22:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Or Polish-Soviet War - while the main article has been improving steadily, Polish-Soviet War in 1919, Polish-Soviet War in 1920 are becoming more like obsolete ghosts of the past then anything else. Seriously, I find the 'lenght objections' and splitting useful stuff into forgotten subarticles actually damaging our project, not helping it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Something about length: personally, I don't insist so much on it. Yes, 60 + kilobytes of prose is a bit more than the usual, but it is not for me that terrible (now it is even less I think). Recently promoted FAs were more than that. Anyway ... Something I want to say is that IMO some numbers and assessements should be better cited (e.g. "While their attempts to create a bridge between Poland's history and Soviet Marxist ideology were mildly successful, especially in comparison to similar efforts in most other countries of the Eastern Bloc, they were for the most part stifled due to the regime's unwillingness to risk the wrath of the Soviet Union for going too far from the Soviet party line.", "By 1950, 5 million Poles had been settled in what the government called the Regained Territories."). The prose looks to me fine. So, for the time being, I am a weak keep, hoping for further improvements but believing that the article is back to FA status--Yannismarou 18:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)!
• Remove. Article lacks in line citations (for such article scale!), especially when from 32 in line citations article mostly relies on 2 sources. A lot of article's statements are unreferenced, for this reason article looks like speculative and with original research elements. For instance "Poland's postwar recovery was much harder than it could have been" it is pure speculation without proper refs, another one "Poland was forced by the Soviet Union to give up its",and there are many more. I also suggest to remove such wordings as "an immediate rise" , "enormous losses" etc. Article also lacks information about minorities, article do not mentions Germans position at all and it looks like they did not existed in Poland. Another unacceptable development - city names spelling such as "Wilno". In short article still needs major input. M.K. 11:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The statements you mention have been removed or referenced. The article has 35 distinct refs now, and I can't help but note that the newest Lithuanian FA you recently worked on, Act of Independence of Lithuania, has only 37 refs. Minorities, including Germans, are mentioned and refer leader to more in-depth subarticle (please note several other reviewers asked for such info to be split of and summarized, we can't please everyone).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Status: Well, I guess this stays up a little longer. I know Piotrus is willing to work. Can referencing examples be provided (don't swamp the page, please). The article has moved from very, very long to merely very long, which is good. Marskell 20:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Remove. Some paragraphs have no citations (for example, lead, 3 first paras under "The Gomułka period", quick count - 16 paras in total). And writing is aweful (cherry-picking examples): to pay the crushing rates, albeit at great risk of punishment; which was greatly diminished by widescale bribery of police, political earthquake followed, catastrophic blow, two things saved Gomułka's regime at this point, turned into huge riots, welcomed Gomułka's return to power with relief, and even euphoria, etc. Fixing just these won't help: the text needs a very thorough and extensive copy-edit and NPOVing, probably re-write would be even better. And I lack words for this piece: The reforms were greeted with relief by a significant faction of the population. Tens of thousands of Poles who had joined the Communist Party and some Social Democratic, Communist and Trade Unionist Poles, celebrated the opportunity to create what they saw as the society of the future. Renata 17:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment The lead isn't supposed to have citations Renata, or at least it is not required. Search through the featured articles for examples. Quadzilla99 05:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Not great prose—Probably not bad enough by itself to warrant defrocking, the prose needs TLC throughout.
• I find the opening para, which dives straight into shifting territory, inappropriate. What is required is a broad statement of the significance and location of Poland in the history of the continent.
• Remove the subtitles in "Early history". Stubby paras under the last subtitle.
• Why is title case used in the titles (against MoS)?
• "powerful hatred"—unidiomatic.
• Inconsistent use of en dashes/hyphens for ranges (should be the former). Tony 23:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Update. I am continuing to add refs (all specific examples above have been cited or removed) and move unnecessary details of the article. At latest count there are 8 unreferened paragraphs, judging by lack of citation requests they don't contain anything new, but they seem like good candidates for moving to a subarticle. Feel free to tag citation requests templats anywhere. As for language, please edit anything you dislike, I am not a native English speaker and the text looks good to me (it has not been significantly changed in that regard since FAC).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: It seems that a lot of references are added. This article came through some reviews unscathed. Sjones23 20:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comments I'm happy with length now; 8800 words is within guidelines, albeit long. I'm working on formatting and MOS issues, and reviewing references now.
  • Why is this in External links? Toons and other children's programm from 70's and 80's (Polish) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Please check this reference. I wikified the date, but don't know if 02-10-04 in Polish is February 10 or October 2nd. Rzeczpospolita (February 10, 2004) Nr 232, Wielkie polowanie: Prześladowania akowców w Polsce Ludowej (Great hunt: the persecutions of AK soldiers in the People's Republic of Poland). Retrieved on June 7, 2006 (Polish) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Update. Most unreferenced paras has been split, this brings the article to 75 kilobytes and maybe 1 or 2 unreferenced paras. This elink has been split. The date for that ref is 2 October.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I'll fix that date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)