Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/August 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Kept status 1.1 Pope Pius XII 1.1.1 Review commentary 1.1.2 FARC commentary 1.2 Sex Pistols 1.2.1 Review commentary 1.2.2 FARC commentary 1.3 Transit of Venus 1.3.1 Review commentary 1.3.2 FARC commentary 1.4 Mary II of England 1.4.1 Review commentary 1.4.2 FARC commentary 1.5 Ziad Jarrah 1.5.1 Review commentary 1.5.2 FARC commentary 1.6 Omnipotence paradox 1.6.1 Review commentary 1.6.2 FARC commentary 1.7 The Adventures of Tintin 1.7.1 Review commentary 1.7.2 FARC commentary 1.8 Bob Dylan 1.8.1 Review commentary 1.8.2 FARC commentary 1.9 Order of the Bath 1.10 Joan of Arc 1.10.1 Low point 1.10.2 French and English 1.10.3 Angevin Empire 1.10.4 Letters 1.10.5 non-specific 1.10.6 Some thoughts 1.11 Thou 1.11.1 Review commentary 1.11.2 FARC commentary 1.12 Free will 2 Removed status 2.1 Domestic AC power plugs and sockets 2.1.1 Review commentary 2.1.2 FARC commentary 2.2 Ford Mustang 2.2.1 Review commentary 2.2.2 FARC commentary 2.3 Papal Tiara 2.3.1 Review commentary 2.3.2 FARC commentary 2.4 James Bulger 2.4.1 Review commentary 2.4.2 FARC commentary 2.5 Soap bubble 2.5.1 Review commentary 2.5.2 FARC commentary 2.6 She Loves You 2.6.1 Review commentary 2.6.2 FARC commentary 2.7 Prince-elector 2.7.1 Review commentary 2.7.2 FARC commentary 2.7.3 Post-deletion commentary 2.8 Heavy metal umlaut 2.8.1 Review commentary 2.8.2 FARC commentary 2.9 Vulgar Latin 2.9.1 Review commentary 2.9.2 FARC commentary 2.10 Tea 2.10.1 Review commentary 2.10.2 FARC commentary 2.11 Eigenvalue, eigenvector and eigenspace 2.11.1 Review commentary 2.11.2 FARC commentary 2.12 Single Transferable Vote 2.12.1 Review commentary 2.12.2 FARC commentary 2.13 Liberal Party (Utah) 2.13.1 Review commentary 2.13.2 FARC commentary 2.14 Memory Alpha 2.14.1 Review commentary 2.14.2 FARC commentary 2.15 Piccadilly Circus 2.15.1 Review commentary 2.15.2 FARC commentary 2.16 Victoria of the United Kingdom 2.16.1 Review commentary 2.16.2 FARC commentary 2.17 Art competitions at the Olympic Games 2.17.1 Review commentary 2.17.2 FARC commentary 2.18 Fred Phelps 2.18.1 Review commentary 2.18.2 FARC commentary 2.19 Commonwealth of Nations 2.19.1 Review commentary 2.19.2 FARC commentary

[edit] Kept status

[edit] Pope Pius XII

[edit] Review commentary

User:Savidan, original editor, already aware. Messages left at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/to do and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism,. Sandy 19:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This article describes complex circumstances often by only one sentence. The facts are thus decontextualized, sometimes turned into the contrary. Furthermore, this article makes use of the appalling Hirshberger-image, which is POV and makes this a biased, balanced article.

Also see discussion, esp. request for opinion there. UAltmann 16:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The first criticism ("context") is too general to be actionable. Many edits which have been labelled as context involve the dumping of large swathes of European history into the article which have little relevance to Pius's actual biography. This is not an article for discussing the entire history of Europe during the first half of the 20th century, or even the history of the catholic church during that period.

The Hirshberger image is being discussed on the talk page. If you see the "request for opinion" there, you will see that the only two users who have responded so far have supported the inclusion of the image. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Savidan, this is not true,

Str1977 has voted to remove the image,

so has Chris. UAltmann 17:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

FearEireaan (Jtdirl) has voted to remove the image. UAltmann 05:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

As to other criticism than the image: Savidan never lets us edit without consensus, consensus with him is impossible, since he has to all kinds of critizism his stereotype answers: "not actionable" "not biographic" "no relevance" "no entire history of church/europe", the list could go on and on.

Dates are not wikified.

You cannot describe complex circumstances with only one sentence. This is simply not encyclopedic. I am referring to the section where a report of v. Weizsäcker to Berlin Gov't. is cited. Neither the content of the citation is the whole truth nor leaving out its intent. Leaving both out is turning the actual message of the citation into the opposite. In this case, it would be better to leave out the circumstance, but do not alter the facts. One time I wanted to initiate a change of this, Savidan suggested I claimed v. Weizsäcker to have been a double agent. This is nonsense, v. Weizsäcker had a vital interest to let his 'Führer' not enlarge the conflict, which would have been the case if Hitler would have declared war on the catholic world. To keep Hitler vom enlarging the conflict, he worked together with Pius XII . There are numerous sources for this, v. Weizsäcker, Blet, Lapide, etc. UAltmann 06:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I have accepted the removal of the Hirshberger image for the time being on fair use grounds. I'll wikify the dates too. As for this Weizsacker thing, what I explained to you on the talk page is that things like intent cannot be stated as objective facts in the same way that quotations can. The current quotation is undisputable--he said it. The intent is a matter of opinion/interpretation/etc. If you want to include this information you need a full citation and you need to attribute it to the author who ascribes this motive to v. Weizsacker (if your source is v. Weizsacker himself, state the way that he later explained his actions, and when).

All three of these sources that you mention are for the most part entirely out of print, and were never readily available in english. If your information instead comes from a secondary source who cites one of these three, then give a complete citation for that and at least we can work from there. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• This article is not currently listed on WP:FAR. Was it ever listed correctly for review? Gimmetrow 23:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: This review was started on August 30, 2006 but was listed on September 14, 2006. Joelito (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This article was made FA in June, and appears to be subject to POV warring. Perhaps instead of de-listing, the article should be reverted back to its nomination state, it appears much more concise and less biased than it has become. Judgesurreal777 22:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure if there are still ongoing disputes about the two sections in question. Str threw up the pov flag in the "Reichskonkordat" section but hasn't replied yet since I rewrote the section, and CJGB added section dispute to the post-war orphans section, not because the content there was overtly incorrect but because he thought he could rewrite it to be more clear; that hasn't happened in a few weeks. Whenever I remove a dispute tag it seems to provoke moral outrage, but it does seem like there should be a burden on the disputer to attempt to discuss the objections in a timely manner. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I move that this FAC be closed. Judgesurreal777 01:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I move that this FAC remains open. While the article has a ton of references, there are still places which need references. LuciferMorgan 11:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b), POV (1d), images (3). Marskell 18:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: There was no consensus for closing early, so here it is. Marskell 18:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There are no actionable concerns here. This review was started by UAltmann based on some minor disputes which have long since been resolved. The Hirshberger image was removed for fair use reasons and the section disputes have been addressed. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• There are actionable concerns here, namely criterion 1. c. of "What is a featured article?". Yes there are a ton of references here, but given the size of the article they're real sporadic. The article needs more inline citations. Until this is done, I vote Remove. LuciferMorgan 13:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you please provide examples of sentences which require an in-line citation? Otherwise, this objection is not actionable. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate you need clarification, but my objections are actionable. I'll find some examples though. LuciferMorgan 22:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A quick glance throws up the "Priest and Monsignor" subsection that needs inline citations, and I'm sure there's others. LuciferMorgan 22:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

First paragraph of "Archbishop and papal nuncio" needs citing. These are only examples by the way, as there's more. LuciferMorgan 22:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added a lot of citations to these sections, to the point where I think that there are too many. I am reluctant to add any more without knowing which statement you think lacks sourcing. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but will Savidan please change the titles to normal case, not title case (see MoS on this). One reference is wrongly formatted in "Archbishop and Papal nuncio". Tony 13:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Missing ref— not sure what this is: Pollard, 2005, p. 70. Can the External links be trimmed down (WP:NOT, WP:EL)?

I added the Pollard ref. Don't know if I never remembered to add it or if it got removed somehow. I'm pretty happy with the EL right now, but if you have any in mind that you think are problematic, I'd be open to removing some. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 03:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

If all of the External links are relevant and important, I'm satisified with that, but I still see a lot of direct quotes (throughout the article) without inline cites. Sandy (Talk) 23:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe I fixed what you were referring to. Two of them were quotes where the source was named in the text of the sentence and I added references. Two fo them were these unsourced "Nazi media" quotes which some IP snuck into the article several times. I always considered that passage to be unrepentently point of view, so I just removed it. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, issues addressed. Sandy (Talk) 02:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove for now.Neutral. Sorry but issues are not addressed here; at least, until the necessary inline citations are added. I don't want to put these ugly ^{[citation needed]}. That is why, I mention here all the sentences and paragraphs needing citations:

• "After completing state primary schools, Pacelli received his secondary, classical education at the Visconti Institute. In 1894, at the age of eighteen, he entered the Almo Capranica Seminary to begin study for the priesthood and enrolled at the Pontifical Gregorian University and the Appolinare Institute of Lateran University. From 1895-1896, he studied philosophy at University of Rome La Sapienza. In 1899, he received degrees in theology and in utroque jure (civil and canon law). At the seminary, he received a special dispensation to live at home for health reasons." A whole paragraph in "Early Life: uncitated.
• "During World War I, Pacelli maintained the Vatican's registry of prisoners of war. In 1915, he travelled to Vienna to assist Monsignor Scapinelli—the apostolic nuncio to Vienna—in his negotiations with Franz Joseph I of Austria regarding Italy." Important information which are uncitated.
• "As Cardinal Secretary of State, Pacelli signed concordats with many non-Communist states in an attempt to gain recognition for the four-year-old Vatican State, including concordats with Baden (1932), Austria (1933), Germany (1933), Yugoslavia (1935) and Portugal (1940). The Lateran treaties with Italy (1929) were concluded before Pacelli rose to the office of Secretariat. Such concordats allowed the Catholic Church to organize youth groups, make ecclesiastical appointments, run schools, hospitals, and charities, or even conduct religious services. They also ensured that canon law would be recognized within some spheres (e.g. church decrees of nullity in the area of marriage).

He also made many diplomatic visits throughout Europe and the Americas, including an extensive visit to the United States in 1936 where he met with Charles Coughlin and Franklin D. Roosevelt, who appointed a personal envoy—who did not require Senate confirmation—to the Holy See in December 1939, re-establishing a diplomatic tradition that had been broken since 1870 when the pope lost temporal power.

Pacelli presided as Papal Legate over the International Eucharistic Congress in Buenos Aires, Argentina on October 10-14, 1934, and in Budapest on May 25-30, 1938." Three uncitated paragraphs in "Cardinal Secretary of State and Camerlengo".

• "but the opposition of Protestant and Socialist parties and the instability of governments thwarted this aim. In particular, the questions of denominational schools and pastoral work in the armed forces prevented any agreement on the national level, despite talks in the winter of 1932." Here we have uncitated assessments. Who says that the opposition of Protestant and Socialist parties and the instability of governments thwarted this aim?
• "Adolf Hitler, appointed Chancellor on 30 January 1933, seeking to gain international respectability and to remove internal opposition by representatives of the Church and the Catholic Centre Party, sent his vice chancellor Franz von Papen, a Catholic nobleman and former member of the Centre Party, to Rome to offer negotiations about a Reichskonkordat. On behalf of Cardinal Pacelli, his long-time associate Prelate Ludwig Kaas, the out-going chairman of the Centre Party, negotiated the draft of the terms with Papen. The concordat was finally signed, by Pacelli for the Vatican and von Papen for Germany, on 20 July and ratified on September 10, 1933." A whole uncitated paragraph in "Reichskonkordat". And why is there a comma before appointed?!
• "Pope Pius XII accepted the Rhythm Method as a moral form of family planning, although only in limited circumstances, in two speeches on October 29, 1951, and November 26, 1951. (These speeches were translated into English and published under the title Moral Questions Affecting Married Life.) Some had controversially interpreted Pope Pius XI's 1930 encyclical Casti Connubii to allow moral use of Rhythm, but these speeches by Pope Pius XII were the first explicit acceptance of any method of birth regulation aside from complete sexual abstinence. The Catholic Church's modern view on family planning was further developed in the 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae by Pope Paul VI." Important theological comments which are uncitated. I donot say that they are original research, but, if they do not get citated, they will look like that.
• The whole "Apostolic constitutions" sub-section is uncitated.
• "Great Consistory" is another uncitated sub-section.
• "As the war was approaching its end in 1945, Pius advocated a lenient policy by the Allied leaders in an effort to prevent what he perceived to be the mistakes made at the end of World War I." Another uncitated assessment. In so important assessments of a FA, citations are absolutely necessary! Somebody must support this assertion!
• "Galeazzi-Lisi gained admittance as the pope lay dying and took photographs of Pius which he tried unsuccessfully to sell to some magazines, forcing him to resign as head of the Vatican medical services in the wake of massive public protests." Citation needed.
• "Many Jews publicly thanked the pope for his help. For example, Pinchas Lapide, a Jewish theologian and Israeli diplomat to Milan in the 1960s, estimated that Pius "was instrumental in saving at least 700,000 but probably as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands." Some historians have questioned these figures. Dr. Raffael Cantoni, head of the Italian Jewish community’s wartime Jewish Assistance Committee, stated that "six million of my coreligionists have been murdered by the Nazis, but there could have been many more victims had it not been for the efficacious intervention of Pius XII." Moshe Sharett, later Israel’s second Prime Minister, met with Pius in the closing stages of the war and said, "I told [him] that my first duty was to thank him, and through him the Catholic Church, on behalf of the Jewish public for all they had done in the various countries to rescue Jews. . . . We are deeply grateful to the Catholic Church." Golda Meir, Israel’s Foreign Minister, eulogized that "when fearful martyrdom came to our people in the decade of Nazi terror, the voice of the Pope was raised for the victims."" This whole paragraph in "Contemporary" section is full of uncitated quotes. This is totally inacceptable for a FA!
• In totally uncitated sub-section "The Deputy", I quote: "Lichten labelled any criticism of the pope's actions during World War II as "a stupefying paradox" and said, "no one who reads the record of Pius XII's actions on behalf of Jews can subscribe to Hochhuth's accusation."" It is not enough that you mention the book. Since you quote, you should mention a page number as well.
• "In 1999, John Cornwell's Hitler's Pope criticized Pius for not doing enough, or speaking out enough, against the Holocaust. Cornwell argues that Pius's entire career as the nuncio to Germany, cardinal secretary of state, and pope was characterized by a desire to increase and centralize the power of the Papacy, and that he subordinated opposition to the Nazis to that goal. He further argues that Pius was anti-Semitic and that this stance prevented him from caring about the European Jews." Again, in which page of his book does Cornwell say that? Convince me that you have really checked the source!
• "The Commission discovered documents making it clear that Pius was aware of widespread anti-Jewish persecution in 1941 and 1942, and they suspected that the Church may have been influenced in not helping Jewish immigration by the nuncio of Chile and the Papal representative to Bolivia, who complained about the "invasion of the Jews" to their countries, where they engaged in "dishonest dealings, violence, immorality, and even disrespect for religion." (Questions 7 and 12 of the ICJHC report)" Another uncitated paragraph in "ICJHC" with important fndings, which are unreferenced.

The article is well-written, but in its current form it has serious referencing problems. It is inacceptable to have all these important assessments and facts uncitated in a FA level article. I hope they'll be soon properly sourced.--Yannismarou 13:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I can address all of these rather quickly. I already took care of the early life paragraph. Most of these are implied references or issues where the same reference is used for multiple sentences. For some of these things adding a page number would be counter-productive. For example, the summary of Cornwell's book is ot a summary of a single page but of his entire argument! There's no point in citing the apostolic constitutions themselves just to give the jist and the year of publication, etc. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 15:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok! I'm sure the article will be soon fine.--Yannismarou 16:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've addressed most of these. If you could strikethrough the one's in your previous post that have been addressed that would be helpful. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 02:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've done it. I also turned my vote into "neutral", until the remaining citations are added.--Yannismarou 10:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Status: Eight-odd fact requests were added by another user, "per FARC". Savidan, can you tackle those and maybe we can move to close this? Marskell 13:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I was out of town this weekend, but I'll get right on finishing these. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

With the exception of the three citation requests in the Reichskonkordat section (which str1977 has told me he'll take care of), the article should be fine. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Checking versus Yanni's list, "lenient", and the bit on Cornwell have cites, but "Apostolic constitutions", "Great Consistory", and "thwarted this aim" do not. Could you add a couple more Savidan? For instance, he´s one of a few modern popes to invoke papal infallibility. What is a "few" in this context? Inches away! Marskell 11:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

To provide some grammatical input: there is (or rather was) a comma before "appointed on January 30" because it is a non-defining relative clause, giving additional information about this Hitler fellow (for those who didn't know who this is). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The Apostolic Constitution section really shouldn't require a citation. For example, would you find citations in an article about a major author next to a list of his works and their publication dates? I think that the cites that Str1977 has added take care of the "twarted this aim." I'll look for a book that discusses the Great Consistory to add a cite there. As for papal infalibility, as it is a 19th century invention, that should be pretty obvious. But I can cite Pollard's discussion of that if you wish. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 15:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I posted a note on last point on the article talk. Marskell 00:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as improved. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Problem seem addressed. Keep!--Yannismarou 20:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sex Pistols

Article is still a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. Sandy 02:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Promoted in brilliant prose days. Poor lead. Poor referencing; lots of citation needed tags (and more can be added). Abundant weasel words, POV, and original research. Not well written. Overuse of parentheses. I feel it should be moved to FARC quickly because I don't think it can be improved to FA quality in time. Punctured Bicycle 11:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Punk music. Oldelpaso 11:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)‎

Some work on referencing since the nom, but numerous cite tags and lack of inline citations, and issues above not addressed. Move to FARC. Sandy 02:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Lack of inline citations are an issue (1. c. violation) with this article. Also, the inline citations there are need a vast cleanup so one knows who wrote the quoted article, who published it, its date of publication, ISBN (if a book source), the date an article was last accessed (if a web source) and so on. LuciferMorgan 16:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

About half of the requested citations have now been provided. At least some of them (the ones I added!) do meet the above criterion. I'll see what I can do about some of the rest. - Jmabel | Talk 02:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are LEAD (2A), referencing (1c), POV (1d), general copy issues (2). Marskell 04:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Here is a diff. Some work has been done on refs though ce'ing remains; Jmabel, keep us up-to-date. Marskell 04:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment I feel the lead section is too small also. LuciferMorgan 17:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC) 17:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Remove The article is a carry-over from the brilliant prose days, so it has never been through a proper FA nomination. The writing quality is very poor. The article is not well-referenced; I've added many more citation needed tags. The lead is indeed too small. Does not exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. I think this article needs a complete rewrite. Punctured Bicycle 18:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Weak and reluctant remove. This article is quite bad and I see some inline citations, but they are insufficient.--Yannismarou 14:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: While there are, indeed, quite a few statements in this article that could use citation and lack it, I'm pretty confident that there is little or nothing that is inaccurate. But some of Punctured Bicycle's requests for citation raise questions of what citations are for. They seem to me to come from a stance that our writers are supposed have no judgment or discretion. For example:

1. Do we really need a citation that Radio 1 dominated UK music broadcasting in 1977? This is something known to literally anyone vaguely familiar with the time and place. It may be possible to cite for, but at the time it was so obvious that no one necessarily bothered stating so overtly. It's like having to cite for the fact that the members of the band all breathed air.
2. Of the Pistols' last UK gig (a benefit for the families of striking firemen) should we really need citation for "the gig was considered by some as a vindication of their anti-establishment stance when they were, for once, united with what might be viewed as their true constituency, the dispossessed British working class"?
3. Even more so, should we really need a citation to refer to "the band's state of disintegration by this time", given that the band broke up three weeks later? Or for saying that The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle "was McLaren's fictionalised account on the band's history, claiming he controlled and manipulated the band from start to finish", which would be apparent to anyone with traces of a brain who had seen the film?

I believe we need to think long and hard about what we are actually trying to do here: not just in this article, but in Wikipedia. In my view, Wikipedia should not be some sort of game of trying to set new world records for level of citation. It should be about writing excellently written, accurate articles. It is entirely reasonable to ask for citations where someone with at least some knowledge of the topic has some doubts. It is wasteful of effort that could be better spent elsewhere to demand citations for the obvious at every turn. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

1. The request is really for "Coming at a time when deference to royalty was still a predominant trait in both the establishment and the country as a whole, it caused tremendous public outcry"
2. Yes, of course we need a citation for that. Why wouldn't we?
3. Now that I look at it I think the "disintegration" part should be broken out into its own sentence(s) and expanded upon, or just deleted and saved entirely for the "breakup of the band" section. The article makes a massive leap from Never Mind the Bollocks to "disintegration" of the band without any explanation. I agree that the film is self-evident and doesn't necessarily need a cite (the "controlled and manipulated" triggered the citation needed alarm).

I did not add the citation needed tags as part of a game. Inline citations are required of featured articles. I feel that the majority of my requests are reasonable. It is not obvious to me that Le Bomb was one of their potential names, that Bruce Foxton of The Jam accused them of plagiarism, that they held a secret tour in August 1977, that they are planning a Japanese tour in the near future, that "There is no future ... and England's dreaming" is a de facto position statement for British punk, that Rotten bluffed the breakup of the band, that Vicious was beaten by the bodyguards he hired, and so on. Punctured Bicycle 09:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The examples given in the last paragraph, I agree with you, need citations. - Jmabel | Talk 21:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Have resolved about 80% of Punctured Bicycle citation requests (good work there bike, btw), but a remaining section - "Influences and cultural legacy" - though crucial to the article, in it current form is purly orgional research, & POV. I can't cite that stuff, move that it's deleted, at least until rewritten. The whole article, while contaning an exhaustive & well detailed history of the band, is ridden with trivia and needs serious toning down, copy editing etc. I'll try, but i'm not the best copy editor, Coil00 23:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice effort. Just a remark: Inline citations go straight after the punctuation and without a gap without the punctuation and the citation. If you can't citate this section, write it for scratch with your own sources. This is my suggestion.--Yannismarou 17:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like this has now been pretty much brought in line with current standards. I would think that at this point the burden should be on those who think if falls short. - Jmabel | Talk 02:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remove unless original research and citation issues are addressed, and I agree with others that the prose still needs some polish. Sandy 15:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Per Sandy. I still keep my remove vote, until the problems in section "Influences and cultural legacy" are addressed.--Yannismarou 08:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Second look subsequent to additional work done:
    • The references have been sufficiently expanded to encompass bibliographic information, but they use an inconsistent bibliographic style. That is not an objection, but it would help to clean them up, using a consistent style.
    • Are all of those External links good and reliable sources, or are any of them just adverts? Refer to WP:NOT and WP:EL.
    • Discography: what source does one use to confirm the #'s ?
      • I have an encyclopedia of music somewhere in my attic, it may have the postitions - will try and dig it out Coil00 22:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC). My attic does not contain the positions. - Coil00 21:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Is this OR? The lead should summarize the article, but I can't find further mention of this in the article. "While their English contemporaries such as The Clash were perhaps more politically motivated, The Damned more versatile, and Buzzcocks had more astute pop sensibilities, "
      • I had had the same thought and removed. The Pistols are more iconic than the Clash but I don't know if they've had "more recognition." In any case, personal judgements don't belong.
    • I can't determine a source for the entire incident in EMI and the Grundy, beginning with the sentence: "However, it was the band's behavior that gained them their first national exposure:" Since it includes "(ie, they had consumed a large amount of alcohol)", it seems to require a cite. The ie isn't good prose: if we are to retain this article as FA, considering it was promoted during the Brilliant Prose days, I'd feel better if Tony analyzed the prose.
      • I tried to improve a pretty awful run-on sentence and placed a fact request. Marskell 16:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Influences and cultural legacy seems like OR, and is uncited.
      • Note the internal link to "satire boom". "The Pistols communicated directly with a more vernacular audience" should be clear from the rest of the article. There are some cites lower down, though specific band mentions (Rancid, The Libertines, Black Rebel Motorcycle Club) should be cited along with Oasis. Marskell 16:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This is just a cursory second look, to give some examples of concerns I still have: I can be convinced if Tony has a look at the prose and anything that looks ORish is referenced. Sandy 15:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't participated in this process a lot, but do I understand that we will remove it from being a featured article if even a single sentence has an issue in terms of citation? - Jmabel | Talk 06:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I am a keep, pending a bit more work. I'm not a 100% on the writing yet, but I just made a couple of edits and will try and do more to make sure it's at 1a. It's comprehensive and moves at a nice pace without tangents or too much fan aggrandizement.

The sentence with the two cite requests in influences is syntactically very bad, and does indeed require sourcing. There are a couple of other spots that could also use a source, but they can probably be eliminated in a copy-edit. Taken in sum, this is sourced to about the degree we have expected of most. Marskell 10:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Although reluctantly, I turn my vote into keep, because the article has been much improved.--Yannismarou 16:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

During the repair work quite a lot of text had to been removed (including by myself), leaving the article quite uneven in places. Suggest that as well as the continuning copy edit, certain sections are expanded, esp. the lead. Also, looking through the edit history the article is fairly unstable and a magnet for trivia and cruft. If it does pass this review, it'll need close watching.

A lot more still needs to be done, and I'll vote keep, pending per Marskell above - Coil00 22:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Per your edit summary and comments here, hold is probably the best note. No harm if work is going on. Marskell 22:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Update I'm through my copyedit of the body. I'll give it one more read through, but I'm fairly satisfied on 1a. As noted by Coil, things had to be removed to avoid OR (this includes the bit that was bothering Sandy, which I just got rid of pending sourcing) but I don't think 1b has been compromised. This covers what it should cover. Two things:

The Never Mind the Bollocks section needs a sentence on critical reaction. The sentence re the stolen riff is tacked-on to the first paragraph and should be moved (which riff exactly?).

If anything exists in this regard, a sentence on the Royal Family's reaction to God Save the Queen would be interesting.

I'm going to wait for more comments before casting a final vote-like-comment. Marskell 16:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and this may be a Brit usage thing, but I removed spaced em dashes—I prefer them this way—as well as uses of single quotes for 'certain items' in the text. Marskell 16:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I just had another look: the top part is much improved, but I started to find very trivial copyedit things towards the bottom of the article. Let me know when it's time for another look. Sandy 16:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Update: The page has had a flurry of activity today. I'll wait one more day and see if any new copy issues have been introduced. Marskell 18:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll look tomorrow (the 8th) then. Sandy 21:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Very small thing: I won't remove 'single quotes' anymore; I'm deducing this is a Brit usage, and thus is not an error and should actually be followed for this British topic. (I don't think, before editing this page, I'd ever intentionally typed "whilst" anywhere, as another example :). Marskell 21:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone should put up a tutorial somewhere :-) Sandy 21:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment
  • The lead is still short and unsatisfying. The second paragraph is like an island; none of the points are explained or expanded upon later in the article.
  • "Rotten and his circle of friends (coincidentally all also called John) adopted these accrutrements whilst already possessed of a similar style—a grungy version of the 'soul boy' fashion affected by fans of Roxy Music." This sentence is a mess. The parenthetical trivia should be removed. Accrutrements is not a word. The sentence is overly complex and pretentious, and the common reader probably would not understand it. Personally I have no idea what it is trying to say.
  • "'Anarchy in the U.K.' . . . served as a statement of intent—full of wit, anger and visceral energy." This sentence has no citation to support its claims. It is also needs to be stripped of its romantic tone.
  • "Despite a common misconception that punk bands 'couldn't play', contemporary music press reviews and live recordings reveal the Pistols to have been a tight, competent, musically professional and ferocious live band." One author's view is cited; either identify the author, or find and synthesize multiple sources if you want to generalize. However, I read the cited article and couldn't find evidence in support of the sentence anyways.
  • Gig to mean "concert" is slang/colloquial. This is a formal encyclopedia.
  • Shambolic is slang.
  • The use of sic is distracting and unnecessary.
  • "Always washing his feet". Is this an idiom or is it literal? In any case the potential confusion leads me to believe it should be removed.
  • "... although he later claimed to have been bluffing." Citation?
  • "The sale was criticised by critics as a 'sell out'." Again, this is one author's view; identify or synthesize. "Criticised by critics" is an awkward phrasing.
  • The influence/legacy section remains very weak and requires revision and expansion. "The Sex Pistols remain influential, both for their musical style and in terms of their effect on the British cultural landscape. The Pistols communicated directly with a vernacular audience." A quote where Lydon expresses the band's aims is entirely insufficient for backing up the preceding claims, which are quite bold. Many secondary sources are available—both on the Sex Pistols and on punk music in general (which surely would discuss the Sex Pistols' influence)—why are they not being used? The lead stated "They are widely credited with creating both the UK punk revolution and the first generation gap within rock 'n' roll." This is not clearly elicited anywhere in this section. Rancid, The Libertines, Black Rebel Motorcycle Club—these are the strongest examples?
  • WP:FA: "'Well written' means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant." In general I don't find this to be the case. Punctured Bicycle 03:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Punctured Bicycle 20:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I am a keep, finally. I'm still going to scour it for typos, as work has just been done, but this meets 1a IMO. I have changed a few things per Punctured's suggestions: "generation gap" dropped because not mentioned later; "accrutrements" was a typo (should be "accoutrements") but changed to "apparel"; shambolic --> chaotic. Not sure about some of the complaints, though. "The use of sic is distracting and unnecessary." Why?

Re the lead: given repeated attempts to rm OR, it became shorter and shorter. I've added a paragraph detailing a few important points from the body. Coil and I discussed changing it further, so it can be beefed up but I think is fine as it stands. Marskell 08:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"Don't use sic to show off with gotchas. Too many writers sic sics on the authors they quote just to show they spotted a trivial error. If your audience is unlikely to be confused, don't draw attention to minor booboos."[1] Punctured Bicycle 08:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not a minor booboo in that when people notice they me be prompted to go to the link to find out where the error lies, which is a waste of time, or they might "fix" the sentence, which we shouldn't do with a direct quote. Sics are trivial when dealing with a quoted prose paragraph, but non-trivial when dealing with a direct quote, IMO. Marskell 08:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

They may check the source in futility, and they may unwittingly "correct" it. But it is much more likely that the error would simply go unnoticed if the sic was absent. Moreover, this is not a strict error (as in spelling and factual errors), it is just poor grammar; we are not in a position to police others' grammar. If you really are worried about editors inadvertently changing it, then put a note in an HTML comment (though I'd say the possibility of editors adding penises to the article is of greater concern). Punctured Bicycle 09:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep: By now all of the issues leading to this review have been addressed and resolved. This is a comprehensive, fully cited, factually accurate, and neutral article. IMO it is also well written, and meets FA criteria. Coil00 12:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment
  • Article says "The tour proved exhausting, badly-planned, and dispiriting. Over the course of the two-week tour Vicious . . . was beaten by the bodyguards hired to protect him, Rotten suffered a severe head cold, and the band's performances were plagued by bad sound and physically hostile audiences." The source cited does not support these claims at all. On a side note, the source paints a picture of the band's stage personality that this article, unfortunately, only hints at vaguely: "The sold-out 2,200 seat hall witnessed Sid Vicious clobber an aggressive cowpoke with his bass . . . The next show was in Baton Rouge, where Vicious got a simulated blowjob onstage from an enthusiastic Southern belle . . . They pogo'd, spit all over the stage and on each other, threw umbrellas, fruits, coins, eyeglasses, sweaters, coats, shoes, socks, tampax, a brussel sprout, scarves, chains, plastic guns"
    • I can't really find that either. There's certainly plenty of "colour" that can be found and cited otherwise.
  • Article says "Inspired by the performance, many of the attendees formed groups of their own, popularising punk music throughout the British Isles." The source cited concerns only Joy Division.
    • Subsequent sources: the Clash source mentions the Clash in relation to Pistols in the second sentence; the Siouxsie & The Banshees sources mentions the relation in the fourth sentence; the Fall relation comes in the 13th paragraph but does specifically mention a Pistols show. This does not rise to remove, though "many of the attendees formed groups of their own" should be removed and the two paras compressed.
      • What about the bold claim "popularising punk music throughout the British Isles"? Perhaps when the two paragraphs are combined it will become more apparent how incomplete the influences section is. (80% of it will be devoted to the Lesser Free Trade Hall performance. That's it? That's all we can say about their influence?)
  • Article says "After the end of the 'Anarchy Tour' in December 1976, EMI decided it was too dangerous for the Sex Pistols to play live in the UK and arranged a series of concerts in Amsterdam for early January 1977." The source cited says nothing about EMI deciding it was too dangerous for the Sex Pistols to play live in the UK.
    • No, it does not (but see 15).
      • ??? 15 is what I was looking at.
  • "Most of the bass parts on the band's later recordings were played by either Jones or Matlock, who, according to Lydon, had been redrafted as a session musician." Which of them was redrafted? Why is this "according to Lydon"?
    • Matlock, apparently, as a previous version stated. This was compressed. I'm sure Coil can cite it.
      • The point is, it's worded ambiguously, and it isn't necessary to use "according to" for seemingly uncontroversial claims.
  • "A&M dumped the Pistols" Dumped? Is that formal writing?
    • Seems an OK verb to me, in this context.
  • Why is Nancy Spungen not mentioned or explained until her death?
    • Because the blue link is there.
      • From what I've gathered Nancy was a significant influence (perhaps only negatively) on Vicious and the band itself. I'm not saying we should detail everything about her. I'm saying that Nancy must be introduced and explained earlier in the article, not just tacked on at the end: "Oh, by the way, Sid had a girlfriend named Nancy who died."
  • Why is the Bromley Contingent never explained?
    • Because the blue link is there.
      • They were the Sex Pistols' entourage. How is it that they are so tangential that they don't deserve any real estate in the article? And by real estate, I mean perhaps a sentence or two. The article picks them out of thin air without explaining who they were and how they came to be associated with the Sex Pistols.
  • "Following bad publicity from an incident at Heathrow Airport during their return, EMI finally had had enough and released the band from their contract." What is the nature of this incident?
    • 15 explains this.
      • Wikipedia doesn't.
  • The article says "Though matters took an uglier turn when young punk followers of the Sex Pistols became victims of physical attacks in the street by 'pro-royalists'. Rotten himself was assaulted by a razor-wielding gang of 'Teddy Boys' outside the Islington Pegasus pub (a music venue at the time)." The actual source says "Meanwhile, during a break from their recording sessions: Johnny Rotten, Chris Thomas (producer) and Bill Price (studio boss) are attacked outside the Pegasus pub. Johnny has his arm slashed open and suffers tendon damage." Besides the obvious incongruity between the article and the source, it seems that the boat incident and pub incident are not even connected (as the Wikipedia article implies). Punctured Bicycle 23:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The attack(s) on Rotton are well-attested. We need something specific to "Teddy Boys" that I can't find.

Most of the concerns are minor but there are a couple of major things, particularly how to present 1. There's ample sources for the general screw-up of the tour, but perhaps we should not present examples, lest we highlight "this" at the expense of "that." Marskell 00:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

(Replied to some above.) Some can be considered minor, but we shouldn't downplay their importance; collectively they amount to a great concern. Then there are the concerns which are great in their own right. The sourcing concerns, where claims don't even correspond to the source, are an obvious example. Comprehensiveness is another big one; the influences section is wholly incomplete, the article is vague about the band's stage personality or personality in general, the premises upon which they formed the band (their influences, their rejection of progressive rock) are never explained, Nancy and the Bromley Contingent are never explained. The writing quality is another big issue, though some seem to find it acceptable. It is difficult to explain what is wrong with the writing. Here's a random example from the lead: "They released just a single studio album", which should be "They released one studio album". Then there is a sentence like, "Over the course of the two-week tour Vicious, by now chronically addicted to heroin, was beaten by the bodyguards hired to protect him, Rotten suffered a severe head cold, and the band's performances were plagued by bad sound and physically hostile audiences," which needs to be broken down. Some paragraphs do not order the sentences logically. An example of this is the paragraph concerning the Grundy incident; it goes 1. aftermath 2. actual incident 3. things prior to incident 4. aftermath. The lead is another example of this. One's attention should not be limited to these examples; the writing quality overall isn't "compelling, even brilliant". In general it's boring and vague. The article has obviously improved greatly since the nomination started, but the question is not whether it has improved, the question is whether it is FA quality. To me the answer is no. The complacency towards this article in light of the problems is strange; if it were to actually go through WP:FAC, which it never has, I think it would be judged differently. Punctured Bicycle 02:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Complacent is just not fair. Given that you nominated, you know that this was the version to begin with. When logged in and looking at it, Coil has quickly responded to most every request. I'll admit that trusting sources often means trusting other users; in this case I do, because where I have followed them/searched myself they've seemed fine. Sourcing errors can be like typos: editing on top of someone else's edit can cause the mistake. Let's bear in mind {{sofixit}}.

In no particular order:

• Wikipedia doesn't explain what happened at Heathrow. Should it? We write summary style here and we've already got one mention of a band member vomiting :).
• For the example para I would suggest: 1) topic sentence 2) important points (the actual cussing) 3) lesser points (they were replacing Queen) 4) aftermath. This is an appropriate inverted pyramid, IMO.
• The "influences" section was deliberately pared down to have precise mentions of bands that have been influenced by them. This is just presenting a catch-22: vague ORish section, no; focused section, no. Also, do see the end of the "Never mind the Bollocks" first para: "It is commonly regarded as one of the most influential rock albums of the last 40 years, and has been described as 'simply one of the greatest, most inspiring rock records of all time'."
• On Spungen: the fact that she is not described at length, was one of the first pluses I had noticed in this article. The bluelink comment was not meant to be glib; if you want to read about Nancy Spungen, go to her article. From there, "Vicious' emotional dependence on her is said to have interfered with the Sex Pistols' performances and contributed to the band's breakup during their US tour" could be added here, if sourced (though it seems to me they broke up because everyone had come to detest Rotten).
• On the intro: if you believe other examples belong, suggest them, but I feel these are roughly the most major. God Save the Queen absolutely should be there.
• I removed "dangerous" as a possible OR inference. Various physical assaults and other things (e.g., a police raid on Rotten's apartment) can be sourced if we want details; there's obviously been a lot of myth-making re violence associated with the band but there was, evidently, violence associated with the band.
• Bromley contingent: we have "the group and their close circle of followers," and earlier "the [fashion] trend quickly spread, and was adopted by the group's followers." We can move the link up, if you like.
• That you find the writing "boring and vague" is not actionable.
• On an earlier point, I added another review to back up the competent playing bit. It's from Rolling Stone, 1977--actually a great read.
• I agree we should have a sentence or two on the "rejectionism"; in fact, I can probably use the source just mentioned to do it. Marskell 11:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Coil suggested we hold this again. I don't see why not, as the rule of thumb is "obvious momentum", which this has (there were additions to the influence section tonight and some more edits in general). I do believe this is generally within criteria, but Punctured has some actionable points above which should be addressed. One more week? Marskell 23:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Whew. I wanted to spend time in it, but need a clear head and a fresh mind. Sandy 23:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. - Jmabel | Talk 22:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Sandy 02:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Tony 13:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A massive improvement with virtually all the concerns addressed. WesleyDodds 03:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note Consensus is forming , waiting for comments from Punctured Bicycle. Joelito (talk) 14:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain - I can't find any reasons to vote 'Remove'. LuciferMorgan 18:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transit of Venus

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects. Sandy 17:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There are very few references: apart from a couple of in-line links, there is only one reference for the whole article - and that is a single page from a publication. Hard to believe that the entire article's information is referenced within that one page. These reference styles are inconsistent in any case.

There is choppy, unprofessional language used through the article. ("the transits of 2004 and 2012 last about six hours"). What tense is this supposed to be written in?

This article looks interesting on the surface, and I'd like to see it remain Featured - but it needs to be cleaned up a bit by someone who knows the subject well enough, and is able to obtain more references. EuroSong ^talk 16:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Needs more inline citations. LuciferMorgan 23:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Status? Four edits since nom, some refs added by Pagrashtak, (diff), still lacking inline citations, move to FARC. Sandy 01:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose and inline citations. Joelito (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Lacks inline citations (1. c.). LuciferMorgan 17:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong remove.Neutral..Keep Very very very poor references-not a thoroughly researched article. AALmost no inline citations. Three sections are stubby and full of one-sentence paragraphs. Section "Transits of Venus in popular culture" is like a trivia section-it should be turned into prose.--Yannismarou 14:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm starting work on this, but in addition to the citation problems it is currently not comprehensive: there is no discussion of the contact phases other than in a brief aside. It's not necessary to devote vasts amounts of text to this, but it should be mentioned. I suspect it is thoroughly researched though, just not referenced - you don't pull the exact details of the transits out of the air. Yomangani^talk 23:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I've rewritten this and given inline citations. The scientific interest and observing sections have been almost completely reworked and the popular culture section has been dropped (as most of it wasn't popular culture, and what there was could be worked into the text) and replaced with an ancient history section. I think it could remain an FA now, but constructive criticism is welcomed. Yomangani^talk 19:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Wow, another fine save job. The referencing is thorough, I'm leaning towards keep after we hear from other editors who know the territory. Sandy 01:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Nice referencing work. I turn my vote into neutral per Sandy.--Yannismarou 14:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Same as above. I feel a few more refs wouldn't do the article any harm, though even if this action isn't taken I still feel it would be enough to say 'Remove'. So, I change my vote to neutral (can't remember if I've ever gone for this vote). LuciferMorgan 16:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Keep It's a lot better now, thanks to the hard work of Yomangani. However, I'm still not sure if it feels like a Featured Article to me. There are things missing: for example, it is mentioned that the current pattern of 105.5, 8, 121.5 and 8 years is not the only pattern possible; and examples are given of other patterns. However, no explanation is provided as to why these patterns change. In other places, the style is inconsistent (first paragraph of "Grazing and simultaneous transits"): dates are not Wikified (they're given in exclusively American style). This paragraph is also unreferenced. As I say, the whole thing is much improved: but still needs work. EuroSong ^talk 12:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I've addressed the points you raised (Can't believe I failed to cite that paragraph - I've slapped myself, so it won't happen again) Yomangani^talk 14:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Great work, thanks :) I now switched from "Comment" to "Keep". EuroSong ^talk 08:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: More fantastic work from Yomangani. Some thoughts:

• "Before modern astronomy, observations of transits of Venus helped scientists using the parallax method calculate the distance between the Sun and the Earth." Would we call them scientists "before modern astronomy"? The people mentioned later as doing initial work on the topic, Kepler and a Mr. Jeremiah Horrocks, are both post-Copernican, and "before modern astronomy" doesn't well describe them. Or is that sentence in the intro meant to refer to still earlier work?
• This leads to thoughts on sectioning. I think "Ancient history" should be moved up immediately before "Scientific interest in transits". Rename the latter—perhaps "Modern research". They might both then be moved under one level two ("Research and observation"?). "Grazing and simultaneous transits" should then be bumped above "Observing", the latter becoming the last section. Sectioning in general is, of course, partly open to interpretation. But this one doesn't seem right.
• Given the rarity of the event, surely the 2004 transit produced research papers. A small section on that would be fine.
• "A transit of Venus should be observed only with proper precautions" and following in the intro. The shift to a prescriptive tone does not have the right feel. Tweak it to a neutral description of how observing occus (e.g., avoid "should").

This obviously well on its way to a keep. Kudos again. Marskell 16:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't that happy with the layout either, but since nobody raised it I didn't want to play around with it - I will now though (and take care of the copyediting). With regard to the issue of the 2004 transit - it has its own article and I think that level of detail probably belongs in there (it isn't actually in there, but it should be), what do you think? Yomangani^talk 17:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I will move to a keep as I think this is now within criteria. Re 2004, I think five or so sentences as a level three under past and future would be in order, particularly if it's not in the sub-article and should be; a sentence or two on what to expect for the next one would be fine too. Might see what can be found here. Marskell 21:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Another fine save by Yomangani. Sandy 15:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Three Four keeps now; are there any opposes? Sandy 14:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mary II of England

Article is still a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/to do, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Royalty, and Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board. Sandy 16:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This article has one reference to the 1911 Encyclopedia, a website, and no inline citations. Also, it may be uncomprehensive, but that is a more minor point since I am not familiar with the topic. Judgesurreal777 07:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Criterion 1. c. which asks for inline citations, references and so on isn't met by this article. This needs to be addressed. LuciferMorgan 15:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• I'll take a look this weekend at my references to add appropriate cites and references. As for comprehenive, remember that she only "ruled" for five or so years and even that was as a figurehead. --mav 22:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Status? Two weeks, still no inline cites, move to FARC. Sandy 16:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness and inline citations. Joelito (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Lacks inline citations (1. c. violation). LuciferMorgan 21:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Per bove+just one reference except for Britannica. Very poor research.--Yannismarou 08:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral Remove Not featured quality. Punctured Bicycle 17:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - As it seems to have been abandoned, I've started work on this, but gathering references for some of the claims is taking longer than I thought it would, and I'd prefer to do some more digging than cut them from the article. As far as comprehensiveness goes, I don't think it is lacking in any significant detail (there are a few minor points that I will fill out later from the new references). Yomangani^talk 01:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• You are doing a nice job. If you find quite swiftly the material you want, Ok. The article needs some more inline citations (some paragraphs have no inline citations) and definitely some more sources. Britannica and one more source do not constitute the adequate number of references. If you don't have the necessary time, you can work on the article with you own pace and renominate it for FA.--Yannismarou 14:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Nice work so far: I'm willing to wait. On a separate note, I am discouraged when reviewers vote to Remove for lack of inline citations when the FARC period is just beginning: it might be helpful to not accumulate Remove votes until we're certain no one is going to do the work - perhaps at least a week into the FARC. Sandy 15:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've finished citing sources and added what detail was missing (turns out she wasn't that exciting as queens go). I wasn't intending to relist the cited sources in the references section as Yannismarou seems to be suggesting (maybe I've misunderstood?), as this seems a bit redundant, but I can do it if it is some requirement or style pointer I've so far missed. I suppose I should point out that I've noticed the connected article, William III, is an FA and suffers the same problems as this one, so probably needs listing on FAR at some point. Yomangani^talk 01:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No more just the shark guy, huh ? :-) I've left notes for other reviewers to have a new look (Yannismarou is already aware, so didn't leave a note for him/her). There's a long list of these articles that need cites: you can find it on the WP:FAR talk page. <grin> I'll have a look at this article tomorrow, and cast my vote. Sandy 03:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Just about keep. Good summary style and an engaging read. Refs seem solid now--well done.

One thing: can we clarify the difference between the Scottish and Anglo-Irish thrones? The second sentence in the intro has a singular subject despite two thrones being mentioned in the first. We don't need a lengthy explanation in the intro; just a brief clause and then an inline note explaining it. I don't want to give the impression that the thrones were conterminous during her reign (not so until 1707, AFAIK), so when the difference in dates is arrived at in the body, add one more sentence making this clear. Marskell 07:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully made that clear now - I've added a paragraph on the first Jacobite uprising too, to emphasise the point without sledgehammering it. Yomangani^talk 11:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I disagree with Sandy about the Remove votes. If somebody is working and does a good job, a Remove vote can change. And I'm always closely watching my votes! On the contrary, a quick Remove vote constitutes an incentive for somebody to work. After all, the vote period is the last one after a long period of review. If somebody has started working during this period, we see that, we respect and we don't cast remove votes. It is as easy as that. If nobody works and nobody votes, then this might be a counter-incentive for the improvement of the article. Now, as far as this article is concerned, I donot feel ready to remove my Remove vote:

• "Nenner, Howard (1998). The Right to be King: the Succession to the Crown of England, 1603-1714" Is this a printed source? If yes, why don't you mention the page as you should? And why don't you place it in the references as well (all sources of the inline citations should be found in references).
• "G. Burnet (1833). History of my own Time." No page mentioned. Not listed in references.
• " Brewer, E. Cobham (1898). Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. Henry Altemus." No page mentioned. Not listed in references.
• In references, I still see only one printed source. I respect on-line sources, but I believe that for this particular personality printed sources are abundant. If you add pages in the printed sources in "Citations" and then include this sources in "References", I'll reconsider this objection of mine.
• And, by the way, let's stay on the inline citations. Most of them are not scientific works nor inline articles, but biographies; one or two are from Britanica or Columbia, but most of them are short and unsigned texts. That is why, I regard more printed sources (suitably citated and referenced) as necessary.--Yannismarou 18:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair point about the page numbers, I'm always forgetting to write them down - I'll look at those again. Not sure about the duplication of the cited sources in the notes and references sections though. As I said earlier, this seems somewhat redundant, and I don't see anything in the manual of style about it, so unless you can point me to the appropriate page, I'm not going to do that (to be honest, I'm unlikely to do it even if you do point to the page...life's too short). Yomangani^talk 19:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Since there were only two sources listed in the references section and both were already listed in the Notes section, I just removed the old references section and renamed the Notes section to "References". That's ok, right?Maintain 05:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That's ok. Waiting for the page numbers. Yomangani must understand that when he keeps two sections ("Citations" and "References") what he regards as redundant is necessary. Now, it is better, although I prefer to see both "Citations" and "References", because this structure serves better the checking of the sources and is closer to the structure of most scholar researches and articles (you, usually, don't find a scholar article with inline citations, but without references). But, I guess this is a personal taste that I apply in the articles I write and not a rule of WIkipedia - not yet at least! I'll be ok with the page numbers.--Yannismarou 07:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Page numbers are now present (and the abortive attempt to refer to a quote from another source using the cite template somewhat corrected). "References" were kept for historical reasons - the two works there were the original references, so covered more than the corresponding inline citations, but since the citations now cover any material that these would have covered previously, I don't have an objection to the removal of the section. We'll agree to disagree over the references/inline citations - we can fight it out over at the Manual of Style sometime. Yomangani^talk 08:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Yomangani's additions satisfy my concerns on the two thrones. Good work.

Re "I regard more printed sources (suitably citated and referenced) as necessary", from Yanni: I regard them as preferable but not as necessary to uphold status. The criteria do not demand them, though individually reviewers may encourage their use. The nature of the Wiki-beast tends toward on-line sources, which, if reliable, should be acceptable. I would like to see this travel site and this site replaced, though. Marskell 09:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair point. I won't get rid of them, but I will provide other sources for the statements they currently cite. Yomangani^talk 10:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Done, although the additional citations are from the current EB - I'll probably come back and change those later (both are bound to be in McCauley's History of England which I don't have here) Yomangani^talk 14:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Issues addressed, article cited, nice work. Sandy 13:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Maintain, my remark had to do with the previous status, when the references had almost no sources and the sources mentioned in "Notes" were without pages. Right now I know I cannot object, although I've proposed to raise the demands concerning sources of FAs. As it is now the status quo, I already know and you are absolutely right about the distinction between "necessary" and "preferable". I believe this must change, but for now I am obliged to vote keep. Yannismarou 19:19, 21 September 2006 UTC}}

[edit] Ziad Jarrah

Article is still a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism and Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/to do. Sandy 22:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

While this was considered quality work back when it was declared a featured article back in 2004, two years later, it no longer meets the standards. While there are probably more problems, the two most pressing issues involve images and citations. There are too many photographs of him — they're claimed as fair use and they lack rationales. I don't want to add rationales until we figure out which images to keep. As for the citation, there are zero inline citations. We should get to work on getting this article to current standards. —this is messedrocker (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather see the images saved and the FA status removed, than vice versa - given his personal prominence, but I agree wholeheartedly with you about the need to fix up inline citations. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 02:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily saying that the FA status should be removed, and that the images should go away. What I mean to say is that we should upgrade this article to current standards and see if we really need all these pictures (if we do, that's fine). —this is messedrocker (talk) 06:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the article has inline citations, they are just formatted as embedded external links. I agree that there are too many fair use images. Of these four images: Image:Young jarrah.jpg, Image:07-hijackers-inside.jpg, Image:Jarrah-2000-Flying-Florida.jpg, Image:Ziad-Gym-ePass.jpg, only one is needed. The others don't add anything new to validate a fair use claim. Pagrashtak 18:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Refs converted, but there aren't many. Sandy 22:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Move to FARC: still not well-referenced, not much activity towards improving the article. Sandy 22:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree: do the contributors still care about it?

Could do with a run-through to fix awkward expressions like: "He got pulled over ..." (space missing, too); "After looking in several countries,.." and many more. Consistently abbreviate "United States"? Tony 05:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I agree that it needs to be cited inline. I wrote most of the article, but it was a while ago, and I would need to go through my sources to determine what came from where. (90% of it came from the 9/11 report.) I don't know that all the images are necessary, strictly speaking, but I'm not sure they should be removed. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 02:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are images (3) and citations (1c). Marskell 15:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Still lacking inline citations. Sandy 10:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Strike, now referenced. Sandy 17:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I was asked to take a second look. I can take a closer look when I'm home next week, but the first cite I encounter is:
    • The Wall Street Journal, 9/18/2001
  • which is not adequate. Is there an article name, author, etc? It appears that more work on citations is needed, and several of the citations are only URLs. Sandy 18:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I just added that source today. Unfortunately, that's all I know, and I can't get to the WSJ achives online. I'll go to my library Monday. I went thru the microfiche at the library and corrected that reference. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 23:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
      • The inline citations look better, although some of them need to be expanded (I can find time to do that later today). But, I concur with Tony (see below), and think the prose needs some polishing. Perhaps you can enlist a good copy editor? Sandy 13:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
        • I volunteer. What parts do you think need help? By the way, Tony's comment (below) was made 2 weeks ago, before any of these changes took place. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Not sure what this footnote refers to: Longman, 2002, pp. 101-02 Sandy 15:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Good catch. That was a follow-up ref to an earlier full-ref that was deleted. I fixed it now. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
          • • You're doing great work. I'm not as good at analyzing prose problems as Tony and others, but here are some random samples I have a hard time with (there's more, these are samples):
              • (The four "to clauses" are hard to get through): In the spring of 1996, Jarrah moved to Germany with his cousin Salim to take a course in German at the University of Greifswald to receive a certificate needed for foreigners who do not speak German to study in Germany.
              • (The passive voice here is hard): Jarrah is claimed to have become an associate of the Hamburg cell, although he is not known to have ever lived with the others, and cannot be confirmed to have known them at this time.
              • (Passive voice and redundancies): In late 1999, Jarrah, Mohammed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, Said Bahaji, and Ramzi Binalshibh decided to travel(ed) to Chechnya to fight against the Russians. They were convinced by Khalid al-Masri and Mohamedou Ould Slahi (convinced them) at the last minute to change their plans, and instead traveled to Afghanistan to meet with Osama bin Laden and train for terrorist attacks.
            • There are issues like this throughout; the article would be in very fine shape now with a thorough copyedit. Sandy 17:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for finding these. They have been fixed. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

* Remove Even after the FAR, there doesn't seem to be much progress on cleaning it up per current standards. —this is messedrocker (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remove.. Weak keep—it's improved. Not much has been done. Still problems in the writing. Tony 01:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Much more has now been done. Do you still find problems in the writing? If so, where?

• Keep. There are now inline citations. Progress is being made. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 15:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remove I tried to help this article. I converted the table to infobox biography to help it conform to the standard of Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, as required by WP:WIAFA part (2), and removed a fair use image, since there was a public domain alternative, as required by WP:WIAFA part (3). Both of these changes were reverted. I don't see how this article can remain featured while other editors are actively working against the featured guidelines. Pagrashtak 17:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Your changes were appreciated, and were not reverted. Check the history. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm replying on my talk page. Long story short, they we reverted and re-reverted. I'll give it another look in a second. Pagrashtak 20:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Quadell seems to be making progress on the article and another user re-removed (I know, it's not a word!) the image, so I'm striking my remove vote for now. Pagrashtak 20:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep — Progress is being made, however there are still potential problems. For one, Image:Ziad-Gym-ePass.jpg and Image:07-hijackers-inside.jpg don't seem to be relevant to the article, and they're unfree. I suggest we get rid of them. Another thing is that the lead isn't very long. However, I'll try to do my best to improve the citations, and possibly the lead. —this is messedrocker (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree about the images. I'll remove them, but we need to keep watch on them. Sherurcij uploaded some of these pictures, and seems to quickly remove any tags I put on the images to identify problems. I tagged the gym pass as having no source, and Sherurcij seems to think that adding the word "immediate" to the image solves that problem. Pagrashtak 20:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    • 'CommentI'm unsure how Image:07-hijackers-inside.jpg is not relevant, since it is a photograph of one of the chief pieces of evidence against Jarrah, him appearing with other hijackers months before the attack. It's non-free since it is amateur video, but it falls well within the grounds of Fair Use, as you may have noticed it was used by all media outlets. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 14:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The "Notes" section seems nothing more than a dumping ground for information editors can't be bothered to intertwine into the article - this needs to be addressed. LuciferMorgan 23:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I have now addressed that problem. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 01:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Refs section is much improved. Keep up the good work all editors working to save this article's FA.

• • If not already clear, this should be kept open a bit even if already passed deadline. I've started a bit of ce'ing myself (there are two fact requests now) and I don't see why this can't keep status with a bit more work. Marskell 19:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Status I will close this as keep as soon as the objections (which seem to be satisifed) are striken. Joelito (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say that, laborious as it might be, individual citations from the 9/11 report should be placed in the article; we should not have to rely on a blanket "unsourced statements are from X." At the same time, numerous other sources have been dug up and I think there are no serious copy issues. A weak keep I suppose, but a keep nonetheless. Marskell 18:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Omnipotence paradox

Article is still a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Talk messages left at User talk:Anville and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy. Sandy 03:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This article has a one-paragraph lead section that does not come close to summarizing the article, as required by WP:LEAD. It has only seven total references and absolutley no in-line citations at all. These are the main criticisms that anyone can discover from a superifical scan. The prose is shoddy. It doesn't even come close to satisfying criterion 2a. Example, the very first sentence:

The omniptence paradox is a philosophical paradox that arise when logic is applied to the exitence of... How is logic applied to exitence? And how that does logic's being applied to something generate a paradox? Paradoxes arise within language (formal or informal). --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I altered that sentence and the lead paragraph, it may need more Bmorton3 20:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Example 2:

"Some philosophers see this argument as proof of the impossibility of the existence of any such entity; others assert that the paradox arises from a misunderstanding or mischaracterization of the concept of omnipotence. In addition, several philosophers have considered the assumption that a being is either omnipotent or non-omnipotent to be a false dilemma, as it neglects the possibility of varying degrees of omnipotence (Haeckel)."

Whole paragraph violates WP:WEASEL. Some this, some that, others..., i addtion... A reference to Haekel does not cover all of that philosphical terrain--[[User:Lacatosia s|Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias]] 10:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Again I improved this Bmorton3 20:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'd like to point out the article is only 20kb, so could the nominator please check these things before making ludicrous estimations (3 times over the actual amount). Other than that, all what he/she has said I agree with. There's no inline citations, and I find the prose real awkward and hard to follow also. LuciferMorgan 19:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep Comment then: I actually think this is a well-written article. Most of the complaints, as far as I can tell, are because people disagree with the content, not because of problems with the article. I have no problem following it. Perhaps more care can be given to references, though the ones given are sufficient - a consistent method of using references might be an improvement: inline citations (footnotes) instead of references in the course of a sentence (like the example above). --Marinus 07:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

:Yeah right. I could get my Italian grandmother who speaks no English to write a better article than this after lessons in English over the next three months. As to references, philosophy of mind, Hilary Putnam and Katyn Forest are examples of how FAs should be done. If this thing stays, I go!!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, you don't write "keep" or "remove" on a FAR. Please get an education and learn how to read instructions before commenting.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Francesco, your being on edge immediately puts everyone else on edge. Threatening to leave over the status of an article is not helpful and you don't need to be attackish with Marinus in disagreeing with him.

That said, it's good you brought this to everyone's attention. I have no idea why this article suffers so. Here is a dif round about the time of its promotion (the star was forgotten on the page for a while). It then worsened and shrank, was brought to FARC, and mass reverted by Carnildo here. Are these versions any more acceptable to you? Should we revert again and start from there? Marskell 10:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Damnit. It was cut to bits!! These things usually seem to blow-up into uncontrollable monsters. So how is all of this is supposed to be proof of the claim that the evolutionary process of Wikipedia actually improves articles over time?' All the FAs seem to turn to shit. I don't know what to tell you. The older versions are definetly better than the current one, IMO. It would seem to be much easier to bring in line wth current standards. Now that's just disappointing. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking at those versions, one can see that the standrad were different fot citations and references at the time this was accorded FA status. Those problems would still need to be dealt with in any case. The weasel language is stiil there in at least one place, but that can be fuxed with cites. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Francesco, if you plan to work on it, would a revert to the older version give you a better starting place? It's looking to me like you are making very good progress on Free will. Perhaps others here can have a look in there, come to consensus about what else needs to be done there, and then you all can turn your attention to this article? (It is unfortunate that two philosophy articles were nominated at once: if more time is needed, please let us know, but you have made good progress on Free will.) Sandy 11:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I really don't know anything about this one. But, since it lies within philosophy, I can always look up references, check facts and so on. If others agree, I would suggest rving back to one of those pervious versions. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 12:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment I have overhauled this article a fair amount today. I could probably still use more references, and someone who understands wikifying better should probably convert all the references to one style or the other. Put cite needed tags where you think it still needs references and I'll try to find them or re-phrase. Bmorton3 20:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll go in later today and help clean up and format the references. Sandy 21:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, can we do "merge-revert"? That is, someone pull up one of the older versions noted, along with the present one and swap the better material into the present, while retaining good, recent changes? I commented on the initial FAC and I remember it: this article was good (if not up to the exacting present standards) and that good article is still in the history, even if parts have been lost. Marskell 22:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I saved the ancient version's much better lead section, and salvaged much of the Wittgenstein stuff from it. I don't think there is anything else there than needs to be in the current version, but I suppose you might try to salvage some of the stuff on the medieval context of the debates (although it contains some factual problems, and lots of irrelevancies). If you see anything else in the old version worth integration, do it or point it out to me. Bmorton3 14:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL - I just fixed the referencing mechanism. Well, if they decide to revert, I can do it again. Sandy 22:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Good progress here too. It seems that FACS and FARS are the only way to get serious attention on philosophy articles. I'll look over the old boy myself this morning (my time). You guys work late night European time.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Since we seem to have reached consensus, how can go about putting this process to rest. Notice that I actually go about canclling my complaints and objects almost immeditiately as they are addressed. Mr. Yom over on the Free Will FAR, for example, has not even bothered to look at the article in the last six years. His goal is to simply tear down and slam other people's work. He did not actually expect that anyone wpuld be able to rescue such a monsrosity. It's a fun game, isn't it? There's your problem. I can rip your work, you can rip mine. Anonymously too!! Anybody can play that ridiculous, childish game. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 13:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah hah!! So, you have to be in good standing with Raul, eh?? Here's the concluding comment from the previous FAR:

It's been reverted, and in fact improved somewhat since (not all the edits in the reverted period were detrimental). I don't think we need to wait the full two-week period, or whatever's left of it. Whom should I pester to have this entry's withdrawal expedited—Raul654? Anville 18:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

So let it be written, so let it be done.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 13:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Am I to conclude then Francesco that you think it's back in shape? Any other comments from people before closing? Marskell 15:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, one very important procedural one. How do you close, who has the power to do that and why?? --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 19:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The closing process here hasn't been formalized. Any party who stops by can suggest close and, for a unanimous keep like this one, close it. In this case, you should not close (because you nom'ed) and Bmorton should not (because he's done most of the work and he would be judging himself). Similarly, if it were to go to FARC anyone who notes "keep" or "remove" should not close. Beyond that, there is no formal rule. Of course, that isn't an invitation to have a anons come and along close things—in practice the people who have done closing have been quite involved in the FAR/FARC process. Joel and I have done most of them recently. Marskell 05:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Bizarre as usual. But I get the general idea.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

In any case, since your at it, could have you also take a look at the Free will FAR?? Thanks --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This now looks back in shape to me too. Bmorton3 15:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Before closing There is a section, Other versions of the paradox, with a verify tag. Is it needed? Do Lacatosias and Bmorton3 feel that this section needs verification? Joelito (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• • BM3 put the tag up for that section. Now that you've sort of pressed me on it, I do think there are a few claims in there that need to be verified (absolutely no offense intended to Bmorton2 here, PLEASE!!). The problem is the only material I have on this is some stuff from other Encylopedias on the net. The main thing that Bmorton3 is concerned about is the section realted to Steven Hawking. Neither he nor I have a copy of "A Brief Histiry of Time". If anyone out there does, it should be easy for them to verify and source that.
    • OK we have now fixed both the Hawking's Stuff and the Averroes' stuff, with much thanks to Dbuckner and Lacatosias. I think there are no tags or things still to work on here that have been suggested, but if you find more, certainly mention them Bmorton3 16:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Very listy: I think that some of the explicitly formatted lists could be turned into running prose to reduce the disjointed, choppy visual appearance and reading experience. A related problem is the stubbiness of the subsections under "philosophical response". Last two sentences in the lead are a problem. Perhaps this one needs an extension here, since it appears to be unsuitable for listing at FARC. Tony 03:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, I think Lacatosias fixed the listiness, there is only one left, and it was a list in the source material. As he joked, analytic philosophers kinda dig, disjointed choppy visual appearance and reading experience, so that claims don't run into each other, (check out the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus some time. But we can do the other style, if you prefere. I put the pop culture in the lead, because I thought the function of the lead was to mirror the article in minature, as WP Lead says "It should contain several paragraphs, depending on the length of the article, and should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, and including a mention of its notable controversies, if there are any." The pop culture references are surely one of the main points of the article as they get a whole section, and probably part of notability, but hey if you think they're a problem they're gone.Bmorton3 16:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC) (sorry about dropping my sig originally)

• • Bmorton3 is off for the weekend apparently. He's done the bulk of the work on sourcing this and so on. I'll do a bit of reading see what I can do in the meantime. The problem with this one, for me at least, is that I nominated it without knowing much about the topic. I feel a bit impotent about omnipotence (;.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The opening is awkwardly worded. I'm surprised Tony hasn't commented on the 'fat'. The word 'paradox' occurs too many times. The second sentence repeats much of the first. There is no clear statement in the introduction of what the paradox is (I have delved into Google and found some better ones – Peter Suber's is best). But worst of all, there is a confusion running through the whole article between the 'paradox of the stone', and 'omnipotence paradox'. The latter is really a family of paradoxes, which appear to follow from the assumption of an omnipotent being. The former is an instance of the latter. Also, there is no proper historical background of the stone paradox (Savage's article is not mentioned) nor of omnipotence paradoxes generally. Aquinas is correctly located but there is no reference for Averroes' role in the debate, despite his picture appearing. I think the article could be improved, but it does need a lot of work. I will help, but would like to see a consensus of the 'experts' before doing so. Dbuckner 07:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't vote to remove here. This is FAR (review and comment) not FARC (Removal candaidates). Just a procedural thing. The FAR can be extended, as I understand it, until reviewers (yourself inlcuded) decide that no progress is being made (or something like that). At this point, I have to admit that I think not much progress is being made. I'd like to hear what Bmorton, who has put some real work into this thing, has to say. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have changed. Dbuckner 11:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I suck at trimming fat, but someone else can try if they want. The opening is awkward, but I've tried a bunch of variations and been happy with none, maybe that's a stopper. I think the article focuses on the paradox of the stone but admits that there are other versions of the omniscience paradox. We are filling historical background in slowly as we find it, I certainly haven't found any published sources detailing the historical background yet, and the original FA version, had only a little and it was undocumented and flawed. The article would certainly be improved if we found such a thing, but I'm not sure it's out there. We do need to source the Ibn Rushd, claim, and it isn't in any of the stuff I've got laying around. It's probably in the Tahafut al-tahafut somewhere, and further I'll bet dimes to doughnuts Hawking gives a cite for it in Brief History, which seems to have heavily guided the early editors of this page. I actually think the intent stuff is pretty clear, but we definately at least need to nail down the Ibn Rushd cite before we close, I hadn't noticed that was missing. Bmorton3 14:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• • No, he was referring ot the original openening. I have since cut out those two horrid sentences and replaced them with something close to Suber's formulation. Dbickner has expressed his approval of this at the botton of the talk page. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 14:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• I feel the "Pop culture and humurous responses" still needs a overhaul before this is closed, more or less what Tony expressed in his comments. Until then, this FAR should stay open. LuciferMorgan 13:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll do my best on this aspect. I've converted all the other lists into prose and eliminated the stubbiness of one paragraph three-level indents that was there before. You guys can judge the "brilliancy" of it, as it were. But I cannot deal with the main problems: some missing references and other cintent issies that Dbuckner brings up. This is just not my area and the net has very little that is if use --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm wondering if Dbuckner is able himself to source/change some of the things he points out? Marskell 22:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
      • He is working on it, as you can see on the Talk:Omnipotence paradox page. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

New comment: It's not neutral with regard to theism and atheism. E.g., J.L. Mackie is presented as attempting to resolve the parodox. If I undertand the hisory of the "modern" debate on this, it was Mackie who revived the ommipotence paradox as an argument against the existence of god in "Evil and Omnipotence". Later, Geach, Plantinga and others responded to Mackie. I don't have the article, but I'll see what I can do on this score.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. Just found it and scanned through it. He does, in fact, attempt to resolve the paradox. The main argument is a modern version of the problem of evil. Sorry about that.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• I went through and cleaned up a number of areas, starting with Geach's "four levels of omnipotence". I don't think the descriptions of levels 3 and 4 included anything notable that level 2 hadn't already covered. Level 2 ("Y can do X" is true if and only if X is a logically consistent description of a state of affairs) and level 3 ("Y can do X" is true if and only if "Y does X" is logically consistent) seem in no way differentiable from each other, and the language in which all of the levels' descriptions are phrased in was akward and problematic at best. Level 4 (whenever "Y will bring about X" is logically possible, then "Y can bring about X" is true) is equally redundant, bordering on nonsensical. It seems to me that there are two options: absolute omnipotence, and non-absolute omnipotence. An absolutely omnipotent being can do anything at all, including that which defies logic; this is the basis for level 1. A non-absolutely omnipotent being can do anything which does not defy logic, and is not required to do things that defy logic in order to maintain its omnipotence; this is the basis for levels 2, 3, and 4. Thus, when reduced in essence to levels 1 and 2, since Geach's definitions cover nothing that wasn't already addressed more concisely in the "Philosophical responses" section, I removed them entirely and all references thereto. As a side note, the definition of "almighty" had nothing to do with the omnipotence paradox because it had nothing to do with omnipotence to begin with. "More powerful than any creature" is not a useful definition of omnipotence, since the relative power of other "creatures" is not the standard by which the power that qualifies as omnipotence is measured. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SOuj1ro (talk • contribs).

Level 3 doesn't include anything notable that level 2 doesnt? Look at Cowan's 1964 objection, or Geach in 1973 objection. There are lots of easy things that 2 requires but 3 doesn't. This is the heart of Mavrodes' argument. Cowan proves the difference between the two as a theorem, but here's an example. I am a homebrewer but not particularly strong. I have the ability to "create something which I cannot lift" by brewing a batch of beer so big I can't lift it. "X creates something which X cannot lift" is in general a logically possible state of affairs (after all I can do it). If Omnipotence requires definition #2, then God fails, because here is a logically possible state of affairs which I can do but God can't. But if omnipotence only requires #3, God's immune to this criticism. The difference between 3 and 4 has to do with the temporal mechanics dispute between Peter Damain, St. Jerome, and Aquinas and folks. It avoids the temporalist objection that God cannot change the past. You say a non-absolutely omnipotent being can do anything which does not "defy logic." Does it defy logic for "X to brew a batch of beer which X cannot lift"? Because then I can do it but God can't. Perhaps you argue that for "X to brew a batch of beer which X cannot lift" is a mixture of power and deficiency rather than a pure power, fair enough, but it is still a logically possible state of affairs, so it doesn't defy logic and you need to make further restrictions. "Almighty" does have something to do with the omnipotence paradox, Anselm argues that God is omnipotent despite the omnipotence paradox because omnipotent only means almighty, not something stronger. Geach argues that God isn't omnipotent, because of the omnipotence paradox, but that God is something else very close, namely "almighty." Mackie argued that it isn't enough for God to be "supreme" in the sense of McTaggert, but that something more was required, and Almighty was an attempt to spell out an attribute stronger than Supremecy but weaker than Omnipotence. I didn't even touch on omnificience. But probably this is a debate for the talk page rather than the FAR. Bmorton3 14:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your comments with four tildes. Geach's definitions may or may not be "nonsensical". That's not relevent. I think the two that you mentioned are, but then I'm an atheist who think's that omnipotence of any kind is nonsensical. This is a question of opinion and Original Research. However, where I do think you have a point is in the question: "Which of Geach's defintions is relevant to the pardadox?" It did seem almost as of they were thrown into the article simply becasue they had some relationship with the omnipotence. But which of them (allegedly) resolve the paradox and in what manner?--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted these POV edits.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I fixed some of SOuj1ro's concerns. Dbuckner voiced a few more concerns before he QUIT WP!! such as that we still don't know who first did the triangle version, or how much older than Mavrodes the stone version might be. Further, I have left some of the work of former editors from back in the original FA days, including some stuff on Ethan Allen, that Dbuckner thought, not unreasonably, now inhibited the flow of the article. This article is now vastly better than when it FA'd but yeah, Dbuckner is right there are still things we don't know about it, and would take even more hard work for me to find out and I'm tired of wasting my time in this puppy. Someone else can read the minor commentaries by Ibn Rushd for a while looking for evidence for the claim that he invented the triangle version of the paradox. I'm not ready to leave WP yet, but I am tired to trying to bring old philosophy FA's up to the new standards. Bmorton3 14:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: finding the original souirces of the "stone paradox". etc.. is NOT the new standards for FA candidates. This is a little bit like saying I have to find the first mention in the history of philosohy of something similar to the sense/reference distictnion in oder to refer to the sense/reference distinction in a Wikipedia article. Those are preposterously high stanrards that are the personal opinion of one man. And, expert though he may be, HE has not been able to find these sources and probably never will. I see no problem with the "Ethan Allen" thing either. The mention of a non-philosopher who has discussed these issues, makes the article more accessible to the lay reader. I strongly urge that this article be allowed to pass FAR. It is the best that can be done given the very limited scope of the subject. (just as an aside, the original FA was written by one of the current crop of "expert" rebeller's: Anville). --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 16:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Status? No more cite tags, listiness improved, pop culture appears reduced. Others should have a look to evaluate comprehensiveness, prose, etc. Sandy 10:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c) and prose (1a). Marskell 07:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. This one has obviously vastly improved. However, I didn't get a definite "yes, close it" from the nominator and one of the other reviewers when I asked them, so I'm moving it to FARC to cover our bases. Marskell 07:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep citations are good for such a short article on a minor topic. The Ethan Allen paragraph in the third section may be a bit awkward, but it can be easily deleted and left in the pop cultute section if need be. No major problems that I can see.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep I feel that the FA criteria 1c is now in good shape. I argued against the current wording of (1a), and agreed to a craven compromise for the sake of consensus, only to have that too removed from the final draft. I beleive this article is now well written, but I also believe that there are vastly different interpretations of what well written means among reviewers of good-faith, and to what extent it includes or requires being well-edited, which I cannot attest to. Bmorton3 15:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep Article is stable, referenced, lists and pop culture reduced, prose in better shape, and no one has objected on any other grounds. (I should mention that I worked on expanding and fixing refs, and removing external jumps.) Sandy 17:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep. The big push in the review period has created a much better article. What's happened to this one over time is unfortunate, so I think it should be kept on a few watchlists after the review. Marskell 19:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Adventures of Tintin

Article is still a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics. Sandy 22:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• This is one of those articles that were good by the standards in 2004, but would not pass today without a major rewrite. In my opinion the problems are:

1. The article doesn't have enough references, with only 6 poorly formated footnotes.
2. The article is very much focused on the in-universe aspect, and should provide more information about how it was conceived as well as crtical reactions. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) for more information.
3. The article fails to mention the individual comic books as well as the newspaper strib, the TV series and the movies.
4. The article is listy. Please prosify the list or remove them entirely.
5. The article has a trivia section disguised with the name "In popular culture". Most of this should be removed and the rest should be used in the article.
6. Sections like "Stage adaptations", "Memorabilia", and "Merchandise" are underdeveloped. Generally we should not have paragraphs with fewer than three sentences.

I hoped that this gets fixed, but I don't think it will happen. --Maitch 17:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Remarks about pictures:
  • In general: most pictures could be made a bit smaller for aestehic reasons.
  • Lead picture: the current lead picture doesn't add anything (as Tintin is shown below) and seems to violate fair use as a consequence. I suggest to replace it with an album cover, which would give the reader an impression about how the comic book looked.
  • 6 pictures (all the pictures below the Thomson & Thompson picture, except the stamp perhaps) seem to violate the fair use criteria #3 and #8. They hardly add anything, they are not integrated in the text, they don't seem necessary or to contribute significantly - and as a consequence seem to be merely decorative. Even if they would have had a clear purpose, one picture would have been sufficient. Sijo Ripa 17:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I request a stay of execution to fix this up? I have some source material and could attempt a rewrite, but I've never had an article featured as yet so I'd appreciate a good run and a lot of advice. I'll attempt to make a start on the concerns above in the next day or two, if that's okay. Steve block Talk 18:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, going by the policy you have two weeks before it is even considered for removal. I think the removal process takes two weeks too, so that would give you plenty of time. If significant improvements are made during the review it would also be fair to extend the deadline. Good luck improving the article. --Maitch 14:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Status? The diff shows not much happening with references: is more time needed? diff Sandy 22:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• • The large edits you see in the diff were done by me. I tried to get the ball rolling, but there hasn't been any real activity. I have no intention on finishing the job, so I would rather see it being de-nominated. Steve block is apparently on a wikibreak, so he won't be doing any editing either. --Maitch 23:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Hi, I'm working on this in my userspace, User:Steve block/The Adventures of Tintin at the moment, to try and keep the editing smooth, so I would appreciate more time, thanks. Steve block Talk 11:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness insufficient citations (1c) comprehensiveness (1b), structure and writing perspective (4). Marskell 15:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, are you referring to the copy in my user space? I need about another week to get it ready for the main space, is that going to be a problem? If so, I can move what I've got across and just hash it out in public, but it's hard to get a handle on such a major rewrite in that manner. Steve block Talk 15:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. There's a good faith attempt to address all concerns which can be seen at User:Steve block/The Adventures of Tintin. Sadly it's a one man effort and I'm asking for a good faith adjournment of one week to fix this up. If I haven't managed it then fair play, but it's a bank holiday weekend here and I've got my wife's birthday so it's not going to be as quick as you seem to be moving. I appreciate Wikipedia has to maintain standards, but I can't see how a week would make much difference. I'd appreciate any comments on what I've got so far. Thanks. Steve block Talk 15:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm puzzled as to why this has been moved to FARC. The guidance states The nomination should last two weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. I've asked for more time, I'm attempting to address all concerns, and it would be useful to continue the review. Are there issues with the work I'm undertaking in my user space? Nobody has commented on the edits I've been making, I believe it is common practice to work up a FA in user space, so I'm confused as to this sudden turn of events. Steve block Talk 15:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• The reason why I have not commented on the edits made so far is that I don't like to disrupt an editing process. I think the reason the article was moved to FARC was because of the user space copy. People just look at the real article and see that no progress has been made. With that said I don't understand why you have to have a user space copy. People only do this when they are working on a high traffic article. This article only has about one edit a day on average, so I can't see the big trouble in editing there. --Maitch 16:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's just my preference. I've seen a number of FA writers do the same thing, and it just allows me to workshop better. If I'm working on the article in situ, I have to get the edits right, and the way I work that's not always possible. I can't always leave it in a viewable state for readers, and don't see any need to disrupt readers. I appreciate it's not a high traffic article, but every editor works in a different manner. I've got about 16 different sources I'm working from and I'm still not clear what the final shape of the article will be. If people can't accept that progress is being made I have trouble not seeing that as failing to take account of my efforts. Is the process here more important than any show of good faith in what I'm doing? Should working practises have any bearing on the final outcome? I'm puzzled that there's such a problem here, I'm simply asking for time, something I would think can easily be extended. Wikipedia isn't on a deadline. Steve block Talk 17:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, if there were such concerns with my user space edits, someone could have pointed it out to me, no? Steve block Talk 17:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Given the concerns my editing style has raised, and placing the article above my objections to such concerns, I have started on editing the article in situ. Would people compare these edits before voting and consider if they begin the process of addressing the concerns above. I would hope that the insufficient citations can be put to bed, I may have gone too far in the other direction but I've never found guidance as to what to cite and what not to and erred on caution there. I'd also hope that the structure and writing perspective is seen to be in hand, and that the comprehensiveness is taking shape. I would appreciate any comments to the contrary, and any help in getting the article across the line, but I would hope voting could now be adjourned per the guidance on this page, and we get on with getting the article where it should be. Steve block Talk 17:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Steve, in case it's not clear, this is going to remain another two weeks in this section! It's two weeks + two weeks. No final decision will be made if things are on-going. So keep working away, no rush for this weekend. Marskell 23:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

And to add, if in case it's not clear: this first move to FARC is largely procedural. After +2 weeks it goes down unless it's definitely decided its back to standard and can be closed. I noticed Sandy's status comment and the two comments from you guys, but moved it down to keep it on schedule. This wasn't a vote against your work in user space. Marskell 23:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, fair play. This page and process has changed a lot since the last time I was around these parts so I'm not au fait with the whole way it works. As you can see above, I'm also very good at arguing with myself. Steve block Talk 04:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Update: Been busier than I would like, both on and off Wikipedia, but managed to expand the memorabilia section per concerns above, and also replaced some fair use images with freer images, as can be seen here. Will try and get more work done next week to the stage adaptations and include mention of the anthology comic and newspaper strips and the like. Also, am hoping to source a copy of Tintin : Herge and his creation from the library. Steve block Talk 21:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, the content and referecing of the article has improved. Full reference details, rather than just URLs should be provided.--Peta 04:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You don't fancy helping out there then, do you? Steve block Talk 08:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I went ahead and took care of this issue. JimmyBlackwing 16:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I would like to say, as the person who started the nomination, that I won't be available before next week and therefore would like to postpone judgement on the article. --Maitch 15:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • We can wait. Marskell 09:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Status: What's up folks? How do you feel about this Maitch? Marskell 16:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

On my part I've just scored Tintin: Hergé & His Creation by Harry Thompson, The Adventures of Tintin at Sea and Tintin: The Complete Companion both by Michael Farr from the library, so I would appreciate an extension to get them read and compiled. I think the article has improved greatly, whilst I accept there are still edits to be made. I would like to get the criticisms section better sourced, and I know Maitch would like to see the overview section split into two: a publishing history and a plot summary of the books, and I think there's still concern with some of the paragraphs. That said, I think this article is over the hump, as it were. It's not yet comprehensive, but it is well cited. I can't answer for the writing perspective, but I hope that's going okay. I'm tied up with admin stuff at the same time, but I'm hoping to get to work on the criticisms tonight and tomorrow and hit the summary and publishing history through the rest of the week, I see them as the easy bits, they don't need so much citing. The reliance on fair use images is unfortunately a given, it appears any image of a copyrighted character can breach copyright as a deriviative work. Steve block Talk 16:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The article has improved greatly and many kudos to you on that count, Steve (also, User:JimmyBlackwing if s/he's watching). This is just the kind of engaged work we want from an FA review—look back a month and this was definitely below standard.

A few small notes, because I just made an edit: for criticisms, particularly when dealing with race or gender, we have absolutely no business qualifying anything as "absurd" (or "big" or "small" or anything else), even if we have a source. Let the facts speak for themselves. An absurd stereotype may be hateful and demeaning in the same breath. The "Criticisms" in general needs more sourcing. There are also a few grammatical issues, but broadly this meets 1c, IMO.

Anyhow, more or less ready to close. Before closing, I'd just like a last comment from the nominator. Marskell 20:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Weak Remove: The overall tone is appropriate, but two of the lines early on that clearly present a positive or negative opinion: "Hergé managed to infuse the strip with his own impish sense of humour, and also to create supporting characters who... were filled with a comfortable charm"; "Hergé also had a great understanding of the mechanics of the comic strip, especially with pacing a story"; and also the De Gaulle quote at the end needs citation (or removal). Once these minor issues are addressed, I'll change to Keep. Andrew Levine 04:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur that the prose is in need of some work and polishing before closing: if the prose is improved, I'll vote Keep. Sandy 13:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Note on prose. I've started to look more closely, having ce'ed the intro. Run-on sentences is the first problem—if the subject of the sentence is artwork, don't introduce a clause on plotlines. There is also a bit of linguistic excess that tends toward fan-writing: "sophisticated satire" is more an encyclopedic than "dashes of sophisticated satire."

Two specific notes on the intro: I added a fact request for number of translations and I made the assumption that this was originally published in French. Steve, please double-check.

It looks this is being re-engaged past deadline, but no worries I say, as long as it's being worked on. Marskell 15:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I am back and I will now make a more thorough review. Generally, the article has improved, but I still don't think that it would pass if it was a FAC today. There are still a number of problems that does not fit the featured article criteria:

1a) There are problems with the prose as a couple of people have commented on.

1b) It is not comprehensive. There needs to be a complete publication history instead of the fragmented one in the overview section.

1c) There are entire sections that are unreferenced, such as "Stamps" and "Translation into English". Please find a reference for the Charles de Gaulle quote or loose it entirely.

1d) The article mentions criticism of the Tintin series, but fails to mention positive critical reactions. There is some mention of the success of the series in the lead, but this information is not found in the rest of the article.

3) The images Image:TintinCast.gif and Image:Tintinstamp.jpg needs fair use rationales.

With that said I think that the review should run as long as people are working on improving the article. --Maitch 20:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• People seem to have forgotten {{sofixit}}. The de Gaulle quote was so easy to cite, all you had to do was type it into google. The translation section is referenced, see the references section. Steve block Talk 21:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• And no positive criticism? I'm at a loss as to what the legacy section is especially the quotes from Gravett, Horn and Serres. Steve block Talk 21:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, I have removed my 1D objection. I would like to say that I treat this review like a FAC, which seems to have tougher standards. I might have to losing up on those standards, but lets see. On another note, the reviewers of FA and the peer review process are not expected to do the work at all. I have actually made many edits to the article during the review process

• Tentative keep (Note, having engaged this review, I won't be closing it). "Tentative" because I'm not completely finished my own copy-edit and because of some niggling concerns on 1c, but "keep" because I believe the larger issues from Maitch do not rise to removal:

  1a) As noted, prose is being addressed (by a few people, now).

  1b) This is quite comprehensive in terms of production, authorial intent and biography, coverage of major themes, and critical response. This has what I'd expect it to have. Full publication history is a good idea, but might actually over-burden the page. A sub-list with this and the list of adaptations might be appropriate.

  1c) I have placed a couple more fact tags myself. The info appears to be there, as they're generally quickly taken care of and there's a good variety amongst the already listed references.

  1d) No, critical praise is definitely mentioned. It's woven into the article throughout.

  3) Fair enough. Better rationale or other images would be good. Of the two, based on Wiki copy-tag wording, its actually the stamp that needs to go. Marskell 19:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Only two cite tags left, multiple editors actively working on improving the article, and several copy edits have improved the prose. Sandy 05:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Please provide fair use rationales for images. Joelito (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  Done. Yomangani^talk 15:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The unbelievable amount of work that Steve block and the other editors have put into this article has paid off. Thoroughly sourced, well-written and comprehensive. I've seen much worse make it through FAC. JimmyBlackwing 16:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Dylan

Article is still a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/to do already notified. Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. Sandy 19:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This was promoted in October 2003 during the "brilliant prose" days, and then nominated for FARC in July last year (see Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Bob Dylan) because of alleged comprehensiveness and POV issues. I can't comment on the former as I know little about Dylan, but I do think the article has major problems with regards to the latter. It contains a lot of weasel terms ("acclaimed as perhaps the best American concert film yet produced", "considered his finest album by many fans" etc.), and without inline citations they look rather POV. There are some citations in the sections for Dylan's later career, but several of the sentences without them ("Humor was a large part of Dylan's persona", etc.) looks like the author's own interpretations, which introduces original research issues. Several statements, such as "undeniably a fine interpreter of traditional songs", "A successful mix", "a highlight of the album", "accurately but prosaically titled" et al, are unquestionably POV. Extraordinary Machine 23:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This article was promoted in the "Brilliant prose" days.[2] It has had somewhat of an unfortunate history for quite a while now. Jkelly 23:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the main problem with it is that it has only a few editors on it, and they butt heads over unimportant things (i can't deny I'm one of em.) They (we?) don't do much to improve its structure adn citing etc. SECProto 23:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that it is generous to call this article "stable" (criteria 2e), that it "article does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars". If the {{citation needed}}s stop being stripped out of the article, criteria 2c has a better chance of being met. Jkelly 19:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the big problem is that the article has been very short on hard facts and very long on opinions, with people edit warring to keep their own opinions in the article. I think the article would be much better if every opinion that wasn't validly cited to a published source was just deleted and the article rebuilt from that point. But if I was WP:BOLD enough to do that, the fighting would have been even worse. Even though I'd only be correcting under WP:V. The editor soon to be formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 19:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Ex. Mach. has a continuing problem distinguishing Original Prose from Original Research. Most of JKelly's time goes to saving Wikimedia from phantom legal problems over Fair Use that have not and never will materialize. These two are now in control of the article because GWO doesn't touch it, I've sworn it off, and Monicasdude is gone (he had the potential to really help the article but squandered it by being dictatorial). The article had a very nice balance and tone back in the Brilliant Prose days, but it has taken many shots since then. It has always been rather weak in sourcing (mea culpa), and the breakout of the ref tag makes it look really bad compared to recent FAs. I'm sure it will improve in that department, but now that the article is in the hands of two guys who mainly function to strip away rather than build up, the future doesn't look bright. JDG 22:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It's nice that you finally have a kind word for User:Monicasdude. I think that User:Roballyn's editing is proceeding to get some referencing done, which is a great response to this review. Jkelly 23:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

From the very start I complimented Mdude on his abilities. Thrice I offered the olive branch, thrice was I gruffly rejected. Mr. K, I just don't get your views. JDG 19:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can doubt MD's abilities, whether or not they argued with him (and many did). His Dylan ROIO site is quite superb. --kingboyk 16:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The disruption in an otherwise fine article was done by one or two editors. They mis-used some guildelines. I meet this situation frequently. A method of handling an excessive use of the 'citation needed' tag is to point to the appropriate guideline and simply remove more than 2 or 3 such requests. Terryeo 02:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Where have you gotten this idea that it is not okay to ask for more than two or three citations? Jkelly 02:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This is also being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:How_to_review_a_featured_article_candidate#Dylan_examples. Jkelly 20:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is not "otherwise fine". Like The Beatles, Bob Dylan is supposed to be one of the most influential artists in popular music history. Yet, like The Beatles' article, there is no discussion of his influence on popular music (there are minor hints scattered throughout the history section, but it's hard to see the forest through the trees). The article also does not discuss his style (lyrically, musically, or vocally). This guy is supposed to be a master lyricist, but where is the literary criticism that illuminates this? Volumes have been written on Bob Dylan; people write their dissertations on him, articles about him appear in peer-reviewed journals, and according to Amazon there are about 400 books available on him. Frankly, if someone completely ignorant of Bob Dylan were to read this article, they would probably not pick up on his importance. The article is simply incomplete, and what is already written is poorly sourced. His autobiography should not have its own section -- it's longer than its respective article. Punctured Bicycle 05:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you go too far on most of your points, but I'm with the spirit of your comment. Just so you know, a few of us, a while back, tried to move this away from the mini-bio category and to include more on his importance to modern music and on the purely literary aspects involved. We were thoroughly beaten down by the no OR people, the ever-present JKelly among them... What's hapening now will turn the article into a moderately well sourced article. I'm afraid the prose itself will suffer somewhat in the process. Your concerns, P. Bicycle, I think will only be met by dedicated sub-articles by writers prepared to meet daily attacks from the police. JDG 19:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

If the material you and others included on his importance in modern music was not supported by references, then it was entirely appropriate (see policies like Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research) for other editors to remove it. If the material inserted was true, then it shouldn't be difficult to cite.

Remember also that NPOV is a key policy on Wikipedia, and is non-negotiable. "Original Prose", if comprising editorial opinion and interpretation, must not be included in articles. Extraordinary Machine 14:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a note: they really seem to be hard at work over there. I've dropped in on the talk page a couple of times to lend some ideas: others might want to do same? Sandy 21:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. This is a solid article, and you should all be proud of it. It's really worth working at improving it; I've copy-edited a few paragraphs, and found that polishing was required. Tony 13:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added 50 citation/references in the past week. Is the article now heading in the right direction in the eyes of administrators? Mick gold 21:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm a non-admin (by choice), but I wanted to compliment you on the citations/references. Very nice job. I simply don't have access to those books. JDG 23:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Take care! Mick gold 11:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I second JDG's comments. -- GWO

Status? Needs a close look. Prose size is 46KB, much improved on inline citations (still some cite tags), not sure on the prose and other issues. Sandy 21:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are focus and structure (4), citations (1c), and stability (1e). Marskell 07:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Article has substantially improved during the FAR. Jkelly 20:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Referencing aspect has improved greatly as a result of Mick Gold's efforts. But it is still not featured quality in my eyes. The fact that the article was promoted in the "brilliant prose" days, when standards were much lower, is reason enough for it to have to go through the FAC process again. As it stands now, there are still some citation needed tags. The article is not comprehensive -- his influence and style is noted in the lead but not expanded upon. The lead isn't particuarly good -- it jumps from the 1960s to 2001 in a heartbeat. Chronicles Vol. 1 doesn't need its own section and now a "Theme Time Radio Hour" section has popped up. Punctured Bicycle 22:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It is hard to argue that it is stable. Jkelly 22:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. Mick Gold has worked very hard to improve the article. But it is still not FA quality. Too many opinions and interpretations are presented like they are facts. (One critic cited does not show a consensus or a general opinion). I'm still doubtful about the other "facts" and will look at it again soon. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 20:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Remove, unfortunately; despite the improvements to the article, it still suffers in its structure (per Punctured) and in the use of citations (per Wolfowitz). Andrew Levine 13:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Keep, with the further improvements. It is still not the best article it could be, but its recovery is impressive. Andrew Levine 03:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I’ve supplied some citations/references for prose written by other people. Overall, I still think it’s an accurate & well written account of a complex career. Is Harmonica Wolfowitz seriously suggesting I should give 4 citations for each critical point? How many citations are needed to demonstrate that Dylan began to perform Hard Rain a few weeks before the Cuban Missile Crisis developed? I think there’s a high degree of consensus among Dylan biographers & critics about the highs & lows of his work. For example, the mid 60s trilogy and Blood on the Tracks are cited as Dylan’s greatest albums in every Dylan book I’ve read.Mick gold 23:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Agree 100% With Mick. It is indeed an accurate and very well written account of a very long and complex career, and congratulate him on all the work he has put into the article. Lion King 14:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it's much much better than it was back when the FAR started. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Everyone agrees that it has improved greatly since the FAR started. That doesn't mean it's featured quality yet. Even if we only look at referencing, the main area of improvement, there are still citation needed tags in the article. Besides referencing, there are other FA criteria, such as comprehensiveness (1b), stability (1e), style (2), lead (2a), structure (2b), and focus (4). I've already said that the article isn't comprehensive; it doesn't do a good job of explaining why "Bob Dylan's influence on popular music is incalculable", as All Music puts it. The article has various stylistic tweaks that need to be done (one example, consistent dashes aren't used presently). The lead does not do a good job of summarizing the article; you can't just say "1960s...forty years later" with nothing else in between. "Philosophy", "rockabilly", "Celtic", "jazz", "swing", "Broadway", are mentioned in the lead and nowhere else. In terms of focus and structure, the autobiography section is longer than its respective article. Focus is lost in the later years, devoting too much detail to trivial things (e.g. providing the full date of a DVD release), and many of the paragraphs are "stubby". Punctured Bicycle 01:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Mick saved it. JDG 19:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. There are still nine cite needed tags, as well as the prose problems mentioned above by other editors. Sandy 16:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Much improved but not yet up to scratch. It would be for the best if this article were worked on further and went through the FA process again. It's not too far away from what's required and I feel that delisting and making it go through the process again is the best way of getting the standard of article that a giant like Dylan deserves. --kingboyk 16:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with some minor criticisms. JDG is right, Mick Gold deserves an award for his work on this, and it is a great piece. I think many of the criticisms are unfounded; it seems fine to me to jump 40 years in the intro to succinctly indicate Dylan's staying power. The only weak point in the intro IMHO is the point PB makes about rockabilly etc not being discussed later. Many of the citation needed tags seems to be going overboard - by those same standards we would delist most of the FAs I have read recently, and reject most of the scientific papers I read. Example: "The songs were in the same vein as the hit single, surreal litanies of the grotesque flavored by Mike Bloomfield's blues guitar, a rhythm section and Dylan's obvious enjoyment of the sessions.[citation needed]" Surely if Dylan's enjoyment is "obvious" it doesn't need citing? Is it really controversial to say that the songs were in the same vein as the hit single? My main concern is the length of the article (69 kB including those 111 references ); however, this seems to be because it goes into much more detail than most FA bios, and includes more direct quotes than most. If the whole article were to be rewritten to be 32 kB I think it would lose a lot. Overall, I think it stands as an excellent review of Dylan's life. Walkerma 03:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, although I'm only judging the prose, which has improved significantly. Please allow time to satisfy referencing issues. Tony 16:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC) PS Still some stubby paragraphs, as per Punctured B—aren't they relatively easy to integrate into their neighbours? Tony 16:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Mr Gold's removal of the worst of the MonicasDude period. The lack of a few citations is nit picking. When reviewed by the Guardian, this was considered one of the factually better articles. -- GWO

[edit] Order of the Bath

Article is still a featured article

Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage. Sandy 16:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No inline citations and images have obsolete licencing tags. Jay32183 02:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Criterion 2. c. which asks for inline citations, references and so on isn't met by this article. This needs to be addressed. LuciferMorgan 15:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the lack of citations myself when I was fixing up some of the Order of the Bath categories in the last week or two. I'll try and deal with this, although it might take me a week or two to get to the library to check sources Dr pda 13:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That's good, I'd rather see this brought up to par than demoted. Will you also be fixing the image problems? The public domain images only need their tags updated, but one image is marked "non-commercial only", so that must be dealt with. Jay32183 14:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I'll do that as well. I think I've found a replacement for the non-commercial only image. Dr pda 19:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through and added inline cites to the whole article, and put {{fact}} tags in the places I need to double check, or find a reference. I've also significantly expanded the history section, but the text will need polishing in places, and may need rearranging. I'll come back to this article at the weekend, when I can get to the library to check references. I'll try and do the images then too. Feel free to copyedit in the meantime :) --Dr pda 00:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Status? At two weeks, excellent progress on citations by Dr pda, but still not fully cited: move to FARC just to keep things moving? Sandy 16:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The guidelines say that the nomination can last more than two weeks if changes are ongoing; since the only issues raised so far are inline citations and image tags, both of which I hope to deal with this weekend, I suggest leaving it at FAR until then. Dr pda 17:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is now fully cited (92 cites not counting duplicates!). I've also replaced the images whose licensing was in question and added other images relevant to the article. Thus all (both) the issues raised have been addressed. As an added bonus a substantial amount of information has been added to the article improving its comprehensiveness. A fresh pair of eyes to look over the prose would be welcome. Hopefully we can close the FAR without needing to take it to FARC. Dr pda 01:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I am completely satisfied on the images. The only comment on the referencing would be that the web site references aren't using the cite web template, but that should be an easy fix compared to all the other work you've done. Jay32183 01:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There were only three of them, so I went ahead and did it myself. So I am now satisfied with the citations and references. I would double check the prose but I am only familiar with AmE, which this article is not supposed to be written in. But I'm pretty sure the article no longer fails the Feature Article criteria. Jay32183 02:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

A couple of questions (I didn't have time to peruse the entire article): why are Categories listed in See also? I've never seen that before: can't they just be changed to Categories, at the bottom of the page as usual? Also, can you make separate sections for Notes and References? It took me a while to find the references for your footnotes (I don't believe WP:GTL requires this, but it does make them easier to find). Also, where would a person who doesn't know the subject area (like myself) locate the Statutes? Sandy 05:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The notes and references are now separate sections. The categories are in See Also because they are the equivalent of "List of people who have been made Knight Grand Cross" etc. I've added a sentence to the start of this section to make it clearer. (And before someone asks, the List of Knights Companion of the Order of the Bath is a special case, presumably because the number of people ever appointed as such (between 1725 and 1815) was relatively small, and will never change). The copies of the Statutes I used were in the library, however this was the Bodleian Library at the University of Oxford, which I rather imagine is a special case. I don't know how easy it is to find them otherwise, although I notice the article on de quotes them as a reference, and a quick search shows the Library of Congress has a copy from 1744. They were printed/bound as regular books, and I guess a copy is given to new members, so copies may have been donated to libraries on their decease (from the accession dates I think this is where some of the Bodleian copies come from). If I recall correctly the statutes of the time were reprinted in Nicolas's book. Also, the copy of Anstis's Observations I used included the 1725 statutes. Dr pda 14:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Status: Assuming these few formatting concerns from Sandy can be addressed, I see no reason not to close this successfully, without the FARC period. Marskell 13:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joan of Arc

Article is still a featured article

Messages left at User talk:Durova , Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saints , Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle Ages, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. Sandy 23:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Seeking additional opinions about this article's NPOV balance. After FA approval it received some changes that prompted complaints on the talk page. As strange as it may seem that someone who died six centuries ago could inspire strong feelings, this subject does. Most of the disputes occurred in May-June. Some subtle changes survived until August.

To give an idea of the kinds of alterations that happened, here are some examples I spotted and corrected:

• One editor selectively removed all categories that contained the word "female" or "women" in the title (specifically "Female wartime crossdressers," "Medieval women," and "Women in war").
• An IP address removed William Shakespeare and Voltaire from an enumeration of famous authors who had written works about Joan of Arc, claiming that these were redundant while leaving others of lesser renown. The two deleted names were the only ones who had portrayed Joan of Arc in a negative light.
• The Visions section addresses shortcomings in neurological and psychiatric hypotheses for Joan of Arc's visions (various proposals have been advanced, none of which have gained consensus support in the scholarly community). Changes to this part of the article had implied that these shortcomings meant Catholic doctrine was literally true.
• Changes to cited passages gave opinions a religious overtone not present in the original source. For example, recharacterizing Edward Lucie-Smith's opinion from "more lucky than skilled" to "more blessed than skilled."
• Insertion of a January 6 birthdate despite a detailed footnote that explains how this date is hagiographic (it coincides with the Epiphany and is contradicted by almost all reliable evidence).
• Insertions within previously referenced paragraphs gave the appearance that new and uncited claims were referenced by the paragraph citation. One example is a statement that named Judy Grundy as a "scholar" to support a claim that Joan of Arc did not display psychiatric symptoms. Ms. Grundy's only apparent publication about Joan of Arc is a single article in a personal website that does not state her qualifications. (Article is published on the Joan of Arc Society page as well as Virginia Frohlicks page. It has been reviewed by a medical doctor, a university professor and was never intended to be taken as seriously as it was. I personally know the author and know she laughed at being refered to as a 'scholar' since it was written for fun and as she acknowledges,is not complete. Any references to qualifications are not placed as it was only put online at the urging of several other people she shared it with. Ms. Grundy is currently studying psychology and teaches music and never intends to be a scholar as she has other priorities. As for who I am - I'm a relative.).

Although most changes were probably made with good intentions, collectively they gave the article a religious POV that prompted several complaints. I have gone over the text and history carefully, added additional references, and - I hope - been fair to all notable viewpoints. I also added two short paragraphs to the Background section and added quote boxes (which, to boast a little, are my own translations of passages from Joan of Arc's letters). Is this article sufficiently balanced now? Please comment. Durova 19:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There is not much to discuss about the changes listed. Remove them. Wandalstouring 22:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Those changes have already been removed. I cite these as examples of subtle religious bias that crept into the article after passing FA. I've done my best to correct the imbalance. "FARs are intended to facilitate a range of improvements to FAs, from updating and relatively light editing..." This is the type of FAR I intended when I opened this page. Durova 16:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Low point

• "The period that preceded Joan of Arc's career was one of the lowest points in French history." violates NPOV, better: was one of the lowest points for the house of Valois./was a hard time for the population of France and opponents of the reestablishing of the Angevin Empire.

Does anyone argue a lower point for the house of Valois? The consensus I've seen is that only the Nazi occupation was lower in all of French history (define its beginning however you like). Please cite a reference if this is mistaken. The article's statement is already sourced. Durova 18:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"I agree that this conflict shared some traits of a civil war (for somewhat different reasons than you express), yet civil war implies the idea of nationhood - concepts that do not graft well onto a fifteenth century context." So if there is no French nation how can this be the lowest point of a nation´s history? Besides what definition of lowest point does your source have? For example the Nazi occupation was a heyday for all supporters of Vichy (they were French natives) and the time afterwards was not so good for them. Besides it is a good time for historians to write about. Brittany and Burgundy are listed as allies of the king of England (!not the English king!) in Hundred Years War and they consider themselves French. Was winning the war against the Valois a good or a bad thing for these French? What kind of source should I show you? One stating this time was a time of peace and prosperity? Isn`t it obvious that defining a lowest point of a nation´s history (nation did not exist) is always POV. Wandalstouring 20:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify: nowhere does this article assert a modern concept of nationhood. The assumptions a twenty-first century reader brings to the term nation are misleading in a fifteenth century context. That discussion, which you raise, is worthy in its own right yet outside the scope of this article. What a brief background can accommodate is to name "France" and "England" without defining to what degree these were feudal states or incipient nations. The existing text is already referenced. You seem to be asserting that emergent nationalism rendered French history so fundamentally discontinuous that Joan of Arc is not part of French history. Have I understood the claim correctly? This would be so idiosyncratic that I'll wait for a citation before addressing it. Durova 13:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand completly. Please read again. My argumentation has nothing to do with your interpretation: "Isn`t it obvious that defining a lowest point of a nation´s history (nation did not exist) is always POV."

This is not POV when it constitutes expert consensus: DeVries expresses the matter in far stronger terms than this article does and both her conclusion and its vehemence are typical. It would violate WP:NOR to further dilute the statement without some specific citation to demonstrate the existence of a scholarly controversy. The way you expressed your criticism, hinging it on a remarkable interpretation that places Joan of Arc outside French history, led me to request a citation before addressing the matter further. Durova 17:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No, there is no citation possibly if no other scientist uses such an expression and feels not urged to refer to such nonsense. Find simply another unbiased scientific (no extremists) source stating exactly this. And who makes this ranking of low points in French history on what basis? Where does this rating put 13 Vendémiaire, Napoleon_III_of_France#Authoritarian_Empire, Algerian War of Independence (Algeria was officially part of France) and the Reign of Terror? The reader needs verifiability (WP:VERIFY) of this claim. Wandalstouring 19:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I realize it can be hard to express an idea in one's second language. It's difficult to parse your meaning. Kelly DeVries is associate professor of history at Loyola College in Maryland and has published about Joan of Arc since 1994: surely this citation satisfies WP:Verify. Durova 15:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No verification WP:Verify. You pose an unverifiable claim. For example: Nigel Bagnall was Chief of General Staff of the British Army and devoted to studying military history. Still his book "The Punic Wars" has errors and I need further material to write a properly sourced article. So tossing authorities does not help you. Verify such a rating. If your authority has a rating he needs to name his criteria. So what are the criteria used? Wandalstouring 16:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that amateur historians are more likely to make mistakes than professional academics. Here professor DeVries writes within her specialty. You keep asking what she says: have you read the quote in the footnote? There have been only two times in French history that the country was in danger of ceasing to exist as an independent power: this was one and the other was Vichy. Durova 18:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I never wrote this, so you can never agree on this. Authority tossing is pointless. No I keep not asking what she says, I ask what the criteria are. So the criteria for low should be the possibility of territorial extinction? Than I have definetly to question why Vichy was the lowest point. There have been other times of foreign occupation and France was still France (it was divided for some time between a German military command in the northern zone and a French in the south, later it was all under German command, as well as the usual Alsace dispute), unlike Poland. On the other hand, what does highest point mean according to this definition? Wandalstouring 18:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"Authority tossing" as you call it is required by Wikipedia policy. You seem to be interpolating something like a list of the ten lowest points in French history, then asking me exactly where the year 1428 would rank and why. That would be a futile exercise: what you or I think on the subject is not pertinent. If you were to cite a source that contended, for instance, that the chevauchée practice were much more limited, that estimates of the French population stagnation following the black death were inaccurate, and that French tradesmen had much better access to foreign markets than DeVries concludes - then we would have a basis for editorial discussion. Durova 19:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Try reading again. I simply asked questions on the categorization. Try to answer or keep quiet. Switching topics as you did is no answer. Wandalstouring 19:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you find Kiril Lokshin's suggestion below acceptable? Durova 20:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if author and reason(existance) for labeling it low point are mentioned. Wandalstouring 20:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the distinction here to be made was that it was a low point for the peasents and bourgois rather than a low point of political power/independance. It was a low point (moral) for the population residing in the kingdom of France. The ever increasing number of brigands, raiding forces and ever resource depleating war took a toll on the peasents far outweighting the political en-jeux. Even under Nazi occupation, the country side did not see so much rampage. Either way I agree with our coordinator's proposed solution.--Dryzen 14:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it was both. The political/military aspects are detailed and cited later in the section. But rather than focus on "low point" which seems to draw criticism, I've rewritten the paragraph. Durova 16:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Here's the new paragraph, minus the citation (which is in the article): Durova 16:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Historian Kelly DeVries describes the period preceding Joan of Arc's appearance with, "If anything could have discouraged her, the state of France in 1429 should have." The Hundred Years' War had begun 1337 as a succession dispute to the French throne with intermittent periods of relative peace. Nearly all of the fighting had taken place in France and the English use of chevauchée tactics had decimated the French economy. The French population had not recovered from the black death of the previous century and its merchants were cut off from international markets. At the outset of Joan of Arc's career the English had almost realized their goal of a dual monarchy under English control and the French army had won no major victory for a generation. In DeVries's words, "the kingdom of France was not even a shadow of its thirteenth-century prototype."

Looks clean and to the point.--Dryzen 17:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Much better. Wandalstouring 17:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] French and English

It is not without difficult to label a fight between French and English. It was at this time a reestablishing of the Angevin Empire, which had lost most continental possesions while its ruler had decided to become King of England. So the Hundred Years' War was to some extend a French civil war. In modern scientific literature the term Angevin Empire is used for this Empire with its main strongholds in the Normandy and England lasting from 1154 till ~1399. Wikipedia has the concerning article poorly sourced. The conclusion there, that it only lasted till 1215 is not widely accepted and likely to be a misinterpretation of the wiki-editor (See German article).

I agree that this conflict shared some traits of a civil war (for somewhat different reasons than you express), yet civil war implies the idea of nationhood - concepts that do not graft well onto a fifteenth century context. I haven't seen the term Angevin Empire used in relation the Hundred Years' War. The expression itself is a nineteenth century creation. The English goal in this conflict went beyond reestablishing Henry II's realm and aspired to an actual dual monarchy. Their elite had spoken English as a first language for several generations by the time Joan of Arc appeared. All of this is well sourced in the article. Perhaps a sentence could be added for the English partisans in France - would you suggest one? The section is already overlong. If there are important works I have missed that support your other assertions, please cite them. Durova 15:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

(Harriss, Gerald; Shaping the Nation; England 1360-1461, Oxford 2005) or a contemporary source for the war (Froissart, Jean; Chroniques de France, d'Angleterre, d'Ecosse, de Bretagne, de Gascogne, de Flandre et lieux circonvoisinsan) could be used to source the actual political state. There it refers to a war between the English crown and the French crown. Usually this war is seen as the birth of the French and the English nation, but speaking of them as existant during the war is a bit unhistoric. You still have the Medieval concepts of rulers of small territories fighting for their gains, like Burgundy.Wandalstouring 20:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be in agreement here: to speak of nationhood in the context of the Hundred Years' War would problematic at best (which is why the article does not do so). Is this what Harris, Gerald assert? If they make some other point then please give a page number and quote a few relevant lines. Durova 13:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I completly agree, nationhood is problematic during the war, because it is seen as its origin. But nation also includes a nations country, so if we speak of somebody acting we have to refer to the Medieval concept of acting ruler (or ruling institution), not acting people of a country as in the modern nationhood concept. Wandalstouring 14:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a specific modification here? Rather than take a side on the question of nationalism's origins, which would tread on WP:NPOV, I've simply referred to these polities as "France" and "England." Those seem to be the terms that best accommodate the competing interpretations. Durova 17:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No "so if we speak of somebody acting we have to refer to the Medieval concept of acting ruler (or ruling institution), not acting people of a country as in the modern nationhood concept."

Acting is the king of England against the king of France. Major French provinces (Brittany, Burgundy) have sided with the English king, making it not a war of the French entity against an outside invador. I checked J.F. Verbruggen "The Art of Warfare in Western Europe during the Middle Ages" Second revised translation, ISBN 0-85115-570-7 Nowhere in his accounts of the Hundred Years War or else is England or France as acting political unit mentioned, always the king or the local commander, while for troops it is referred to their native origins (Flemish, English, Welsh, French, etc.). For it is a scientific book forming the modern interpretation of Medieval warfare and translated twice, I think the content is worth it. If need is, I can quote you some pages. Wandalstouring 19:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have specified this before, but the discussion was ranging over too many issues: political alignments in this conflict were somewhat different from what you've asserted. Burgundy was allied with England for only sixteen years of a war that lasted more than a century. During Joan of Arc's career Brittany went from neutrality to Valois allegiance. Since you are familiar with her letter to the Hussites perhaps you also know 28 March 1430, to the citizens of Reims: Austre chose quant á présent ne vous rescri fors que toute Bretaigne est francaise et doibt le duc envoier au roy III mille combatans paiez pour iy moys.(Quicherat V, p. 161). Note the choice of words: que toute Bretaigne est francaise - referring not to the duke but to the province. Why introduce verbose qualifiers?

This discussion strays very far from the point: an opening paragraph to the background has to summarize matters for a general reader. Subsequent passages detail the most germane politics. If you can suggest some concise and specific improvement, I'll be glad to use it. Durova 15:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Acting is the king of England against the king of France. The rulers of major French provinces (Brittany, Burgundy) have sided with the English king, making it not a war of the French entity against an outside invador. What relevance has your source for the citizens of Reims switching sides very lately in this war? And how reliable is your source if it is a contemporary French source?

I checked J.F. Verbruggen "The Art of Warfare in Western Europe during the Middle Ages" Second revised translation, ISBN 0-85115-570-7 Nowhere in his accounts of the Hundred Years War or else is England or France as acting political unit mentioned, always the king or the local commander, while for troops it is referred to their native origins (Flemish, English, Welsh, French, etc.). One exception are the Flemish cities, which act on their own. For this is a scientific book, forming the modern interpretation of Medieval warfare and translated twice, I think the content is worth it. If need is, I can quote you some pages.

So please tell me what you don't understand? This is a very clear directive for naming.Wandalstouring 16:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What you have described is an example rather than a directive. If Verbruggen states explicitly that it is inappropriate to refer to France as a political unit in the early fifteenth century, please provide a page citation. Bear in mind that your reference is a broad survey history. So far I see no need to require a distinction that neither the original source material nor pertinent specialty studies necessarily use: introductory statements are inherently brief.

Joan of Arc was not commenting on the citizens of Reims changing allegiance; she was reporting to Reims that Brittany had joined the Valois cause (Reims is not in Brittany). This cited quote contradicts your assertion that Brittany was allied with the English at the time, and also your contention that the Wikipedia article should not refer to provinces and countries as political units. To touch on a delicate matter, this is one example of a pattern of problems that appear to arise from your reading comprehension. I understand how this can happen in a second language. While you have demonstrated some fairly extensive reading on medieval European history, some of your assertions fall well outside the mainstream. Perhaps you misunderstood those sources as well? Durova 18:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It is very hard to remain kind. You say lots of things, hide behind big authorities, are not able to answer simple question and constantly try to diminish my ability to understand English. It is impossible to work with this attitude of an editor to say the least. I do not claim to be any expert on the topic of Medieval history. It seems that some points I bring up have already been mentioned earlier by other competent editors. Wandalstouring 18:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If your feelings are hurt, I apologize sincerely. I don't mean this as any criticism of your intellect: my German is now somewhat rusty, but even at its best when Germans sometimes mistook me for a native speaker, I could read Der Spiegel but got confused by the Frankfurter Allgemeine. I understand how these things can happen - there were several points in this discussion where things seemed out of step and I hesitated a while before mentioning the pattern. There was another point in your previous post that I forgot to answer: Quicherat's compilation of documents regarding Joan of Arc has been the gold standard, second only to the original French archives, since its publication in the 1840s. By the standards of historical method, an original contemporary letter by Joan of Arc has a high degree of reliability. This was one of the three letters she signed. Durova 19:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Was there some other discussion going on while this one raged? If not I seem to have lost some mesure of information. You both agreed on the principle of nation then disagreed on what?--Dryzen 14:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Wandalstouring wanted to reword the statement in a way that would not only omit outright mention of nationalism, but would reflect a POV that this era had no traits of nationalism at all. I considered that an inappropriate editorial position on an open question. Durova 16:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That is a touchy subject, first off what are your perceives definitions of Nationalism? The was definitly an quasi-"nationalist" spirit involved, yet rather than being driven by the image of a Nation (as we have today) it stemmed more from a Faction within wich a person existed. Comming out from his kinship on to his local lands and onward towards the magnates with varying degrees of completion. You both agree that there was nationalist spirit as we know it involved at this time, correct?--Dryzen 17:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The early origins of nationalism are not well studied. To many French people Joan of Arc is the embodiment of nationalism, although Napoleon's use of her memory for political propaganda might have altered perceptions of her as a folk hero. This is an intriguing topic: one often sees superficial mentions of Joan of Arc in connection with "French nationalism" in modern histories. The Richey quote touches on that. Yet Joan of Arc's connection to early nationalism has not been the subject of in-depth analysis. The best approach here seems to be to sidestep the issue - which is less a reflection of my personal preferance than a respectful nod to WP:NOR and the undue weight discussion at WP:NPOV. Durova 18:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't want to state there was no nationalism, but I wanted to avoid it in cases it can be misleading. It is common usage to talk about acting rulers in the Medieval Ages, not acting people, so as long as it is not definite we have a acting nation I would not refer to this concept. The Hundred Years' War was officially a lengthy legal dispute between two kings until she appeared. Of course the reported statements of Joan show different and there it is at least appropriate. I can try some research tomorrow. Wandalstouring 18:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

We're pretty close to agreement here: both of us feel that "national" as a term is inappropriate. I bowed to further input on the topic of "low point." Would you accept the opinions of other editors that "France" and "England" are sufficient in this context? Durova 20:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

pretty close. I was wondering about the legal disputes, but I think I can live with it. Wandalstouring 20:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angevin Empire

Source on the Angevin Empire refering to its existence till ~1399: Dieter Berg, Die Anjou-Plantagenets. Die englischen Könige im Europa des Mittelalters 1100–1400, Stuttgart 2003

Then I suppose I have to agree that some scholar has referred to the Angevin Empire as existing during part of the Hundred Years' War, particularly since I'm not likely to find that title at an American university library. Still, if a single German source is all that advocates extending this definition as late as the fourteenth century, I doubt it constitutes a need to alter the English language article about fifteenth century events. Durova 13:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Origins of the Hundred Years War: The Angevin Legacy 1250-1340 by Malcolm Vale

This shows the Angevin Empire Legacy contributing to the start of the Hundred Years War. There are several interpretations how long this empire lasted (most end it around (1215-1225) and how long its legacy lasted (beginning of the Hundred Years War or end of the Hundred Years War). Wandalstouring 14:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The sources you specify date its end in the fourteenth century. Since you also state that most sources end it a century earlier, it looks safe to omit mention of the Angevin Empire in this article. Maybe you could update the Angevin Empire article? It looks like it would benefit from your help. Durova 17:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Letters

Her letter against the Hussites is missing. Wandalstouring 20:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You know the subject well. I really couldn't see a way to set an excerpt from this letter into context for the main article. This is the only one attributed to her where there is real scholarly doubt about whether she actually dictated it: it could have been the work of her confessor Jean Pasquerel. She never actually warred against the Hussites or even made serious preparations to do so. The ancillary article Joan of Arc facts and trivia covers specialized interest topics - perhaps this would be appropriate there. Durova 15:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning it at least with a link (perhaps even a comment) could be useful, because the sheer existance of this letter condemming the Hussites is important. The Hussites are the first Czech nationalists from a modern Czech perspective and they were a very religious group who inflincted special Catholic traditions in their homeland till nowadays.Wandalstouring 20:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand the Hussites were a notable movement: did her letter had any effect? Did some Hussites abandon the movement because of it? Did others dispatch spies to France? To the best of my knowledge, none of that happened as a result. This makes the matter a good candidate for the Joan of Arc facts and trivia article: I invite you to add a section there. Of course, if you do find reliable source that argues the letter had some real impact, by all means provide a reference. I'd be very interested. If it's a German source, just quote the original. Please supply full citation information including page number. Durova 13:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"did her letter have any effect?" Does this matter? She claimed divine inspiration and fought in a war in France. If she wrote this letter, she claims to influence events outside of France. Simple logic. Wandalstouring 14:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree this letter has encyclopedic merit. To address the matter from a different perspective, every month or two a new editor joins the dialogue to advocate inclusion of some ancillary topic. Joan of Arc is already 57k: in order to keep it a reasonable size the editors here split off two pages Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc (a featured list) and Joan of Arc facts and trivia: "Joan of Arc facts and trivia covers topics of specialized interest that pertain to the life and legacy of Joan of Arc." Sooner or later someone will also raise the matter of her letter to the count of Armagnac and the Great Schism. While these events are important in themselves, her relation to them is slight, and without some editorial discretion this article would eventually grow as large as the Catalan language version (165k). It is hard to discuss these issues adequately in the main article without giving them undue weight. Durova 17:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Not mentioning is the wrong choice. Make a list of what she probably did and link to specific articles concerning these things. But having no link or comment on them makes this article B-class. They are substantial information, because this woman seems more than a divine-inspired-soldiergirl. Wandalstouring 19:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Really, that is an unusual opinion. I know of no featured biography that lists all the letters its subject wrote (full length books, yes, but not short correspondence). The main article links to Joan of Arc facts and trivia twice: at the start of the legacy section and at the "See also" section. It would go against Wikipedia convention to add a list of section headings to a Wikilink. Durova 15:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Constant change of topic makes it impossible to get anywhere. Otto von Bismarck and Ems Dispatch (but no featured article yet). Wandalstouring 16:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Otto von Bismarck contains no list of Bismark's correspondence and the Ems Dispatch started a war. If the letter to the Hussites had started a war then it would certainly deserve attention on the main article. Do you have a citation to any evidence that it produced any effect at all? Include a page number, please. Durova 18:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

For my little two farthings, I think the letters are a source from wich one can judge the character of Joan of Arc, gain insite on her personnality rather than on her ability to affect the politics. Of course I could be reading this argument the wrong way, we are speaking about keeping her letters in her articles?--Dryzen 14:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it's hard to follow this without background knowledge: an additional letter not in the article threatens military action against the Hussites, a heretical sect outside France. Joan of Arc never actually crusaded against the Hussites and, to further complicate things, there is serious scholarly dispute about whether she even dictated that particular letter. I suggest adding this topic to Joan of Arc facts and trivia unless someone cites evidence that the letter was more than an empty threat. Wandalstouring has not provided a citation, but insists it belongs in the main article rather than the ancillary page. I'm not certain why (he or she) rejects that alternative, but unless that editor provides some new pertinent information I'll stand firm. The article sees regular attempts at expansion into tangential areas and some editorial discretion is necessary for space reasons. Just today a different editor tried to add a list of other notable women who had been compared to Joan of Arc: a pretty good idea for a list, but more appropriate on the subsidiary article. Durova 17:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] non-specific

• If the article was Featured standard before these changes were made, then surely the changes can be reverted so the article goes back to the state it was in when it was agreed to be Featured standard? It's not as if this is one of those very old articles which was made Featured a long time ago before the current criteria were brought in: it was only made Featured this year, and went through the nomination process - and passed - properly. Also, since Miss Of Arc has been dead for hundreds of years, no new information has come to light... and what was true in March 2006 remains true in August 2006. I say, simply, Keep the Featured status and revert any changes made since the nomination which did not serve to improve the quality of the article further. EuroSong ^talk 10:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's any real doubt that this remains featured article quality. I requested this review because I've addressed the NPOV matter pretty much on my own. A few fresh perspectives always helps. There have been about 1000 edits to the article since it passed FA, which makes direct comparison between versions difficult (I've done this repeatedly and keep spotting new things). Some of the changes have been beneficial and wholesale reversion would risk violating WP:OWN. Instead of thinking this is a solid FA and letting the article rest on its laurels, I'd really like to put Wikipedia's best foot forward when the 0.5 CD comes out. Thanks very much for the suggestions. Durova 15:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Review is not over. Wandalstouring 21:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course. I welcome all feedback. Durova 13:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If I may draw this back to the original review request, I posted here because I wanted to see whether the religious and secular aspects of the article are balanced. Welcoming feedback of any sort, yet those were the particular issues that came up on talk while I was on Wikibreak. Durova 22:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Support Kyriakos 04:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Support issues solved. Wandalstouring 09:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: There's no need to support or object yet. This is still the first review section. Keep working away! Marskell 17:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to make clear it is yet not readdy to pass. Wandalstouring 19:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Have we ironed out your objections now? Durova 15:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

OK Wandalstouring 15:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some thoughts

My, this is getting rather heated. Let's try to avoid having this descend into a personal argument, and focus instead on (what seem to me) to be the main issues:

Lowest points in French history 

This is almost certainly a debatable point, particularly as there's no distinction made vis-a-vis French military history versus French history in general. Certainly there are any number of very unpleasant periods that can be brought forth. However, I think the credentials of the source making the claim are decent enough that it can be included. The best course of action, in my opinion, would be to specify the source explicitly: "According to the historian So-and-So, ..." This avoids the thorny issue of whether the judgement is truly objective while at the same time presenting what appears to be a significant and defensible view of the matter.

England & France 

Technically, this could be described as a fight between two claimants to the French throne (by virtue of the Treaty of Troyes), between the English king and the French one, between the English crown and the Valois, and any number of other possibilities. However, I would suggest that by far the most common manner of assigning labels here is to identify the dauphin with "France" and Henry with "England". That these labels are not exact may be explained in a footnote, if desired; but adopting a different usage will bewilder readers.

Hussites 

I don't think this is all that significant of a point, since the Hussites drew threats of crusades like moths to a candle, and Joan disappeared from the political arena too early to actually do anything in this regard. It's a topic that may very well deserve an article in its own right; but I would recommend against jamming it into this article, given that space is at a premium and there's already a number of more important letters presented.

I suspect my comments are going to provoke a storm of disagreement from everyone involved, as I think I stepped on all toes equally ;-) Having said that, let's make every effort to ensure that comments here are about the article, not about the reviewers. Kirill Lokshin 19:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Very good points. I'll think about how to reword the statement and mention DeVries by name. Durova 19:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I share much of Kirill Lokshin's thoughts. To share a my fealling of thsi page: the two main speakers found here, Durova and Wandalstouring, seem to be arguing semantics and sources with little actual contest between the two's view points. As there is a language element present the semantics themselves are a naturaly occuring pitfall. Reading about I have on many occasion lost the orignal spark that started the debate and at the end of it all am more confused as to what was the problem and what where to be the solutions.--Dryzen 14:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thou

Article is still a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

No Wiki Projects linked: left message at User talk:Ihcoyc, original FA nominator. Sandy 14:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Lacks inline citations
• Has very short sections
• Listy intro
• May need some better section organization

Todor→Bozhinov 11:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• A very odd FA. I agree with the nominator. Heading "The modern plural problem" (my emphasis) is, IMV, POV. Tony 16:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• I have added a number of in-line citations to the article on various facts related in it, and cited that great authority Rob Liefeld once. Please note that many other statements lack inline citations primarily because they already say what they are quoting in the text itself. I'd like to see specific authority on the north British dialect persistence of thou, but I did not write those parts. The list in the intro seems the best way to handle that. Smerdis of Tlön 14:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Does anyone else find the picture of Shakespeare (with its weasel caption) a little random? Pagrashtak 00:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • A bit, but it's true that people think of "thou" as a Shakespearian affectation, and I'm hard put to think of a better lede image for this article. What do you propose — an image of a loaf of bread and a jug of wine?  ;?) Peirigill 10:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I propose that if the caption "Most modern English speakers think of "thou" as a relic of Shakespeare's day" is to stay, that it needs a reference, as it is weasel text. There is no rule that all articles much have images - perhaps this article would be better served by having no image in the lead. Pagrashtak 20:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• I've re-written the lede, changed the section names and structure, and copyedited a little. This should help address the above concerns. Peirigill 10:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are lack of citations (2c), short sections and structure (5), intro (3a). Marskell 09:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The lead is not Ok. Can it be fixed according to WP:LEAD.Keep--Yannismarou 18:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. Peirigill 10:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Citations have been added, sections have been consolidated and restructured, and the lede rewritten. It could still be improved, but it's enough up to snuff to keep the gold star. Peirigill 10:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comments. Here's what's been done since listing at FAR.
  • The list of comparisons should be in this order: Modern English, Middle English, Frisian, Dutch, and German. The current order is chaotic.
  • The grammatical terminology is too Latinate (especially "genitive", which would be simpler and more widely comprehended as "possessive").
  • Rather under-referenced.

I guess it's OK. Tony 14:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Most problems have been addressed. Sandy 12:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Status. Not comfortable closing this with two fact requests in the lead. "'Thou' was later used to express familiarity, intimacy, or disrespect." This is fairly time of day and I'm sure can be easily cited. "'Thou' persists, sometimes in altered form, in regional dialects of England and Scotland." For this, one would expect a good source. If anyone is watching the review, maybe track down those citations? Marskell 21:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I have used an article found on JSTOR to satisfy the need for the latter citation. I think the former {{fact}} tag can be removed as it is covered later in the article. Andrew Levine 23:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Free will

Article is still a featured article

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience. Sandy 20:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This article has very few inline citations, especially considering its 59 kb length. The scientific section, though it contains some references needs more references to be up to even GA standards. Its prose is not that great and could definitely be greatly improved with copy-edits (possibly trimming as well). For example, in one section there are three quotations in a row (two from the same author) without sufficient prose that could be made to flow much better. What really kills it is the lack of references in most sections, however. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 03:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It might be salvagable in that case. There is a superabundance of research resources on the philosophical arguments about this topic on the Internet alone. It might not be so easy with the scientific sections. But I'll start on it tomorrow, if possible.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 21:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It's frigthening, now that I look at it. Needs to be cut in half, at least. Completely reorginized. Prose is not the right word. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 21:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Francesco, do you think you can fix it in a day or two (just kidding — the FAR process is actually 2 weeks of review, followed by another two weeks of FARC, only if necessary :-) I've been watching the statement in there about Tourette syndrome for a long time. I have no idea what it's trying to say, so I hope you can address that. I can't figure out what a neurological condition has to do with Free will. Regards, Sandy 22:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I just read through the comments and some of the history of edit-warring and such on this thing. Could you perhaps extend that period to three YEARS?? Oh my!! I will need to call in the reserves on this one. But none of them seems to be home right now. This should be intersting. </terror>--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 21:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's the way the consensus wants this thing apparently. Sickening!! --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC) Latest assessment (somewhat subjective because personally involved though): significant improvements have been made. Not quite there yet, but we're making progress. Sections have been forked, the science section has been massively improved and there are many,many more citations. Still needs some rewrite on phi. section for content and quality of prose. More cites in several areas.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article is greatly improved. It would be helpful if other reviewers would have a look, and comment on any work remaining to be done. Hopefully this one will avoid FARC. As the diff shows, the article has been rewritten this week. Sandy 11:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What's the process? How could it be stopped from going into FARC anyway?--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 12:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If the consensus is that it has been brought back to FA status, it doesn't go to FARC. Even if it does go to FARC, that just gives you a longer period to work on the article, so not to panic :-)) Sometimes, editors don't get around to looking at an article seriously until it moves to FARC. I've sometimes missed a few in the FAR stage, and found things that needed to be addressed only after it moved to FARC, but that doesn't mean the article will be delisted. As long as progress is ongoing, most reviewers are happy. Sandy 21:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The article looks pretty good now — much better than when I put it under FAR. The references and the like are fine. I'm not very well-versed in philosophy, however, so I'll leave it to those who have been working on the article to determine if it's comprehensive enough to be considered an FA. Good work, guys! — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 17:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah it's comprehensive enough for an FA, indeed, the danger is that it will become too comprehensive and cease to be encyclopedic, but I think we've avoided that. Bmorton3 19:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

There's one important observation I wanted to add: this is absolutely the first example of concrete, contructive collaboration that I have seen on a philosophy article on Wikipedia since I've started on this thing back in January. I think we have genuinely managed to improved the article, while avoiding edit wars, personal quarrels and all the other nonsense that usually takes place. Some of you guys are fairly new and will tend to underestimate this accomplishment. Very impressive, folks.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 20:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Status? Major rewrite, article is well-referenced, can we get more opinions as to avoiding FARC? Sandy 23:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of the people I know are in the philosophy "depatrtment". I am extremely histant to ask for their specific input for two reasons, Sandy: 1) Most of the ones I trust have already worked on the article. 2) The others might (will!!) almost certainly want to add their own quotes, favorite philosphers, and so on, to an already realtively lengthy article. This could even lead to instaibility and edit-wars.

Many of the non-philosophical people I have some familiarty with, on the other hand, are hesitiant to edit such an article becuase it is not their field and so on. But I will see what I can do even in this respect, just for you (;? --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed status

[edit] Domestic AC power plugs and sockets

Article is no longer a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Talk message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronics. Sandy 23:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is, in my opinion, a mess! The prose is very poor (e.g., "If a plug does not mate with the sockets available, do NOT modify either and only replace one if you are sure you know what you are doing"), there's inconsistent spelling (adapter/adaptor), ampersands in links and titles, obscure jargon and technical references (e.g., "The Danish standard is described in DS Afsnit 107-2-D1 (SRAF1962/DB 16/87 DN10A-R)"), and general awkwardness. There are no inline citations and only five references total. Many of the images have obsolete copyright tags. It also seems overly long, though that may be unavoidable for an article of this type. —smably 22:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Status? Five inconsequential edits since nominated, here's the diff: [3]. No one is working on it. Sandy 10:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I browsed it wondering whether this were just a minor matter of spelling and syntax, but discovered the article has no line citations at all. While it seems to be accurate and complete and encyclopedic, I like to see references. Durova 00:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are poor prose (1a), copyright tags (3), and length (4). Marskell 06:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. Some work has been done on it since Sandy's comment above, but not nearly enough. Convince me that it should be saved. Tony 13:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Lacking inline citations. Bad lay-out. Huge "See also" section. As it is now, it shouldn't be saved.--Yannismarou 08:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Two editors have been working on the article, but not on the FARC issues: I left them talk messages, hoping to enlist their help in the FAR. Sandy 13:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm one of those editors, the big problem is that the only good references are the official national standards which (unfortunately) aren't generally freely availible and presumablly many of them aren't in english either. So unfortunately most information is either from other websites or from people who actually live in the countries where the plugs are used.
  • As a top level article what should really happen is that all the little sections should be summaries linked to high quality well referenced articles of thier own, but that requires someone with enough knowlage about the particular plug types use to write such an article.
  • I try to keep the article tidy (mainly summarising bloated sections and moving the detail to more specific articles, i'll take a look at see also now it could probablly do with some trimming) but i'm really not in a position to make much improvement on the references issue.
  • As for the copyright tags i stronly feel that if people wan't to go obsoleting tags they should clear up the mess they make themselves.
  • As for length yes it is a little on the long side (and people keep pushing more in which i try to keep under control but its a major job), otoh it is very usefull to have basic info on the worlds common plug types in a single conviniant article. Plugwash 11:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm the other of those editors.
  • Actually, a lot of information on the more common standards is available on the Web, it's just time-consuming tracking it down. I'm working on it.
  • I'm also working on cleaning up the turgid prose, but there's a lot of it.
  • I tried splitting the article, putting the somewhat bloated safety notes section in its own article, but Plugwash put it back. We really need to get together on what we are doing.
  • Some of the plugs are popular enough to deserve their own article, the Europlug already has its own. It's probably time for the American Type B to get its own as well since it has a number of common variations.
  • We have a bit of a conflict between the North American and British POV. I'm Canadian, so I know the American plugs quite well, and I've seen a few of the European plugs. I find the British plugs kind of humorous (or humourous depending on your POV), but that doesn't go over well with the Brits. RockyMtnGuy 22:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • You left the safety notes section as a horrible stub section, i brought the most important bit of it back (and trimmed the version i brought back too) leaving a section convering the most important bits with a main article link which is imo the way it should be.
    • As for the american plugs, i think for the moment NEMA connectors is small enough to just put any detail that doesn't belong in domestic AC power plugs and sockets there. At some point we might wan't to break out say "NEMA 5 series" into its own article though.
    • BTW you say you find the size of our plugs humerous, well i've got two retorts to that. One is the flatness means that in use they aren't as bad space wise as they first appear (e.g. you can push a cupboard against one without it being too far from the wall), secondly its lovely to be able to plug in a 3KW fan heater or electric fire into any socket and to only have minor electrical work to do if you wan't to put in a washing machine or dishwasher. Plugwash 01:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Well, I see the British are sensitive about their plugs. I wasn't commenting about their size, I just feel they are somewhat overengineered for what they do.
  • Here in North America we seldom feel the urge to plug in a 3000 W heater because of a concept we used called central heating. If we have a washing machine or a portable dishwasher, we just plug it in and it works. For heavy appliances we have to install 240 V sockets.
  • Most of the NEMA connectors are industrial, marine, or other than domestic; and there are a lot of them. For this article I'd just like to mention the ones used in houses.
  • I moved the safety notes text to its own article and was going to summarize it later. The section seems overly technical. Most people aren't interested in designing their own grounding systems, they just need to know that if they don't have a ground, it could kill them. For technical details there are couple of articles (one on earthing systems and the other on ground (electricity)) that we could link to.
  • Other than that, I'm just interested in improving it to make it more readable to the average person. RockyMtnGuy 03:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah our plugs probablly are a bit overengineered (though no more so than most other european plug types), central heating does break down from time to time and its very handy to be able to use a 3KW fan heater in any room when it does.
    • regarding "NEMA connectors" you a right there are a lot of them and if/when we have information on a significant proportion of them that article will need to be split. However equally i belive there is no point in splitting a reasonable sized article into a series of horrible stubs. There seem to be a lot of people on wikipedia who have good long term ideas but then use those as an excuse to deconstruct good articles into a series of stubs (and then in many cases the long term ideas are never followed through with). I'm a firm beliver that our structure should represent the information we have now not the information we might have in the future.
    • Keep up the improvements, i won't generally revert wholesale but i will correct anything that is factually inaccurate and/or put some kind of summary back into a section that is left as a tiny stub.

Status: What's going on with this one? Rocky, are you able to work some more? Marskell 19:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Leaning towards Remove if we don't hear from editors if further progress is intended. Sandy 01:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• I intend to do some more work on it. I'll do a bit more tonight. It's just that the the weather is warm and sunny and the larches are turning golden yellow high in the Canadian Rockies. When the weather turns snarky I'll get more work done. Until, of course, the snow gets deep enough to ski... RockyMtnGuy 02:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It's already been on FARC a week past the usual timing: gorgeous Fall weather notwithstanding, please keep us posted on your progress, so we can keep this moving. Sandy 13:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I had a go at improving some English but all in all, it is a good article. Whether I would want it on the home page of Wikipedia is another matter, but that is more to do with the subject than its quality. JMcC 17:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC) PS Even in British English, it is 'humorous'.
• To my own considerable astonishment, I'm going to vote keep on this one after reading it. I think it is a good article. The writing may not be the best, but heck, it's an article about plugs. And the fact that there is a mild edit-war on this of all topics is a salutary reminder of the power of a public encyclopedia! Eusebeus 12:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Its already had its time on the front page ;) (though i belive wikipedias standards were less harsh back then) I wouldn't call the situation an edit war there is some mild conflict between the articles main maintainers (currently me and rockymountainguy)and ofc there is the constant stream of well intentioned but poor newbie edits that any major article gets but there isn't any major edit war. Plugwash 15:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was being facetious. What I really meant was that it is salutary to see that a far from obvious topic is the subject of both well-presented information and ongoing interested editing and maintenance.  :) Eusebeus 15:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remove, few sources and the article doesn't appear to have improved much; some reworking at it could be a featured list candidate, the potential for good prose isn't there for this kind of article.--Peta 08:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. Some sections still aren't well referenced (for example, History), there are numerous stubby sections and one-sentence paragraphs, the prose is not compelling and not particularly illuminating. Example of the prose: The idea of "taking fault currents safely to earth" popular in laymans understanding of earthing (and worryingly school science books) is a misconception, the earthing system serves two purposes, firstly it provides a system to automatically cut the power to an appliance with a fault to the case and secondly it tries to hold all touchable metalwork that has a low resistance connection to anything at the same voltage (since it is a voltage difference that causes current through the body and hence electric shock). Sandy 14:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty bad, isn't it? I tried to improve the prose for that particular paragraph, and the above was what my edit was replaced with: a candidate for the World's Worst Writing Award. "It was a dark and primarily stormy, with ominous stratonumbocumulous clouds, night, and fault currents were being led confusedly (but not as confusedly as in popular school science books) to earth." Actually, the example you gave is hard to make worse. I am going to take another shot at making it better when nobody is looking, ("No, no! You haven't considered TT earthing in the global perspective...") RockyMtnGuy 14:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Remove per all above. It's simply not good enough.UberCryxic 18:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It needs improving but there is no other place on the internet with as much useful (and indeed correct!) information on the subject. Ziltro 04:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ford Mustang

Article is no longer a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles.

It's been 2 years since the article was given FA status. With the introduction of the current S-197 Mustang, and the addition of information and models that was not included in the original FA nod (I have no idea how it got FA status despite not being "Complete"; The 80's section got a boost via two specialty models for example), I think the article has been severely compromised.

My main concern is the S-197 Section. I went in once to remove obvious fancruft in one part, but I have a lingering suspicion that some of the text might be bordering on possible commercialism (or is outright commercial propaganda) but I cannot put my finger on what is fact and what is just a marketing ploy.--293.xx.xxx.xx 10:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, there are no inline citations and the lead is insufficient. Is Image:Mustangunexpected.JPG truly public domain? Pagrashtak 20:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't look at me, i'm more concerned about the content, not the images. --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not specifically asking you, I'm listing other concerns about the article. Pagrashtak 19:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is very bad indeed, some sections are badly unwikified and needs cleanup. I would really love this to stay as an FA as it's one of the top cars of all-time but it needs work. I deleted the two not PD images Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• There are a number of problems, the most important being the lack of reference.

1. No references. The 2004 featured version (which I believe was this one based on the talk page) has grown quite a lot. However, the 2004 had two references, and the current version, 3 (with over twice its size) and 5 inline links (which should be transformed into foot notes). The article apparently has no active maintainer (it reached up to 50 external links).
2. There are embedded external links in sections like Current third-party tuner versions, which should have wikilinks instead.
3. The headings don't sound encyclopedic (From sporty car to sports car, The industry reacts, The Mustang grows up).
4. Weasel words, peacock terms (this is because of the lack of references). A search for most returns:
   • it was the most successful product launch in automotive history
   • it was the single most expensive Mustang option
   • the 1967 to 1970 GT-500 are among the most sought-after
   • Though the "'Cuda" would grow into one of the most revered muscle cars of all time
   • with a small "BOSS 429" decal on each front fender, hinted that most powerful Ford V8 of all time
   • It is also worth noting that four of the five years of the Mustang II are on the top-ten list of most-sold Mustangs.
   • The original 1969 and 1970 Mustang Mach 1s were (and remain) some of the most popular Mustangs ever
   • The most powerful factory-produced Mustang ever is the new Shelby GT500.

I am sure there are more things, but as it is now, it is failing 1c (lack of references), 1d (neutrality, due lack of references) and 2b (heading style). -- ReyBrujo 23:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

God, it got FA on THAT?!?! THAT?!?! I'm sorry, but that had to be one of the worst FA nods ever. The references sucked, most of the variants aren't even listed, the article was too "lean" and lacked meat. My Ford Mustang SSP article has more references that that, and info on that model is extremely hard to come by!! --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Back two years ago there weren't (I think) easy-to-use references system, and since most of the information seems to come from the book, I believe it was the best they could do. I don't object the FA status when it got it, but I object the current status. -- ReyBrujo 16:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Dumb question, but in the S-197 section, aren't press releases written word for word a copyright violation?--293.xx.xxx.xx 18:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Remove not FA quality, lacks references and much data. --Bob 16:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Note to all editors: This is not the place to comment to keep or remove the FA status from the article. At this stage the concerns are raised and if they are not addressed within a considerable amount of time (usually 2 weeks) then this is moved to FARC where "votes" are issued to keep or remove the article. Joelito (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Needs inline citations (1. c.). LuciferMorgan 22:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Move to FARC: lacking inline citations, and that's not the least of its problems. Sandy 01:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Well, no one bothered to address a/or help in my concerns in the opening post, so I went in and deleted most of the technical stuff and cruft, and did some reference notes. Also, I tagged the SN-95 section with rewrite tags. It's a start.--293.xx.xxx.xx 11:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b), commercial POV (1d), and citations (1c). Marskell 14:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Lacks sufficient inline citations (1. c.). LuciferMorgan 17:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong remove. No inline citations. 3 listy sections in a row. 1 stubby sub-section. Very poor references.--Yannismarou 14:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong remove. Yikes - three tags at the top of the article, and all that Yannismarou said. Sandy 14:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Two more in the SN-95 section as well.--293.xx.xxx.xx 19:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Papal Tiara

Article is no longer a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism and Talk:Papal Tiara

A pretty good article overall, but needs several changes to meet the requirements of a featured article:

1. Intro is too short and does not summarize information from the History or Design sections.
2. The History section focuses almost entirely on the 20th century popes, with little mention of the History of the Tiara in the period 1314-1900. It jummps straight from the origins to the "last crowned pope." In the Origins sections there is only one reference to only one author, Noonan.
3. The Vicarius Filii Dei section is just a mess, far too long for a single conspiracy theory. Rather than giving a good summary origin and historicla context of the 666 controversy, it gives a complicated point-by-point rebuttal which delves into original research and the focus on lack of evidence.
4. The Usage section has only one reference and doesn't really deal with the way the usage of the tiara has evolved over time.
5. The Other Tiara's section has no references, particularly for the Ottoman claim, which should have a source.
6. There are also far too many images, which clutter the text and in at least one instance create a big gob of white space. There are far too many images whose only connection to the article is "Pope XXX wearing the tiara". The images that are used should make sense in the section they are used and contribute to the content in that section.
7. The "A permanent end to the wearing of the triple tiara?" section has too much speculation and too few sources. For example, the claim "Pope Benedict XVI has confirmed the continued use of representations the tiara as an official symbol of the papacy" without a reference. Benedict XVI certainly hasn't worn the tiara, so this statement would need to be more specific and more referenced.

These are the most obvious problems with the article which should be addressed. I'd like to see them fixed because in a few places this article is actually quite brilliant and I'd like to see it remain featured if fixed. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Re 1. The intro is continually being rewritten, it is suspected, by the same user using various identities, to reinsert variations on his own substandard opening. When I get the chance I will undo his damage, again (that's the downside of an open edit encyclopaedia, I suppose. People who don't what they are doing can totally screw up a good article.)

Re 2. The reason it focuses on the twentieth century popes is because many of the files on earlier usage, which would be needed to write a comprehensive review of earlier usage, have not been released by the Vatican. In the absence of other information most historians have not been able to write detailed histories of past usage. With few books little is available for inclusion. (I have been able to source some new material. Since I wrote this article it has spurred the writing of other articles elsewhere and led to a couple of academic articles on the topic, bringing more sources into the public. Also older encyclopaedia articles on the topic have now been scanned and are available. Twentieth century popes are a different matter, as alternative sources (notably media reportage and Vatican Press office information) has enabled histories of usage to be supplied.

Re 3: The Vicarius Filii Dei is necessarily long and follows the standard Wikipedia approach to dealing with complex issues. Unless a lot of detail is put in rebutting the nonsense, promoters of the myth would use the gap to pack out with wacky 666 claims. Where such dangers exist, it is normal to write a long section, notwithstanding a main article elsewhere, to close off the scope for conspiracy theorists to promote the myth in the article. (I have learnt from experience on many articles elsewhere over four years that leaving out a controversial aspect, or writing a short summary, is a recipe for disaster. It simply leaves the field open for conspiracy theorists to add in dodgy claims and fight edit wars to stop them being removed. The more detail and rebuttals with images are supplied, the less likely unsourced claims are likely to be added in, so maintaining the quality of the overall article.)

Re 4, 5: More information has now become available including long out of print texts that were not reissued until this article was written by me and then copied all over the net. (It has also apparently featured in newspaper articles in Ireland, Britain, Italy and the US.) That will now be added in. As the topic had not received much attention before this article and the tiara was not a very popular current issue, there was very little information available when this article was written originally.

Re 6. I disagree that there are two many images, as do many others who have read the article and commented on it. I happen to be aware that a number of academics off Wikipedia, plus someone in the Vatican, has commented favourably on the article because of the number of images, arguing that on a topic so visual as a set of crowns the article shows examples of usage and context. Given that individual tiaras are associated with individual popes, and the mythology concerning the supposed decoration of different tiaras, it is necessary, again to disarm pushers of the myth, to show sufficient evidence of usage stretching over papacies, times, angles, etc to discourage edit warring on the issue.

Re 7: Given that there is a question mark at the end of that section, by its nature the paragraph has to be speculative, as we do not know if there is a permanent end to the wearing of the papal tiara. The claim "Pope Benedict XVI has confirmed the continued use of representations the tiara as an official symbol of the papacy" is patently self evident. The papal flag still has the tiara. The coat of arms of the Holy See and of the Vatican both have the papal tiara. Every document issued in the Pope's name using the Vatican crest includes the tiara. The tiara was simply removed from one small area, the Pope's own personal coat of arms, and even there I have heard that some texts have been released by the Vatican showing a version of his coat of arms with the tiara. (I understand that most people in the Vatican regard Benedict's coat of arms as hideous and that he is rather embarrassed by them himself. But he is stuck with them.) Given that formal banner and crests are issued by new popes, and the crests and banners all have the tiara, ipso facto Benedict has "confirmed the continued use of representations the tiara as an official symbol of the papacy." Maybe the sentence just needs reframing to make clear just how self-evident it is. (I don't think I wrote that particular sentence but I could be wrong. I wrote this article some time ago.)

I do think the standard of this article has slipped a bit since I last visited it. Even do often I have had to return and do a cull of dodgy additions and reinsert strange deletions of text. I'll give the text a thorough going over in the next few days. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response! I look forward to your changes to the intro and the addition of references in the places you mentioned. I won't comment on these further until you've had a chance to fix them and incorporate these new sources.

I would like to ask you, though, on this Benedict XVI issue whether the analysis that Benedict has "confirmed" something is your own or that of another author. The statement of facts like the fact that it shows up on his coat of arms is fine. But, if it is to be implied that the tiara could make a comeback as a result of these facts, that should be attributed to a published source. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are LEAD (2a) quality, consistency, and length of presentation (1c and 4). Marskell 13:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Weak remove. There are easily remediable issues—shortish LEAD, red-linked pic, rhetorical question as a headline—that do not rise to remove. Instead, I tilt that way because I agree with the nominator's concern over the jump from origins to the 20th century. This is jarring and doesn't read well. FearEIREANN notes "The reason it focuses on the twentieth century popes is because many of the files on earlier usage...have not been released by the Vatican. In the absence of other information most historians have not been able to write detailed histories of past usage." If that is the case, the absence of info should be mentioned and sourced. But surely, something can be added post-1342 (various other sections mention pre-20th century dates, for instance). This is a weak remove because in other respects this is obviously a very comprehensive article. Marskell 07:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak remove. I agree with Tim that there's good about this article, and that it's a pity to remove it. But until the prose is raised to a "professional" standard, it should not be a FA. I picked out a few examples at random:
  • "... replacing it with a ceremony of what was called "Inauguration of the Supreme Pontificate"; and after John Paul I's sudden death, Pope John Paul II told ...". The semicolon is the link; "and" should be removed. This blemish is right at the top.
  • Throughout the article, there seem to be inconsistency WRT whether a comma is used after initial adverbial and prepositional phrases. The absence of a comma might be OK in places, but where nominal groups are jammed up against each other, it's hard to read; e.g., "However, in the coat of arms of the Holy See and of the Vatican City State Pope Benedict XVI decided to keep the tiara, not a mitre." (Comma after "Pope". More formal at the end would be "rather than", not "not".)
  • Awkward/informal: "As with all previous popes, Pope Paul VI was crowned with ...". And the subsequent sentence starts with "As", too.
  • Vague grammar: "Quite different from earlier tiaras, it was not covered in jewels and precious gems, and was sharply cone-shaped." The problem with the first phrase is that it raises the possibility of differences aside from the two that are explicated. I don't think that's the intention; if it is, we'd like to know what they are. Tony 01:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Certain subsections have zero inline citations, and other sections need more inline citations (1. c.). LuciferMorgan 22:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Referencing problems is some sections. I'm a bit confused with the organization of "Footnotes" and "References" (why some sources of the footnotes are not mentioned in the references and the opposite). External links in footnotes are not properly citated (lacking author, title, date they were retrieved etc.). Very short lead.--Yannismarou 09:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Bulger

Article is no longer a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography and Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board. Sandy 23:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This article has accumulated quite a bit of criticism, some suggestions as to what to do about the problems, but not enough enthusiasm from anyone to bring it back up to Featured Standard (me included!). There seems to be a consensus (or at least no sign of a lack of consensus) that its not of FA quality, so I thought I would list it here, to seek views on what can be done. See the article and its talk page for details. SP-KP 16:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Needs inline citations (a violation of criterion 1. c.), and there should be plenty of newspapers and crime reports that could be utilized. LuciferMorgan 23:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Status? No inline cites, move to FARC. Sandy 01:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are inline citations and NPOV. Joelito (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Lacks inline citations (1. c.). LuciferMorgan 17:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Per LuciferMorgan. And, judging by the number of references, I donot think the research of the material is not as thorough as it could be.--Yannismarou 14:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Multiple tags, not even a Good article. Sandy 01:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soap bubble

Article is no longer a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Sandy 17:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be an ancient FA, which was promoted well before the current criteria were defined and enforced.

• Lead section is inadequate.
• The "How to make soap bubbles" section, by its very nature, reads like a "how to", and does not fit in an encyclopædia.
• There are only a small handful of references, none of which are in-line. From the names of the references given, it seems unlikely that they would cover all the subject material covered in the article. The references need to be more specific.
• "See also" and "External links" sections contain descriptions of links in a very un-encyclopædic manner.
• Several sections do not sit right as sections: for example "Coloured bubbles" and "Structure" are (almost) single paragraphs.
• Mix of BrE and AmE.
• The whole thing is quite poorly written: the English is not up to standard. Take for example the lead: "Soap bubbles usually last for only a few moments and then burst either on their own or on contact with another object." - there are no commas in this sentence, where they are required. This writing continues throughout.

The article needs drastic improvement if it is to retain its Featured status. EuroSong ^talk 15:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Definitely an old FA that needs fixing.

• Lead section is too short.
• No inline citations.
• The "See also" section needs rewriting; otherwise merger.
• The captions of the photos are poorly written and not informative.--Yannismarou 16:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The definition given in the lead is wrong. It states a soap bubble has to be a sphere, but as anyone that has blown soap bubbles can attest (and as described further down in the article), various kinds of bubbles like "double bubbles" can arise. These "merged" bubbles are of considerable mathematical and scientific interest. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 21:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Status? Four insignificant edits since nominated (diff), no improvements, move to FARC. Sandy 01:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are lead section, image captions, factual accuracy, and inline citations. Joelito (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Lacks inline citations (1. c.) and the lead section needs addressing. LuciferMorgan 17:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Very short lead. No inline citations. Some stubby sections. Three sections are too listy. The "See also" section needs rewriting; otherwise merger. The captions of the photos are poorly written and not informative.--Yannismarou 14:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per all of the above, no change, no one working on it. Sandy 23:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per previous reviewers. Tony 03:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] She Loves You

Article is no longer a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at User talk:Johnleemk, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs. Sandy 17:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The article lacks sufficient inline citations, mostly using one source within its modest 5 external references (a violation of criterion 1. c.). It also quotes from a hefty number of people (Beatles members, George Martin etc.) without saying where the sources derive from. With the notable exception of one review in the "The Release" section, there is nothing else in the article which discusses the critical reaction of esteemed critics past and present. LuciferMorgan 15:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• The issues being brought up have to do mainly with its age - the article became featured long before even the first proper version of footnoting was created. The main issue is inline citations, which shouldn't be a problem. Talking about citing "esteemed critics" is one thing, but finding them is another. At best, one can usually only discuss the general reaction of critics (one the article covers decently, although perhaps not as in depth as might be desired), although on rare occasion, some reviews do have a particular eminence that is difficult to ignore. Music doesn't really have any outstanding critics whose opinions generally ought to be cited by a comprehensive article (unlike movies, which have, for instance, Roger Ebert). Johnleemk | Talk 16:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't really agree, at least it's not been a problem for WP:KLF. Whilst there aren't so many named critics in music there are esteemed magazines - NME, Rolling Stone, and so on, and also - in Beatledom - a host of biographies and books which dissect the songs. There might not be a Roger Ebert equivalent, but NME or the newspapers of the time would be great. Good luck getting hold of em though! --kingboyk 16:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I still feel that a "Critical Reaction" section would greatly benefit the article, and other recent song FA's have them. LuciferMorgan 17:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • While I think expanding the article's discussion of critical reaction isn't a bad idea, I don't think we should have a whole section about it for the sake of it. I've read such song FAs, and they don't read very well to me because of how they are structured; presenting a number of different reviews simply because one can isn't very encyclopedic, and makes the article read rather disjointedly at times. Johnleemk | Talk 16:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It's a fair opinion - feel free to get a consensus of editors. I think some critical reaction sections are like you say awkward and bad, while some others are good - depends how they're written I think. Mainly though, all the quotes in the article need proper inline citations which is the main issue Wikipedians will seize upon. Like kingboyk said though, since it's a Beatles article there should be a host of sources to call upon. LuciferMorgan 17:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Further Comment No edits have been made to the article since 30 August, so once the fortnight window expires I suggest moving this to FARC. LuciferMorgan 14:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness, references and inline citations. Joelito (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Not featured quality. Punctured Bicycle 17:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove As the FA criteria concerns I raised haven't been addressed. LuciferMorgan 18:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Per above. --Yannismarou 17:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prince-elector

Article is no longer a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at User talk:Lord Emsworth, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle Ages, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle Ages/Featured. Sandy 17:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This article got featured the end of 2004, when the criteria for FAC were much more loose. As you can see, the article lacks sufficient references, lacks inline citations and has too many red links. I think it should be reviewed.--Yannismarou 14:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

My opinions are the same as the nominator. All the concerns expressed above need to be addressed. Criterion 1. c. isn't met at the moment. LuciferMorgan 15:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I donot see any response from the initial nominator or anybody else. i'm sorry but it looks like an old abandonned FA.--Yannismarou 12:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The days pass and nobody is interested in this article!--Yannismarou 19:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It is rather sad that no-one seems to care about Lord Emsworth's many featured articles. See his user page for some more possible FAR(C) candidates. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are references and inline citations. Joelito (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Not featured quality. Punctured Bicycle 17:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Fails criterion 1. c. LuciferMorgan 22:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Per above. My concerns not addressed.--Yannismarou 17:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Complete lack of inline citations, concerns not addressed, no one working on it. Sandy 15:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post-deletion commentary

• Someone mentioned here that "inline cite requirement is not applied to FAs that passed before that requirement took hold." Was this article unfairly removed? -- Stbalbach 15:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• At this writing the article is not FA standard, whether or not it was in 2004. Let's work on improving it and re-nominating. -- Rob C (Alarob) 17:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heavy metal umlaut

Article is no longer a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at User talk:Cow, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music genres. Sandy 22:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Article is poorly sourced: only one reference is listed, and only one inline citation or note is made. It was nominated when "I think this article is cute" meant that an article was able to get FA status, and WP's standards have greatly raised sense then. It is certianly not one of Wikipedia's "best works". In conclusion it is a "färcrÿ" from modern featured article status. -Aknorals 13:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - There are 16 inline citations and a footnote. General references listed include seven online sources, and the book used for the footnote. Nevertheless, it is heavily list-oriented; when I saw the article a few days ago I wondered if it might be more appropriate as a Featured List. Gimmetrow 13:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah, your including the single square bracket links... can those be changed to footnotes that state the day they were last refrenced (profesional-like and whatnot)? That would be better, consitering links may die, etc. -Aknorals 14:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Does FA require a particular style of inline citation? Gimmetrow 14:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Section 4 of the article is way too listy, which needs to be addressed. All this disjointed prose needs to be tied into real paragraphs, as right now it's a violation of criterion 2. a. LuciferMorgan 15:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Some obvious citations are missing, such as the 2002 Spin magazine article and the Neal Stephenson quote. I could understand reclassifying this as a list. Yet, having created two FLs myself, I doubt the entries are sufficiently documented to pass FLC. Given the vast number of websites about music, shouldn't this page link to stable sites that reproduce album cover images and diacritical marks in titles and lyrics? When I verified Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc the popular music section was the easiest thing to source...erm, maybe that should be Jöan of Ärc. Durova 19:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Personally I'd zap sections 4 and 5, and try and get citations for everything else. This is relatively serious article about a fun topic but as it stands it's not quite up scratch. I think the Featured List idea isn't a winner because it's the list part which brings the article down. Zap that and restore it to prose and it would be much better. --kingboyk 17:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns is lack of references (1c). Marskell 09:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Not featured quality. Punctured Bicycle 17:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Looooong listy sections. Only one inline citation. Poor references. Poor organization of the very few references, citations and external links. Definitely not featured quality.--Yannismarou 17:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - The problems I cited in the article's FAR (mainly 1. a., alongside 1. c.) haven't been addressed. LuciferMorgan 17:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - Just not up to today's FA expectations. Durova 03:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC) Based on the request below, please refer to my FAR comments: the text itself appears to be excellent but the article is considerably short on references. Listiness isn't a problem for me, but it would be for most editors, and the shortage of references applies to the list portions as well as the main text. Durova 05:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - sadly, but it's had it's 15 minutes of fames. Poor referencing, crappy list section, prose is less than brilliant in places. --kingboyk 17:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. The lists should probably have been syphoned off into daughter articles/lists. Stubby paragraphs elsewhere. (Tony)

Comment: Could I remind reviewers that general negative comments such as "Not featured quality" don't carry much weight. Please let us into your substantive thinking, even if expressed in only a phrase or two. Tony 01:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vulgar Latin

Article is no longer a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at User talk:Ihcoyc, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle Ages. Sandy 20:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

All in all a good article with good prose and comprehensiveness. However, it contains zero inline citations, with just two references. If someone could simply cite all the information from the listed (or other sources), then it would meet FA standards in my opinion. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 03:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• I believe all the information is cited in the References section. Is it unreasonable to believe the article was written from 2 references? As for inline citations, the carefully worded WP:FA? tells us articles should be "complemented where appropriate by inline citations." It does not say that all information should have inline citations. However, if you can find a place where there should be an inline citation but there is none, please add a {{fact}} tag and let us know here so it can be corrected. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for instances that require inline citations. Thanks for you help. -- Maintain 20:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• If the article was indeed written from only two references, it has no business being a featured article. I frankly refuse to believe that everything we need to know about VL can be found in only two sources. I've already discussed some of the shortcomings of this article on the talk page: for example, there's no mention of the fact that Latin ĭ and ŭ merged with ē and ō respectively in most Romance languages (but not all). I would certainly expect a featured article on this topic to discuss the complete phonological history of Vulgar Latin, with examples, taken from a wide variety of sources. User:Angr 11:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Those two sources were, in fact, the chief sources I used when the article was first expanded from a stub. Generally speaking, Vincent supplied the description of the phonology, while Harrington et. al. supplied information about vocabulary, spelling, and syntax; writing the text I added consisted largely of collating information from the two sources combined, with vocabulary examples and literary quotes sometimes substituted from memory. The merger of ǐ with ē is discussed in the article, at least in tabular form. Agree that this should be expanded.

Palmer's The Latin Language probably ought also to be added as a reference; it supplies details about features in early Latin that disappear in classical Latin, but which reappear in Romance, suggesting that they had been present all along in basilectal Latin. A number of primary sources are quoted in the article, and attributed in text.

Since the article is in fact heavily indebted to these three sources, perhaps the best thing to do would be to turn the references from a table to a paragraph, explaining the information sourced in each of them.

Since I expanded the article, and a number of later editors made helpful changes, the coverage of Portuguese, Romanian, and Catalan has been expanded. Most of these edits are generally helpful and appear plausible, but I can't say what sources they should be attributed to. A few, though, are obscuring or make the points more difficult to follow (the discussion of hongo vs. the learned borrowing fungo in Spanish is now obscured by a Portuguese me-too, for example). I've been somewhat hesitant to edit these additions. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Needs inline citations (unsourced articles are generally assumed to be original research which is opposed in wikipedia). LuciferMorgan 22:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Unsourced?...well, no...please see Vulgar Latin#References (its been sourced since its FAC in 2004). Original research? That is quite the serious charge. What new theory or data is being presented here? Can an example of this "original research" be provided? Maintain 07:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I wonder how many people complaining about the lack of references or even accusing an article of OR are doing it based solely on the number of footnotes and sources. Whatever happened to that Russian proverb that used to be in WP:V or WP:CITE or some similar policy or guideline? The one that said doveray nu proveray "trust, but verify". While I don't expect every editor and reader to look up every printed source, it would seem reasonable if those who criticized an article for being poorly referenced did this at least occasionally. I get the distinct feeling that one could get away with some serious FA bullshit with creative and intuitive choice of authoritive-looking sources and random sprinkling of footnotes. Peter ^Isotalo 09:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'm going to carpet-bomb the contributors to this article to ask them to reference it properly. Perhaps old off FARCing for a few days? It's otherwise a very good piece. Tony 06:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• We can wait. Marskell 17:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is citations (1c). Marskell 07:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment There seems to be agreement the prose is good here, but it seems adding the refs has stalled a bit. I'm moving it down to keep the page moving. Marskell 07:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Remove. Inadequate inline citations. The section "For further reading" is a mess: Something between a prose and a list.--Yannismarou 18:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I don't think the complaint about inadequate inline citations is particularly well-merited. How well-referenced an article is can't accurately be judged solely on the number of footnotes. Which statements in the article do you consider inadequately referenced and why?

Peter ^Isotalo 12:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to comment. It is well-merited. For instance, why 4 paragraphs in section "What was Vulgar Latin?" have no inline citation? Read the current FA criteria, check the current FA and you'll understand that why should have at least I inline-citation for each of these paragraphs.--Yannismarou 17:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

And I donot think that just 5 references constitute the high level of research FA requires.--Yannismarou 17:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Since you're avoiding any specific criticism I'm assuming you haven't read or even leafed through a single one of those sources, except for maybe the URL. How can you know that they're not enough to cover the topic?

The article might very well be under-referenced, but this should be demonstrated by supplying constructive and reasonably precise criticism, not by assuming that the extreme footnote sprinkling of the FA being put out currently (with minor exceptions like actuary) have set the undisputable standard for all past and future nominees. The criteria have been the same for a long time now and there is not a word in them about either an absolute or relative number of notes or references needed. Like any requirement, it should not be taken to extremes.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Further response to comment: Do you want specific criticism? It was already specific, but let's make it a bit more specific:

• "Vulgar Latin developed differently in the various provinces of the Roman Empire, thus gradually giving rise to modern French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian, Catalan and Romansh. Although the official language, in all of these areas, was Latin, Vulgar Latin was what was popularly spoken until the new localized forms diverged sufficiently from Latin to emerge as separate standard languages." Who says that? Citation needed.
• "The third century AD is presumed to be an age in which much vocabulary was changing (i.e., equus → caballus, etc.) and recently, some studies (which still perhaps need more scientific development) have suggested that pronunciations too started to diverge, supposedly even then becoming similar to modern local pronunciations, with the most spectacular (alleged) effect in the area of Naples." "Presumed" by whom? What "studies"? As it is now the text, we just have "unverifiable assessments". Citation needed.
• "However it must be noted that most of this theory is based on reconstruction a posteriori rather than on texts." Really? According to whom? Citation needed.
• "for when people who spoke one of the Romance vernaculars set out to write using proper grammar and spelling, what they put down was language that at least paid lip service to the norms of classical Latin." Who says that? Is there any study proving that? As it is now, we have non-verifiable assessments.
• "Late Latin, still based in Rome, presumably reflected these acquisitions, recording what was changing in a nearer area — fairly identifiable with Italy." Presumably? Who presumes? You?! But original research is not allowed in Wikipedia. As it is now, it is either a non-verifiable assessment or, worse, original research. Citation needed.
• "The Romance vernaculars were recognised as separate languages, and began to develop local norms and orthographies of their own. "Vulgar Latin" ceases to be a useful name for either language." Recognised by whom? Non-verifiable assessment. Citation needed.
• "It could perhaps be described as a sort of "magmatic" undefined matter that slowly locally crystallized into the several early forms of each Romance language, that consequently find their ultimate proper ancestry in formal Latin." Described by whom? You?! Again original research or non-verifiable assessment. Citation needed.

Am I specific enough? And it is just the first section! When you address these specific criticisms, I'll continue with the next section. As you can see, I'm not taking it "to the extreme". I'm just implementing the current FA criteria and, as a matter of fact, in an indulgent way. Nominate now an article for FA and you'll understand what "to the extreme" means. Hence, I suggest that you start improving the article instead of criticizing those who point out its deficiencies.--Yannismarou 09:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Now that is better! Too many reviewers simply blurt accusations, like 'Inadequate inline citations', 'poor prose', or 'Under referenced'. This providing of examples turns accusations into criticisms which actually helps people make a better article (that is why we are here, right?). Though a simple {{fact}} per Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to ask for citations would have sufficed. Maintain 20:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've also done that now, emphasizing on the first section.--Yannismarou 11:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Original research is a serious charge, and it's one I stand by also in defence of the editor who replied to me at FAC. Opinions such as "another major" this etc. need to be cited or are otherwise considered original research - your opinion, or a reliable sources opinion (if so cite the source)?. Feel free to refute my comments, but I stand by them. On this basis, I vote remove because this hasn't been addressed. Yannismarou expressed my concerns in more detail earlier in this FARC on 14 September. LuciferMorgan 17:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• It is correct that this particular article still requires footnotes per Wikipedia:Citing sources#When to cite sources. However, lack of a footnote is not original research. It is not listed at Wikipedia:No original research#What is excluded? and it is not the spirit of the policy (Wikipedia:No original research#Policy origin: the opinion of Wikipedia's founder). Wikipedia-footnotes, like references, only mean that something is verifiable. A fallacy would be to assume that because there is no footnote that the info is not in the references, or that the author made it up. Likewise, because it is footnoted that it is true, or that it is not misquoted, or that it is not a hoax. Though I think we will agree that it is the burden of the editor to make verification as easy as possible (the method of choice seems to be footnotes) but it is the reviewers (if the wish to review the truthiness of the article) who must verify that the editor got it right. --Maintain 01:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, whatever we may think, the problem is that nobody adds the necessary citations and a nice article remains in danger.--Yannismarou 19:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Cite needed tags, no progress. Sandy 23:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Unfortunate remove per a week with no work rule-of-thumb. Unfortunate, because I expected this one would be engaged given early commentary. It was not. The prose is good and per Maintain I don't think this is OR. But sentences like "it must be noted that most of this theory is based on reconstruction a posteriori rather than on texts" are begging for citation. Marskell 07:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tea

Article is no longer a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ecology. Sandy 22:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

No necessarily a bad article by any stretch. Tea was given its staus back in the "brilliant prose" days, before the current FA system was put into place. Article decay and increasing FA standards have progressed such that the article no longer truly fits in among its FA peers. The prose is choppy in parts, and the text suffers from "list-itis" and is occasionally ordered oddly, and there is a serious lack of references. – ClockworkSoul 22:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've copy-edited the lead to demonstrate that a good deal needs to be done on the prose if this article is to retain its status. Tony 09:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Status? Move to FARC. The diff since Tony's copy edit shows no improvement, and the introduction of an unreferenced statement to the lead. No progress, no one working on it. Sandy 16:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid you're right. I don't have the time to pour into it now that the semester's started, and it really doesn't belong on the FA roster in its curent state. – ClockworkSoul 23:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think since the days when Tea was featued the information content of the article improved greatly. I would say too much, as it led people to removing big part of Tea to Tea culture, unfortunately without leaving anything decent in "Tea culture" section of Tea.
• I can help with facts, unfortunately I can't help with cleaning of languge and style.
• The references ... I don't think that's so critical. Judging by numer pf references per character maybe, but IMO most of the article should really summarize more detailed articles, for example the paragraph about Green tea should be based on Green tea article, where most of references should go. --Wikimol 12:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, and that first, unreferenced sentence is not well expressed, I fear: "Tea is the second most popular beverage in the world (the most popular is water)." Better as "Tea is the second most popular beverage in the world after water." FARC, I'd say. Tony 14:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'd also question the merits of the section "The word tea", considering that it actually concerns information on the etymology of words for tea in languages other than English and is really just a list disguised as prose. Peter ^Isotalo 16:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose and inline citations. Joelito (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Not featured quality. Punctured Bicycle 17:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove, original author dones't have the time to fix it and nobody else seems to be wokring on it.--Peta 04:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove as per previous two reviewers and my comments above. Tony 05:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Issues not addressed during FAR. Sandy 15:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eigenvalue, eigenvector and eigenspace

Article is no longer a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at User talk:Vb, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. Sandy 22:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The article has absolutely no in-line cites. There are about four references listed in the References sections, but they might be furhter reading for all the averager reader can know. The prose is extraordinatily technical and certainly not accessible to the lay reader, as required by FA criteria. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• No inline-cites: Common style in academic writing (at least in maths and related subjects) is not to provide references for well-known facts. Most, if not all, of the article is well known and can be found in any linear algebra book. I haven't followed Wikipedia policies on this subject, but if it has become accepted that every fact should have an inline reference, then I'd like to know.

References section: I do not understand this comment. Should it be mentioned after every reference, that this has in fact been used? I thought that materials for further reading should go in a "Further reading" section.

Too technical: Which FA criterion says that it should be accessible to the lay reader? I agree that some parts will be hard to understand for somebody without a scientific background, but that's inevitable in my opinion. I don't see where the prose is too technical; could you give an example? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• I second what Jitse said about inline citations: they're quite useless in the context, as it is common math knowledge that can be found in any ordinary algebra book. And yes, this is a math article, yet it explains a quite complicated concept in a way that appears very simple to me. In short I don't see any problems... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Please check WP:WIAFA - no criterion says that it should be accesible to the lay reader. Besides, this is one of the most comprehensive presentations of math I've ever seen. Even as a lay man, I'm sure that you can get a very good idea what eigenvectors are and this is more than one should hope from a 5 min. read. AdamSmithee 11:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sure, sure. You folks don't have to do jack-shit basically. That's what you're telling me, eh?? I have to find 6000 references for a philosophy article which cinatined nothign but accted facts about what the person put forth, wheen he did, whi disgreed with him and so on. These thing are all accepted facts withing the philosopcial community.

First of all, cool off. Basically, folks do not have to do "jack-shit" unless they want to because this is unpaid voluntary work AdamSmithee 13:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Heres the relevant section on prose with which I was lambasted in my FAC:

The perfect article “is understandable; it is clearly expressed for both experts and non-experts in appropriate detail, and thoroughly explores and explains the subject.”

Wiki is not a textbook. Prose should be accessible to laypersons and non-experts."

Seriously, some parts of this article sound exctly like my "linear algebra" textbook. There are no cites. This is an actionable objection, I think. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 12:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

First. note that I didn't challenge your complaint regarding citations (it doesn't necessarily mean that I fully agree with it, however).

Then, could you be more specific on what parts do you find hard to follow for the layman? However, take into account that people should not get scared of the word vector when they read about eigenvectors. If it would be possible for people to go from no mathematics knowledge to full understanding of eigenvectors after reading an article for 5 mins. everyone would be a math Ph.D. before age 10. AdamSmithee 13:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that the article should have more inline citations - especially in the "Applications" section, but this is not the main issue with this article. Currently the article reads like a math textbook and probably belongs more to Wikibooks or Wikiversity than Wikipedia. What needs to be written in order for it to become encyclopaedic is a section on the development of eigenvalues. This means something about the creation of eigenvalues and how it has evolved to become what we know today. There should also be some information about what eigenvalues are used for that non math Ph.D.s can understand. You have the section of "Applications", but it is filled with technical terms like "covariance matrix", which alienates a lot of people. I don't suggest that you delete the current "Applications" section, but rather write something that is easier to read, prefably in the top of the article. The last problem I can think of is that the lead section introduces facts that are not otherwise in the rest of the article. --Maitch 10:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't feel well and kind of left the scene afer posting this for a few days there. 1) On the cites, the point that straight-up scientific facts do not generally need to be cited is well-taken. I don't know what the Wikipedia policy is on this. However, I do think there need to be some cites, as indicated by Maitch above, for example. And what exactly is wrong with citing textbooks, anyway?? In fact, if I feel up to it, I can help out in that regard. Fact is, though, this article is actually rougher going (and more mechanical) in many places than my linear algebras textbook. I know the nature of the material puts inherent limits on readabiklity and so on. But I think that, even in math, there is a sort of popular science approach to writing versus textbook style. People (even I who know a little bit about this stuff) should not have to click on every single word in the text to find out what the heck is going on. Take this one example of textbook style writing:

Recall that above we defined the geometric multiplicity of an eigenvector to be the dimension of the associated eigenspace, the nullspace of λI − A. The algebraic multiplicity can also be thought of as a dimension: it is the dimension of the associated generalized eigenspace (1st sense), which is the nullspace of the matrix (λI − A)k for any sufficiently large k. That is, it is the space of generalized eigenvectors (1st sense), where a generalized eigenvector is any vector which eventually becomes 0 if λI − A is applied to it enough times successively

It's extremely formal, passive voice "Recall that above the x of the y located" and obviously technical academic writing. I don't mean to pick on anybody here. In fact, I'm not exactly sure that an article this techincal CAN be simplified in a short time. But I think it can be, in principle. Even within the arera of textbooks, there are those which are more and less readable. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most of these points. Some parts (e.g., conjugate eigenvalues, eigenfaces) are not standard knowledge and should carry inline citations. I'd even hazard a guess that the last application (to graph theory) is in fact in none of the references. By the way, the problem with inline citations as I see it is that they may distract the reader.

There should be indeed more about the history, which should include the etymology paragraph from the lead. If I have time next week, I might have a look. One of the applications (vibrations) is pretty high up, but should perhaps go even higher, and its practical use more strongly emphasized.

Now, textbook style writing. While everybody agrees that this is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia, it is not clear (at least to me) what "textbook style" actually is. Fortunately, both of you explain what you mean. I'd agree that the fragment shown by Francesco is not brilliant prose. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I added some historical remarks. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, in terms of content, images and all that important stuff, this is simply an outstanding article. I like the addition of the historical stuff, though. More info like that seems to make it more accessible and less textbookish right off the bat. It makes it less intimidating or something. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 14:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Just in a quick scan, I see missing topics or topics that are referred to only very obliquely, and at least one gross error; overall, the organization needs re-thinking, too. Defective matrices are not mentioned explicitly, although there are some oblique references to generalized eigenvectors. Simultaneous eigenvectors of commuting matrices, a central concept in physical problems because it ties in to the effect of symmetries on the solution to physical problems (and leads directly into connections with representation theory, e.g. Bloch's theorem and other important results), are not mentioned. It doesn't mention the orthogonality of Hermitian-matrix eigenvectors. Left and right eigenvectors are not defined. The generalized eigenvalue problem seems awfully underdescribed to me, and probably needs an article of its own (e.g. to give analogous properties to ordinary Hermitian eigenproblems, etc.). The normal modes of coupled mechanical oscillators (from coupled pendula to continuous problems like vibrating strings) are probably the most familiar example of eigenmodes of Hermitian matrices/operators, much more familiar than quantum mechanics or stress tensors to most people, and need more description. This is mentioned under "examples" but the explanation is totally wrong: the eigenvalue for standing waves is not the amplitude, it is the frequency (or, more precisely, the frequency squared). Damping corresponds to a complex eigenvalue (complex frequency). —Steven G. Johnson 04:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick comment on your last point, since I see you changed the article in a way which I think is incorrect. I don't think that the eigenvalue is the frequency squared in that context. The section looks at the eigenvalues of the time evolution matrix. So, if the equation of motion is x'' = Ax, then the eigenvalues of exp(At) are considered. Standard is to look at the eigenvalues of A, and these eigenvalues correspond to the frequencies. I think the section needs to be rewritten completely to take a more standard approach. It's an important section, because it's probably the most familiar application of eigenvalues and also historically important. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a totally nonstandard way to frame the normal-mode eigenvalue problem. And anyway, exp(At) is not the time-evolution operator since this is a second-order problem (the initial value x(0) alone does not determine the later behavior); you need to write it as a first-order problem (of twice the size) to use a matrix exponential. —Steven G. Johnson 15:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

See also my discussion on the Talk page. I stand by my comment that the current discussion is erroneous, or at least grossly misleading. —Steven G. Johnson 15:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That was my idea to introduce the swinging rope as an eigenfunction of the time evolution operator. I think it is better that introducting it as an eigenfunction of the Hamiltonian (S = e^iHt) because the concept of Hamiltonian is more complex to the layman than the time evolution operator. Like this we can use the nice applet which illustrates the point quite well: one should see directly that the rope remains proportional to itself as time passes by. Vb 08:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with whether you can use the applet. The point that the oscillation is a constant profile multipled by a sinusoidal oscillation is, of course, still true. Just that the eigenvalue is the frequency, not the "amplitude", which makes little sense as I explained. —Steven G. Johnson 15:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's take this to the talk page. Regarding the other points you raised: exactly what to mention is a bit a matter of personal preferences. I agree with defectiveness, I don't understand what you're saying about simultaneous eigenvectors (I know they're important in quantum mechanics, and perhaps the connection between measurement and eigenvectors is worth mentioning, but you seem to be talking about something else), and I think the generalized eigenvalue problem is discussed in sufficient detail (though a separate article would of course be nice). Anyway, it's easy to think of topics to add, but we also have to keep the article within a reasonable size. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you don't understand what he's saying about simultaneous eigenvectors, eh?? Seriosly, is this the same thing as quantum superposition?? Good 'eavens!! --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 12:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

When two Hermitian/unitary (or at least non-defective?) operators or matrices commute, a set of eigenvectors can be chosen that are eigenvectors of both operators simultaneously. This is a fundamental fact about eigenvectors, not limited to simultaneous observables in quantum mechanics, and its consequences are far-reaching. As one example, when an eigenproblem corresponding to some system (whether quantum or classical) has a physical symmetry (e.g. it is rotationally invariant), this means that the unitary transformation operator corresponding to the symmetry commutes with the eigenproblem. This means that the eigenvectors of the system can be chosen to be eigenvectors of the symmetry; more generally, one can show that the eigenvectors of the system can be chosen to transform as irreducible representations of the symmetry group. (The simplest example of this is that the eigenvectors of a system with a mirror symmetry, a cyclic group of order 2, are either even or odd. As another example, matrices invariant under cyclic shifts are diagonalized by the discrete Fourier transform.) This is perhaps the key theorem for the consequences of symmetry on such a problem. —Steven G. Johnson 15:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there are only so many topics that one can add. However, an article on eigenproblems should at least list (in abbreviated form) all of the relevant definitions and general properties of eigenproblems. Of course, many of these will link to other articles for the detailed explanation, but there should be a summary or at least a mention. (Think of it this way: the article should contain at least as much information as the table of contents of a book on eigenproblems.) Some omissions, like orthogonality of eigenvectors for Hermitian/unitary operators, and the definition of left/right eigenvectors for non-symmetric problems, are particularly glaring to me. As for the generalized eigenproblem, my problem is that there is no explanation whatever as to why it is useful, just a baldfaced claim that it is "preferable". (e.g. if A and B are Hermitian and B is positive-definite, then one can prove analogues of the usual real eigenvalues, orthogonal eigenvectors, etc., properties from the generalized eigenproblem. These properties are not apparent if one writes it in B^-1A non-Hermitian form. On the other hand, if A and B are near-singular, the generalized eigenproblem can be inherently numerically unstable, regardless of how it is solved [4].) —Steven G. Johnson 15:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Move to FARC for more work. The article has a lot of prose and syntactical problems, too many stubby sections, poor layout of sentences vs. formulas, and needs a better copyedit for basic items like punctuation. It seems like a native English-speaker should do a thorough copyedit. Some examples (there are more):
  • The exponential growth or decay provides an example of a continuous spectrum and the vibrating string an example above.
  • However, in the case we only look for the bound state solutions of the Schrödinger equation, as is usually the case in quantum chemistry, we look for ΨE within the space of square integrable functions.
  • In this notation. the Schrödinger equation is

and call an eigenstate of H (sometimes written in introductory textbooks) which is a self adjoint operator, the infinite dimensional analog of Hermitian matrices (see Observable).

• • Tighten up weasle words:
    • In this case, the term eigenvector is used in a somewhat more general meaning, since the Fock operator is explicitly dependent of the orbitals and their eigenvalues.
  • Redundancies:
    • In image processing, processed images of faces can be seen as vectors whose components are the brightnesses of each pixel.
• Very hard to read, and not because of the math, but because of the English.

Sandy 04:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c) and accessibility of prose (2 and 4). Marskell 11:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Status? This article has received some work since I last looked at it (diff), but the English/prose issues haven't been addressed. I don't have time to work on it: I'm wondering if we can scare up someone to do a serious copyedit of the English/grammar/prose issues? Sandy 13:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Remove I'm the one who nominated this, so I suppose I should say something. I'd hate to vote this one down because I really do think it contains much high-quality content and is very informative in places. Having said that, it looks like no one is attempting to address any of the objections that have been posted. Nothing is being done at all!! Don't know what to make of the situation.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Changed to remove. I REALLY hate to do this. But here are my reasons: Since I made the previous comment, the only things that have been addressed are very superfical and mostly done by me (e.g. the examples listed by SandyGeorgia). I just don't see any genuine effort here. I realize that people are very busy, this is all voluntary work, etc., but we have to judge the overall progress of the article.
• There is very little change and the article has been out here for quite some time. The discussion also seems to have been sidetracked, to some extent, onto issues of content which I am not qualified to judge.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I asked someone, who may have time over the weekend, to try to do some work on it. Sandy 03:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added a request for vols at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. --Salix alba (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remove, reluctantly, because there's good in this article. This is a difficult topic for most readers, so there's a strong need to make it as simple and clear as possible. It would help if the prose were written to a uniformly "professional" standard, as required, and were more accessible in places. Here are examples of glitches in the prose that make it yet more difficult for our readers:
  • "The spectral theorem depicts the importance of the eigenvalues and eigenvectors for characterizing a linear transformation in a unique way." No, a theorum doesn't depict; it might describe. Why not "... for uniquely characterizing a linear transformation."?
    • Addressed User:Vb
  • "A standing wave in a rope fixed at its boundaries can be seen as an example of an eigenvector,..."—Why the hedging? Can't it be "A standing wave in a rope fixed at its boundaries is an example of an eigenvector,..."?
    • Addressed User:Vb
  • "... and even a variety of nonlinear situations." "Even" and "a variety of" are clashing. Just "even in nonlinear situations." This is right at the top.
    • Addressed User:Vb
  • Lots of stubby paragraphs. Tony 01:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Those examples, and the point about stubby paras, indicate that the entire text needs copy-editing. Tony 11:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Status: Given that this received extensive comments in the first period, I've gone and notified four users that time's up. Hopefully a few more comments will role in. Marskell 19:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: As per Sandy's request, I took a look. The mathematics is mostly sound, but I would be inclined to make substantial modifications to the overall structure, since right now the flow is a bit rough. The intro and history are excellent, but as soon as we hit the definitions, it's a bit too much too fast. It might be better to say something like: "Given a physical or mathematical problem, one may think of eigenvectors as basic waves for this problem. The eigenvalue corresponding to an eigenvector is a measure of the importance of this basic wave. For example..." and then you move everything under "applications", the spectrum of chlorine and maybe the stuff under "examples" in that section. You will have to work on the text to make it go smoothly and shorten it. I would stick all the math in a second section and I might shorten it. The idea of this structure is that in math papers, you put the big ideas in the first few pages of the paper, because nobody reads past page 3 anyway. The thing about math is that you can't write a paragraph that is simultaneously useful to laypeople and experts. You can write A Brief History of Time or you can write Lectures on physics, but there isn't much in between. I have noticed that lots of people use Wikipedia math articles as starting points, if you strip all the math out, they won't be able to do that anymore.

Unfortunately, I don't have time to do this substantial rewrite (papers are due and all.)

I have no opinion of whether this article meets Wikipedia Featured Article standards.

Loisel 17:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. It doesn't look like anyone is willing to take on this article and do the major rewrite needed: Loisel's and Tony's reviews confirm what I see in the article; that is, the problems are not in the math, but in the prose and the article organization. Improving this article involves more than copyediting the prose issues: it really needs an overall rewrite and restructuring. Sandy 15:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Single Transferable Vote

Article is no longer a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at User talk:Scott Ritchie, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Voting systems and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referenda. Sandy 22:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There remains no summary of current usage of STV in the article (pretty pathetic for a featured article). Instead, since the splitting off of content to History and use of the Single Transferable Vote, there is only a summary of the early history (only up to the end of the 19th century).

Someone needs to summarise the remainder of the content in the article I've linked to, and append to the section "History and current use" in this article.

In the meantime, I do not think this article should keep its featured status - for an article on STV it offers scant example of how it works in practice in places such as the Republic of Ireland (where it is used for presidential, local council, national parliament and European parliament elections - not to mention popular Irish usage for secret ballot votes in random groups, classrooms, organisations, etc.)

From the talk page, it seems the article has ungone serious changes since its becoming a FA and its appearance on the main page. A complete review of the article is almost certainly necessary - and I do suggest not pretending it's of FA standard if it no longer is.

zoney ♣ talk 14:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that it has no inline citations. --Maitch 12:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It has some, and inline citations are a recent "fad" on Wikipedia. Most importantly, it does have a reference list at the end of the article. While it may help in those attempting to verify information, I'm not at all happy with this recent tendency to want every sentence tagged with a citation/footnote.

That said, I think in this article, there is probably a fair bit of content without basis in any of the references.

zoney ♣ talk 21:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice that in this instance, the only references are the scant inline citations. That seems below the bar for an FA. zoney ♣ talk 21:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Inline citations (of whatever style the author prefers) have been a requirement for 18 months or more. The requirement is not recent and is most certianly not a fad. Raul654 18:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the tactical voting section needs work. I've posted on its talk page for advice, and I'm going to try to edit it up to standards over the next few days. CRGreathouse (talk | contribs) 01:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Status? Six inconsequential edits since it was nominated, here's the diff: [5]. Severely lacking in inline citations, plus concerns above not addressed. Move to FARC. Sandy 09:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b) and insufficient citations (1c). Marskell 11:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remove as per reasons stated by Sandy. LuciferMorgan 08:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. Now has a cleanup/advert tag, no one is working on it, insufficient citations. Sandy 16:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Per Sandy.--Yannismarou 18:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Pity that no contributor is willing to insert the references. Where are the political scientists? The article has merit, otherwise. Tony 09:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liberal Party (Utah)

Article is no longer a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Talk messages left at User talk:JonMoore, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Utah and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. Sandy 21:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This article really doesn't meet current featured standards.

• no inline citations and really not much in the way of references at all
• doesn't meet criterion 2a
• doesn't feel comprehensive - I get the feeling that there's quite a bit more that could be said about the topic
• obsolete copyright tags on images
• could do with being generally reorganised, as the two-section format looks a bit odd (for one, the history section seems to start halfway through the story)

Time to remove? Rebecca 06:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• All the problems Rebecca has touched upon do indeed need to be addressed for the article to reach current FA standards. LuciferMorgan 21:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• For one: I think it is unfair to change the standards midstream, especially on an article that hasn't changed much since it was FA. Second, this article is probably one of the most comprehensive on the subject in existence, anywhere. Information on this subject is VERY hard to come by as proven by the original author's need to use a Master's thesis as a source. Anything else would amount to original research. I can go fix the picture tags if you like, sonce they are all old enough that there is no copyright. —JonMoore 17:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The standards have changed greatly over time, and that is the primary reason why this page exists: to remove those FAs which are no longer up to current standards. I'd be surprised if there wasn't some more that could be included in at least the three listed references (and that's assuming that there are no others); at the very least pinpoint citations and some tightening of the prose need to happen. Rebecca 09:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • This is a very obscure subject. That's the main reason the article has barely changed since it was made FA. There are some small references to the Liberal Party in passing, mostly in books about the history of Salt Lake or Utah, but at most it's given a paragraph or two. I can probably find the two books mentioned for citations, but the master's thesis is at the library of the University of Utah, and since I'm not a student there, I probably can't access it. The original author of the article no longer contributed to Wikipedia, and inline citation didn't even exist when the article was made featured. This article is simply the most thorough treatment of this subject I've ever seen. I could try to tighten the prose, but I think I reads very well right now. The only complaint I really agree with here is the no inline citations. I will try my best to fix this, but it might be difficult. —JonMoore 16:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Status? Three edits since it was nominated (one was Tony), lacking in citations, no progress, move to FARC. Sandy 10:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt any more on this subject could be said without original research, but if it pleases you I could dig up inline cites. Also, I'd appreciate it if someone changed the damn image tags instead of idly complain about them since it's blatantly obvious they're very old (or in one case, US government survey, as it says). Thanks. Cool Hand Luke 08:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), comprehensiveness (1b), copyright problems (3), and writing quality (1a). Marskell 10:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remove - Lacks inline citations (1c). Also, it's length is too short to meet the criteria for FA (1b). LuciferMorgan 08:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • How can something be too short, if that's all there is to say on the subject? Should someone go out and dig up some original research and break that rule? This article, as stated above is probably one of the most comprehensive on the subject. Please produce a source that we have overlooked so we can make it more comprehensive. —JonMoore 01:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • There are plenty of things that are not explained. Just because further research is difficult to do (for one, no one has even gone back to the original thesis source) does not make the existing article comprehensive when it is not. Rebecca 10:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Short article, inadequately developped and consisting just of two big sections; this is not the recommended structure of a FA. Very few references. No inline citations.--Yannismarou 18:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think you people are being very unreasonable. This is a good article, very comprehensive for the subject. How do you know it's not comprehensive? Are you experts on Utah history? How do you know there are more sources on the subject? Can you produce them? I'd be very happy for you to. I'd love to add more info to the article, if it exists. Not every subject is going to be the same length. Conciseness is sometimes better. —JonMoore 01:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Firstly, no one has even gone back to the original source to see if more could be added; without so much as that, there is no way this article can be deemed comprehensive. Secondly, we realise that there are times when information may be unable to be found, but the article needs to actually be able to spell out what is unknown - see Makuria for a good example of how to deal with topics with sparse source information. It's not concise at the moment - it's vague. Rebecca 13:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• First read FA criteria and then say if we are unreasonable or not. Inline citations are one of the most important FA criteria for about 18 months now. Where are they in the article? The article may be good, but this does not mean that it deserves FA status. You ask us to find sources. But this is not our obligation! This is the obligation of the editors of the article! If they cannot produce the sources FA status demands, I'm sorry! So, don' ask us things we are not obliged to do. And do not confuse FA status with GA status.--Yannismarou 08:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remove for the reasons cited above. CG 21:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove lacks inline citations. Sandy 00:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove as above. Tony 05:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Memory Alpha

Article is no longer a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Talk messages left at User talk:Jibbajabba and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek. Sandy 20:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

While I understand it must be tough to write an up to date, well referenced article on something as changing as a Wiki, this article has devolved (and wasn't completely FA quality to begin with) IMO. The article has very few references, I saw an inline link with a quick overview, and an entire unsourced section with an OR tag on it. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I am very wary of any article that uses almost no sources other than those offered by the subject of the article itself. Every reference here is from the Memory Alpha website itself, or from its founder. The only other references are brief mentions in two small local newspapers. This lack of critical sources (not "critical" in the sense of "presenting a negative/opposing view", but "critical" in the sense of examining and reacting to the subject) troubles me. Has Memory Alpha ever been subject to such examination in major mainstream press outlets, or in major science-fiction-fandom publications? Andrew Levine 23:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I added the OR tag back in April, and the section still hasn't been fixed. This article is really not up to FA level, nor is there much work actively occuring to improve it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Status? One inconsequential edit since nominated, no one is working on this article, severely lacking in citations, and still has OR tag. Move to FARC. Sandy 09:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are insufficent references and possible original research (1c). Marskell 08:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remove, per my comments in the review and the extant original research. Andrew Levine 20:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per my original statement as basically nothing has changed. Few refs, plenty of OR. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 23:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Insufficient inline citations, and also the article uses what seems to be original research. LuciferMorgan 08:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Piccadilly Circus

Article is no longer a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at User talk:Juntung, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography, and Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board. Sandy 22:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The prose is not quite brilliant (2a), particularly in the Piccadilly Circus in popular culture section. The delegation of content to sub-articles makes me question whether the article is as comprehensive as it could be, especially as some of the delegation seems a bit unnecessary (2b). The references need improvement as well (inline citations perferable, while we're at upgrading references) (2c). -- tariqabjotu 00:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• It needs a fair bit of work, the history section should be merged back in so should most of the other split off stubs (they are mostly duplicates of the sparse text in the article), the authors of the popular culture section are unfamiliar with paragraphs.--Peta 02:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• I think it's fine - not too significantly changed from when I nominated it for FA. --JuntungWu 05:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Needs inline citations. LuciferMorgan 23:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• A few images have obsolete licencing tags, they should be fixed. Jay32183 00:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Uncited, move to FARC. Sandy 03:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are writing quality (1a), comprehensiveness (1b), and citations (1c). Marskell 08:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remove It appears no progress has been made to add inline citations or to improve the overall writing quality. The image tags also need to be updated. Jay32183 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. No inline citations.--Yannismarou 16:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove No inline citations. LuciferMorgan 08:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - referencing issues.--Peta 04:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove as per above. Tony 12:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC) In particular, huge sentences. Tony 13:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Victoria of the United Kingdom

Article is no longer a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/to do, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Royalty, and Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board. Sandy 22:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I just came across this featured article earlier today. What's right at the top? A {{citecheck}} template. I looked through the article, and, lo and behold, no inline citations. In addition, the article is full of red links, the references section has no ISBN numbers (they should be available for most of the books listed), random people have their names bolded, among other issues. While this may have been FA material two years ago, it isn't today. ♠ SG →Talk 11:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• It appears the wrong template was added. If the justification for adding a template is "needs inline citations" then the correct template is {{fact}}. The {{citecheck}} template added is to be used (as the template says) if you find inaccuracies. Since nobody challenged the accuracy of the article I removed the template. If you think the article can be "complemented where appropriate by inline citations" (as WP:FA? says) then please add the {{fact}} tags where appropriate and I will see if I can fill them in. Maintain 01:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Move to FARC Two weeks, the diff shows some minor changes and wikilinking, but no inline citations and no substantial changes. Sandy 23:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are lack of inline citations (1c) and MOS issues (2). Diff. Marskell 09:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. No inline citations. Sections like "Trivia" and "Cultural References" with scattered information are not recommended for FA. They need either rewriting or merger.--Yannismarou 10:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. No inline citations, a violation of criterion 1. c. As already stated by other Wikipedians, the "Trivia" and "Cultural References" sections are poor. All the info within the trivia section needs to be incorporated elsewhere if important, or otherwise removed so that the article ends up without a trivia section. The "Cultural References" section needs a major rewrite to veer away from the frankly lazy bullet style format, and be written in proper paragraphs which all intertwine together. LuciferMorgan 15:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. No inline citations, trivia section. Sandy 16:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Art competitions at the Olympic Games

Article is no longer a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports Olympics and User talk:Jeronimo. Sandy 19:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Previous nomination for WP:FAR: Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Art competitions at the Olympic Games.

The (very short) lead does not summarize the article. Take these sentences from the lead:

• The competitions were an idea of Pierre de Frédy, Baron de Coubertin, founder of the modern Olympic Movement.
• The art competitions were abandoned in 1954 because artists were contended to be professionals, while Olympic athletes were required to be amateurs.
• Since 1956, the Olympic cultural programme has taken the place of the art competitions.

The article never returns to any of these important points and leaves the reader puzzled. How did de Frédy get his idea? How successful was he in promoting it? How long did it take to get this off the ground? Was there a big debate in 1954 or did the competitions die a relatively quiet death? Did the point about professionalism become contentious earlier? Was this the only reason the competitions were dropped or were there other problems? What is the Olympic cultural programme and how is it similar to the defunct art competitions? Shouldn't Olympic cultural programme be linked?

The referencing is sparse, two works are listed and no inline citations are found. This is not damning in itself but it doesn't help either.

The article is one of our shortest featured articles and it does not at all seem comprehensive, it certainly leaves me with many unanswered questions. Some of them are above and I can add some more: How popular was this event? What was its impact? How big were the prices?

While the article fails to address important issues it is stuffed full with trivia, some of it irrelevant - for example the article ends with this sentence: "The oldest Olympic medallist outside the art competitions is Swedish shooter Oscar Swahn, who won his last medal at age 72." I know that sports coverage tends to accumulate trivia like who was the oldest to win this or that competition, or who won the most prices in a given category but overview articles should aim to put events into their broader cultural context rather than focus on trivia and records.

The structure of the article is poor, it is split into "Competition", which goes into the nuts-and-bolts of individual events, and "Competitors", which consists almost entirely of trivia. I'm not saying that the assorted facts about individual competitors need to go but I'm suggesting that more general content needs to be added. Haukur 12:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

We both wrote our nominations at the same time (edit clash). Here's mine:
By my reckoning the article fails the following criteria:

• 2a. eg. "Like in the athletic events at the Olympics, gold, silver, and bronze medals were awarded to the highest ranked artists, although not all medals were awarded in each competition. On a few occasions, no medals were in fact handed out at all."
• 2b. The article has two sections: Competition and Competitors, both are short. For example, the Sculpture subsection of Competition is the following: "The sculpture class had only a single category until 1928, when separate competitions were designated; one for statues and one for reliefs and medals. In 1936, this was split up further, creating separate categories for reliefs and medals." Hardly comprehensive. Perhaps seperate "History", "Legacy", "Precedent"/"Similar competitions" sections could be added?
• 2c. Article has two references, neither are cited inline.
• 3a. Lead section is short and underdeveloped. Despite being only five sentences it covers most of the history before and after the competitions, this history is not eloborated upon in the article.
• 3c. as per 2b.
• 5. at 8 kB the article is exceedingly short.

For these reasons it fails criterion 1, it does not exemplify our best work. --Oldak Quill 12:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

---

As the main author and nominator, I'll see into the concerns addressed above. Looking at the article now, I notice some essential parts have been removed (vandalism?), but I also see improvement is needed on the original. I'll see if I can restore the lost parts, and look into your concerns. Jeronimo 19:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I've put back the fairly important "History" section which was deleted in one of the waves of vandalism that struck the article. It should address at least some of the concerns expressed above. Jeronimo 19:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It does indeed, thanks a lot! Haukur 19:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Move to FARC: not a single inline citation, short stubby sections, one-sentence paragraphs. Still needs attention. Sandy 22:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are lack of inline citations (1c), structure (4) and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell 16:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. I'm sorry because this is one of the oldest FA, but it does not correspond to the current criteria of FA. No inline citations. Short lead. Very poor references (only two).--Yannismarou 11:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per above. Punctured Bicycle 12:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per above. LuciferMorgan 23:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Must be referenced, short and stubby. Sandy 12:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Stubby paragraphs and sections, indifferent prose in places, lacking in comprehensiveness. Tony 16:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per above.--Dark Kubrick 03:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Phelps

Article is no longer a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography plange 05:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Article seems to have degenerated since it was featured (yet to appear on the main page), the lead has blown out, at least 2 methods for citing references are in use, and heaps of short section have been added. Needs to be cleaned up to be inline with the current criteria.--Peta 04:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

--I agree that it does need a bit of clean-up (like Phelps' height being in the opening, not very important). Maybe rid of/move/condense the smaller sections.

• Here's what has been done thus far—precious little. Paragraphing needs attention (there are stubbies), and so does the sectioning. I'd be most uneasy if this appeared on the front page. Makes me sick to read it, and somehow it needs to announce NPOV a little more explicitly at the start. Needs almost an anthropological angle—or something. Tony 15:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Move quickly to FARC. I just went in to clean up some refs, and found instead what looks like a pretty serious violation of WP:BLP. Although on first glance it looks like the article is well referenced, there are some very critical remarks with no references at all, and most of the references point to the same source (one book, Addicted to Hate, or websites about that book), or to less than reliable sources. The criticism in the article is not soundly referenced, it looks like a replay of that one book, and could be a big WP:BLP problem waiting to happen. I suggest it needs more attention than FARC, but I don't know that Wiki has set up a place to deal with BLP problems. Sandy 22:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are format and quality of references (1c), paragraph and section (4), and POV (1d). Marskell 07:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Remove. This article is very poorly-referenced, has many critical statements with no cite, relies heavily on one source, is too long, and appears to be a serious violation of WP:BLP. Sandy 11:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Remove, relies overmuch on a single source. Andrew Levine 22:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - Too many ^{[citation needed]} flags. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per Sandy. Punctured Bicycle 00:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Remove tough article to write but too many needed cites, too much from Addicted to Hate, and at the end of the ref list way too many unformatted web refs. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have blanked the article (almost) in response to the serious WP:BLP violations. --Xyzzyplugh 15:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It still has significant amounts of unsourced criticism. This article needs to be delisted ASAP. Sandy 10:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Remove as per previous reviewers. Tony 15:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commonwealth of Nations

Article is no longer a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics and Template talk:WPMILHIST Announcements. Sandy 15:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This article was promoted to FA status back in February 2005. But it suffers from lack of footnotes for an important article. In addition to some POV sentences like this eulogy in the lead: The Commonwealth is not a political union, and does not allow the United Kingdom (UK) to exercise any power over the affairs of the organisation's other members.' CG 16:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

One reference from 1960. That is completely inadequate for this subject. Punctured Bicycle 18:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Cedar, is that sentence POV? Doesn't appear to be, although you might take issue with it in other respects. Tony 02:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yess, I admit, it's not that serious POV issue. I meant that this kind of subject must have a lot of criticisms which the lead does not mention. Therefore the lead does not summarise the article. Instead it seems that it defends the organisation. Anyway I might see it in my own prespective :-) CG 07:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Sources are an issue, the lead is also too long and unfocussed.--Peta 05:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Not a single reference added since it was nominated: move to FARC. Sandy 21:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are lack of citations (1c) and POV (1d). Marskell 18:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. Someone's had a poke around, but the issues have not been addressed. Tony 05:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Remove.Insufficient inline citations.--Yannismarou 18:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. The diff seems to indicate 3 inline cites have been added during FAR. Inadequate citing, and weasle words, for example: The Commonwealth has often been likened to an English gentlemen's club, and the issue of who is and who is not a member often seems to be more important, and certainly attracts much more attention, than what the organisation actually does. This is because the main benefit of membership is the opportunity for close and relatively frequent interaction, on an informal and equal basis, between members who share many ties of language, culture, and history. Sandy 23:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that's a clanger; unfortunately, it's not the only one .... Tony 01:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)