Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/December 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Featured article review | archive

1 Kept status
2 Removed status

[edit] Kept status

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 23:39, 10 February 2007.

[edit] Mozilla Firefox

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Andrevan, Linux and Computing. Sandy (Talk) 21:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I am nominating the article Mozilla Firefox for a featured article review because it no longer meets attributes 1(a), 1(c), 1(d), 1(e), and 4 of the featured article criteria. There is an edit war going on, and editors are making poorly-sourced edits based on original research and in violation of Wikipedia:NPOV. The page has been flagged with {{NPOV}} and {{weasel}}, and includes many technical details which are unnecessary, citing pages from mozilla.org. Because of this, the article can also no longer be considered "Well written", since the prose is not necessarily compelling, and definitely not brilliant. This article needs significant amounts of work in order to maintain its featured article status. Vir4030 08:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Are you neutral, or a participant in this edit war and blatantly using FAR as a means to annoy those you're warring against? LuciferMorgan 14:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - from what I can see, the nominator has been registered since August 2005 and has not taken part in any editing of the Mozilla Firefox article or its talk page. I can't say anything about the IP addresses the nominator uses because I can't see them. Let's try and keep things WP:CIVIL. --tgheretford (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I am neutral. I am certainly not a participant in an edit war, and I have never "warred against" anyone. As far as I know, I have been nothing but a positive contributor to Wikipedia, and I would appreciate a little good faith. If we can get to the point, though, what did you think of the article? Vir4030 19:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I have the right to ask such a question - nominators don't usually cite 5 violations of the FA criteria. Additionally, the nominator didn't say whether he was a participant or not. On a final note, wikilinking to guideline pages is rather tiring - numerous editors do it, and there's no point. It's like people are assuming I know nothing, which is rather derogatory. Rather than quote chapter and verse, how about common sense? LuciferMorgan 21:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The tone you're taking here is not called for, in relation to anything Vir4030 has written. I also have found some of your other comments on FAR potentially unfair to or angry toward others (e.g. Raul's recent FAR). I'm not an active participant here (though I still read), and the atmosphere is why. –Outriggr § 06:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I think LuciferMorgan needs to chill out. Anyway, it seems that the article is nowhere near as good as it was when it became a FA. Some serious copyediting is needed. Andre (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

And I think differently - I asked a question which was taken the wrong way. LuciferMorgan 22:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

One of the reasons so many people interpreted your question as being unnecessarily aggressive may have been your use of the word blatantly. Udzu 15:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment The page is protected do to an edit war (1e). It's perfectly acceptable to list a disputed FA here as well as cite 5 criterion. Accusing the nominator of bias is barely assuming good faith. -- Selmo ^(talk) 00:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Asking and accusing are different things - perhaps in good faith you could believe me when I say I was merely asking for clarification of the matter. LuciferMorgan 21:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

But there is something wrong with the tone you are using, ok? The guy wrote some links and you took it as a personal insult. That's not assuming good faith either. PureRumble 06:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Quoting WP:CIVIL wasn't meant in good faith at all - and I didn't take it as a personal insult. Your assuming I took it as a personal insult. LuciferMorgan 13:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's get one thing straight here, I can respond to your latest comment with a whole load of things that I have to say, but I won't. Discussing your behavior and the comments you have written here is not the purpose of this nomination; reviewing the article about the web-browser Firefox in order to see if it still embodies the criteria of a featured article is. Now you have the answer to your initial question; you know the nominator is not biased and he tried to list those attributes of FAstatus that the article violates in good faith. Let us move on. PureRumble 16:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to your last comment PureRumble - it isn't worthy of my time for many reasons (I'm not gonna waste my time listing them for your pleasure). As for the article, it has short, choppy prose (1. a. violation) which needs addressing. Last time I checked, criterion 1. a. was on the latest chapter and verse you quoted - any other criteria you would like to comment upon regarding this article? LuciferMorgan 01:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If that is a objection or comment, then you should write it without indent and with the proper word written in bold. Otherwise I think people will just miss it, since they will think you are just continuing our initial discussion. PureRumble 07:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Object to removal of FA status. Unsourced edits should be removed, warring parties should be blocked, or article protected. If edit wars could get articles defeatured, trolls could kill our supply of FA's far too easily. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Still has a POV tag, footnotes are not correctly formatted, doesn't follow WP:GTL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - there is a minor issue with Image:Minefield-3.0a1-20060922.png. It's uploaded and tagged "copyrighted, but free software", but the image contains Microsoft's copyrighted Windows Media Center skin. It should be retaken on a free operating system for it to be truly a free (and therefore non-fair use) or it should be tagged as fair use. Given, this isn't really valid criticism for this article's FA star to be taken away, but an FA article should not have any copyright issues, so I believe that this should be fixed to make a stronger case for the FA star to stay. —msikma (user, talk) 12:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a major issue with the image too. It currently shows the Places UI which has been scraped in favor restoring the firefox <2 history and bookmarks UI while still using a SQLite database [1]. Kbrosnan 05:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are writing 1(a), citations 1(c), POV 1(d), stability 1(e), and focus (4). Marskell 21:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

~~Remove~~ Besides other concerns, references need extensive work - it doesn't look like anyone is taking it on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment ~~If reference formatting is the main citation issue, I'll take it on. I can't help much with the other concerns, but this much I can do.~~ I've just noticed this is already FARC. I'll finish the refs anyway (about halfway done) and keep out. Fvasconcellos 20:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  - References done, to the best of my ability. Fvasconcellos 00:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove per Sandy's concerns. LuciferMorgan 22:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
We can hold off on closing this after some work by Fva. Are the refs good for you now Sandy? Writing next. Marskell 15:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Hold pending further review - Fvasconcellos (talk • contribs) has tuned up the refs, POV tag is gone, striking my remove. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Are some cites for whole paragraphs? LuciferMorgan 13:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Why is there no definite criticism section? Is that a violation of NPOV itself? Darthnader37 00:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Do you know of some criticism that isn't included and should be? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
My vote is still a remove if anyone is wondering, based on insufficient citations. I asked if the citations were for whole paragraphs, though nobody responded. LuciferMorgan 03:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- If you're basing a remove on an unanswered question, you might ping FVasoncellos and ask him. I know him to be a thorough citer, so I'm not concerned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  - I never edited this article before FARC, so I'm not familiar with its history; I simply formatted and checked the existing citations—none of them are actually "mine". I suppose I could do a little verification. Are there any paragraphs you are particularly concerned with? Fvasconcellos 13:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    - uh, oh. I didn't realize you hadn't cited it yourself - this could be a problem. Maybe Lucifer can let us know what else needs citation, with fact tags, and we can see where that leads. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
      - Had another look - the prose is atrocious and there's a "confusing" tag I agree with. I have no idea what that section is trying to say, and it's completely unreferenced. If no one addresses these issues prontissimo, I'm a remove. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Update: I have since personally referenced :) several statements as per LuciferMorgan's concerns, Ubernostrum (talk • contribs) has rewritten and referenced the "Licensing" section and an unlikely rumor has just been removed. As of now, only one uncited statement remains, which I'll tackle as soon as time permits. I believe this warrants a fresh look, even if it's just to cement everyone's opinions. diff Fvasconcellos 12:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Before reading any further, I need to understand why a wiki is used as a source? It's a wiki - what makes it reliable? [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  - For one thing, it's not anon-editable. Secondly, a sample of a few random users (very scientific, I know :/) showed mostly Mozilla developers, and a member of the Mozilla Foundation board. Still, it's a wiki, and subject to vandalism. If it's not to be used as a source anymore, I don't know where to go from here—it's apparently the source for official documentation; they even post their meeting minutes on the site. Damn community spirit :) Fvasconcellos 22:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    - hmmm, tough call. What do we do with this? Sounds like it could be reliable even though it's a wiki? Would you be willing to make a post at the talk page of WP:RS, describing the site, to see if we can get some consensus there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
      - Sure, since you asked nicely :) First I'll try to learn some more about the website, so as not to put my foot in my mouth. I'll be very busy with work the next few days, so I will probably have to put Wikipedia on the back burner. ~~Don't worry, though—I won't forget about it...~~ Asked, albeit uninspiredly. I hope some editors will pick up on it. Fvasconcellos 01:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
        
        Just looking at this issue, at the very least we should link to a specific version of a page (or even a diff, although that might be a bit confusing), otherwise the source is too unstable. By that I mean link to this instead of that. Trebor 12:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
        
        Good idea IMHO. I've let Sandy know, let's see what she and other reviewers think. Fvasconcellos 13:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
    - As far as I can tell, it's used as a primary source, not as a secondary source. Even without referencing a specific version, if the retrieval date is included (which it is) this strikes me as a non-issue. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
      - My thoughts exactly. If this is where developers discuss the product's progress, this is the best primary source we could have, Wiki or not; however, I'm still not sure we can circumvent this guideline. Fvasconcellos 19:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
        
        My suggestion about a specific version was based on the fact that webpages may be archived only once a month, whereas it's possible for a wiki to change much more often. I don't see a particular problem with using it as a source; I think this s one of the places where we have to ignore the guideline and use common sense. We know with reasonable certainty who wrote this information, and what it means; I can't think of a compelling reason not to use it. Trebor 19:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
        
        OK then, ladies and gentlemen, is this the time for WP:IAR? Fvasconcellos 19:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Specific unaddressed concerns?

Can somebody summarize (or even better list) the remaining unaddressed concerns about this article? My assumption is concerns need to be specific and addressable (same rules as FAC). I'm willing to work on this, but vague, unaddressable criticisms (e.g. "the prose is atrocious") seem a bit unfair. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Curious that concern that we sort out whether a source is reliable isn't a specific enough concern? As to prose, disentangle this - yes, it's all one sentence - typical of the prose I encountered when I first read the article:
- For distributions which wish to modify the code without using the official branding (for example, in order to produce a derivative work unencumbered by restrictions on the Firefox trademark), the Firefox source code contains a "branding switch"; this switch allows the code to be compiled without the official logo and name, which are replaced with a generic globe logo — which is freely redistributable — and the name of the release series from which the modified version was derived (e.g. "Deer Park" for derivatives of Firefox 1.5 and "Bon Echo" for derivatives of Firefox 2.0).
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- The issue of using the Mozilla wiki as a reference is amply specific (I should have listed it here as one that was being worked). Are there more examples of awkward prose, or is the paragraph you mention above the only one? And are there any other issues you or anyone else has with the article? -- Rick Block (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  - That is a sample only - the first section I read somewhere in the middle of the article. I don't typically re-read every article under review in its entirety when there are still referencing and copyedit problems to be worked out; I gave a sample to indicate a serious copyedit is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- WP:V is pretty clear that primary sources can be used in specific circumstances. Is that the barometer we're using here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Pedantic point: the semi-colon in Sandy's example actually indicates two sentences. The prose is awful there, however. sneaks away... Marskell 12:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    - Rick Block is at work on the prose. If the prose can be cleaned up, I won't object to Keeping this article, but I won't support it either - I just can't go there with a wiki used as a source. In other words, I'll abstain if prose is cleaned up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Yes, I'm working on the prose (I've revised the paragraph quoted above and made some changes in the lead so far). -- Rick Block (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    - To see if the Mozilla wiki has safeguards we don't (that is, not to be a dick in regards to this review) I started an account and just made two edits to the section you're citing. (Not vandalism—just changed a tense.) I'm sorry Rick, but wikis are not reliable sources. The only argument I could see is "Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about the author(s)". This might apply if we had a page specifically about the Mozilla wiki and used a couple of sections from it for "colour"—but not for assertions of fact. Marskell 20:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
      - I've replaced three Wiki cites with secondary sources; one of these, however, is ad-supported. Would replacing the rest of them with equivalent secondary sources be acceptable? )For the record, I still think the Wikis are better sources, and linking to stable, vandalism-free revisions eliminates the issues raised by Marskell, but this is my humble opinion) Fvasconcellos 23:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
      - Can someone who knows the topic determine if the info cited to the Wiki can just be removed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
        
        I see only four uses remaining, one of which can definitely go as it's a double cite. To Fva, if the source is otherwise reliable, an ad-supported source is preferable to a wiki and changing them would be appreciated. (The Times is ad-supported, after all.) This probably does seem a bit uptight, so three explanations:
        
        a) I'm sure the wiki probably does appear a better source, because it's closer to the subject, but unless there's a locked, stable version we can't know who wrote it. See the general disclaimer for the site: "Satisfaction is not guaranteed."[3] Obviously tongue-in-cheek, but it also suggests "ya, this is our wiki, take it with a grain of salt."
        
        b) It's verifiability, not truth. If Widgets Magazine has said Mozilla has said something, we should repeat that rather than simply quoting Mozilla itself (even if Mozilla itself seems more accurate.)
        
        c) I'm concerned about the thin end of the wedge. We may trust User:Fvasconcellos and User:Rick Block in this instance, but I don't like imagining on some pop culture article in the future "ya, even our FAs use wikis, so what's the problem?" Best to lead by example.
        
        Good work trying to take care of this. Marskell 08:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
        
        That's three now :) OK, sorry for pushing the wiki thing this far. I have to agree with you on c), hadn't thought of that. As for ad-supported sources, I'm used to nuking ad-supported ELs, but I guess that's a different animal altogether—something for me to think about. Fvasconcellos 12:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
        
        Where there are secondary sources I think this is a fine approach. On the other hand, I disagree with the sentiment here that a wiki should never be used as a source. At least a few open source projects are using wikis as their development coordination and documentation mechanisms. Imagine trying to write an FA about Wikipedia's policies without referencing pages in the en:wikipedia! I think this will become a moot point here, but let's continue this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. My fear is that this restriction introduces a systemic bias against open source projects. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, not moot. The estimated release date of Nov 2007 for FF 3.0 is cited as from http://wiki.mozilla.org/index.php?title=ReleaseRoadmap&oldid=40597. This is the internal planning wiki for the project, which includes the disclaimer "Please do not edit these pages without permission of the Mozilla project drivers. Your feedback and comments are welcomed on the discussion page.". In fact, the most recent two changes to this page are one that changes the Nov 2007 date to Jan 2007 and a revert of this "suspicious" change. I've found various other web references to the release date of FF 3.0, but they point back to this page (usually an older version). It seems to me referencing the internal planning document for a projected release date is about the best primary source that exists. For project convenience it's kept on a wiki. This page is monitored and apparently carefully controlled, and we're currently referencing a specific (non-vandalized) version. What are the reasons that this should not be cited? -- Rick Block (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've actually tried unsuccessfully to find a secondary source for this statement—the closest I got (a CNET article) mentioned "Fall 2007". Fvasconcellos 15:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Bluhahah. I'm trying to compartmentalize the larger issue of Wikis and this particular review:

On Wikis generally, I very much disagree with the implication that "Where there are secondary sources" is decisive. We either allow wikis as sources or we don't, regardless of whether another source can be used. If a secondary source does not exist for a piece of factual info, then we have to consider not adding the information. I've had variations of this debate many times (as, I'm sure, have both of you) and I'm struck by the fact that a restraint on not adding "the immediate" is seen as greatest harm. No. Greatest harm is adding unverifiable information.

So: if the estimated release date has only been published on the Mozilla wiki, then it is, for our purposes, unverifiable. We shouldn't add it. This page can still keep its star for what that's worth, and when Widgets Magazine reports something, we can add the info. Remember: Wikipedia is broadly tertiary, not secondary. It describes what has been reported about things. Marskell 20:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A last, incidental point: "Imagine trying to write an FA about Wikipedia's policies without referencing pages in the en:wikipedia!" You couldn't make an FA, at present, about Wikipedia's policies that literally conformed to Wikipedia's rules. Not everything can be an FA and Wikipedia is not acceptable to itself (per V and RS). There'll be no FAs about Wikipedia until academics really start talking about Wikipedia (which has happened briefly, and will happen again more, IMO); the Wikipedia article itself lost FA status six or seven months ago. Marskell 20:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you're making this too difficult. WP:V and WP:RS imply Wikipedia is generally tertiary, not secondary, and is generally based on secondary, not primary, sources. Adding these together to conclude no wiki can ever be used as a reference is a leap I don't think needs to be made. Certainly most wikis should not be used as sources, since they're often not verifiable and/or not reliable. Wikis that allow links to specific versions pretty much cover the verifiability requirement (actually better than most web pages) which leaves reliability as a potential issue. Openly editable wikis are generally not too reliable. Wikis used as part of a development process (like this use of the Mozilla wiki), are (IMO) a reliable primary source. The expected release date of FF 3.0 is November 2007. We know this because it is the date listed, as of today, in the wiki being used to plan the development. We further know that any secondary source that lists a different date (like http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061212-8409.html, which I'd bet you'd accept as a secondary source and lists the date as May 2007) is incorrect (or at least not current). In this case, any secondary source is less reliable than the primary source even though the primary source happens to be a wiki. I understand and support a general rule that says wikis can't be used as references (and support this). However, just as "generally based on secondary sources" doesn't mean primary sources can never be used, "generally don't use wikis as references" doesn't have to mean no wiki can ever be used as a reference.

Are we better off not having this specific fact in this specific article? Rather than remove it based on a fear that wiki references will become rampant, I think we might be better off keeping it as a, perhaps extraordinarily rare, example of an appropriate reference to a wiki. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth. Fundamental policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

But this is verifiable (and true). -- Rick Block (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rick; we should be able to use common sense in these situations. If there's no reasonable doubt about where the information comes from, and the accuracy of it, then I don't see a problem. As above, ignoring the policies in this case would improve the encyclopaedia. Trebor 07:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This is getting a touch circular; I thought I'd proven part of the point by going to the Mozilla wiki and editing it myself! Further, RS does not state "generally don't use wikis" but rather: "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources." Your arstechnica link is not less reliable, it's less true, but truth doesn't matter. But if we need an exceedingly rare exception here, I'd suggest: "a release date of November 7 has been posted to the Mozilla wiki, but not yet confirmed by any official statement" etc. Marskell 08:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you edit the page with the release schedule (the one with the disclaimer about not editing it without permission of the Mozilla project drivers)? Focusing on the technology rather than the reliability and verifiability of the content seems wrong to me. In this case, the Mozilla wiki is the official statement, in much the same way that a post from Jimbo to a Wikipedia policy page would be "official". Seems like we may have to agree to disagree here. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"...but not yet reported elsewhere" then, or some such thing; I want to flag it at least, with an inline attribution/qualifier. Is that too much? I notice the number of wiki refs is still around five. As for which I edited, I followed our link here. I wouldn't, incidentally, consider a post from Jimbo official, but rather the Wikipedia:press releases (I don't know if "canonical," locked copies exist for those).

On the bright side, the prose has continued to improve after more work today. Marskell 20:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you really object to linking to clean revisions? If the problem is "anyone can edit and make the ref unreliable" and not just "this is a primary source", I'm sorry, but I don't get it. (If it's the fact it is a primary source I won't go there again.) An aside: an editor has mentioned that the EULA is only available in English; I moved it out of the article body and into the infobox. Is that a problem (i.e., relevance-wise)? Fvasconcellos 20:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

My main problem is that RS, and V implicitly, say we can't use it. Again, I know how these arguments go and how people get annoyed with wiki-lawyering. But, if not on FAC and FAR, then where do we have the highest bar? And again, I have no doubt a clean version is as close to true as we can find, but it doesn't make the source reliable (are there any locked versions?).

As for the primary source thing, it's been mis-represented above. If I cite a National Geographic from 1907 do describe cultural attitudes as represented in magazines in 1907, I'm using it as a primary source. If I cite it to back up a claim about Indonesia, I'm using it as a secondary source. The wiki cites are used as secondary sources in this article, when they should only be used descriptively as primary sources (e.g., when describing the Mozilla wiki directly, or when describing how developers went about their decision-making).

But note my last post was a compromise: can we at least flag the uses, inline? Marskell 20:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'd misunderstood then. Don't know about locked versions, don't think so. I wouldn't object to inline "flags". Fvasconcellos 21:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC) (We might want to dedent now)

(doing so) I still think this falls under "improving the encyclopaedia" so long as there's no reasonable date about the veracity of the information. I know it's "verifiability, not truth" but I always saw that as more of an attempt to stop original research, or people changing articles to put in their version of the "truth". For that reason, I don't think this is a V matter. RS is only a guideline, and as such should be taken with common sense. Would we rather an accurate encyclopaedia or one that strictly adheres to "the rules"? In the spirit of compromise though, an inline "flag" would be a passable solution. Trebor 21:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

By "inline flag" I was thinking of altering the wording to specifically mention that a wiki is being used as a source ("X has said it is A" rather than "It is A"). Can someone familiar try that?

"RS is only a guideline." Indeed it is, and I understand what you mean. RS is funny: V is hopelessly short without it; it's as widely cited as any P&G; people are very attached to it; but it's never actually been policy. Certain sentences and paras of it are definitely canonical for Wiki, if nothing else.

But this is a V matter—everytime you're talking about sources you're talking about V. It's not just about keeping OR, cranks, etc. out of weak articles; it's about setting an example of best practice on strong articles. But I've had enough meta discussions for today :). Marskell 21:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand your idea of an "inline flag" and think it would be a good enough solution. Trebor 21:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Example: In the Version 3.0 section, how about replacing

The estimated release date for Firefox 3 is in November 2007.

with

According to information posted on the Mozilla Wiki "Release Roadmap" by Mozilla Vice-President of Products Christopher Beard, the estimated release date for Firefox 3 is in November 2007.

Thoughts? Fvasconcellos 22:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"A post on the Mozilla Wiki "Release Roadmap" from President of Products Christopher Beard suggests a release in November 2007." Shorter, and avoids the troublesome word "information" (it is troublesome--let's not go there). "Suggests" is a great word--it deprecates the information without deprecating it :). Then have a note explaining what the Mozilla wiki is, why it is not fundamentally reliable, but why it is considered so in this context. Marskell 23:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm only suggesting a note describing the wiki for the first use of it.

I'm also thinking that, huffing and puffing aside, we may be devising a good template as to how to approach this issue on other articles. It's not all for nothing. Marskell 23:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

OK—why may it be considered reliable in this context? The fact we're linking to a specific revision, the fact Mozilla wiki is used for discussion of development, the fact somethings now cited to the wiki aren't yet adequately covered by the media/more conventional sources? I'm lost in the consensus :) I'll try and think of the appropriate wording tomorrow if no-one beats me to it. (feel free to though...) Fvasconcellos 00:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Shoot. To clarify my clarification, I only expect a footnote once. Every sentence with a wiki a source should say, "according to the wiki" inline.

"why may it be considered reliable in this context". I guess better phrasing is why it is official, rather than reliable (because according to the letter, it's not actually reliable). You might say Mozilla doesn't do press releases (?) and that developers announce things on the wiki instead, then point to the disclaimer quoted by Rick. Marskell 12:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Added a note to this effect. It's not at the first instance of Wiki citing (will change this later) and I'm not quite happy with the wording, please feel free to improve if you don't think it conveys the appropriate information. Fvasconcellos 19:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit?

Do you guys feel that a copyedit is a good idea here? — Deckill er 22:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Um, yes? Please? :) Fvasconcellos 22:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Sure thing. It's probably going to need an extra person because of the complexity of the subject. I'll see if someone else from the LoC is interested in helping. — Deckill er 23:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I can ce along with somebody else, if people like. I read through it today; my main thought was "boring for John Q." because of all the acronyms, but that's inevitable for a subject like this. The prose is close to passable, IMO; the review has already removed the main clunkers. Marskell 23:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I just went through and removed a bunch of redundancies. Want to tag team? — Deckill er 23:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It's starting to look passable for the most part IMO. — Deckill er 00:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I chopped at that snake. Almost there. Marskell 08:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Update

NPOV tag re-added by SqueakBox (talk • contribs). Fvasconcellos 01:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with the NPOV tagging. This article has been operated on by some of Wikipedia's best, and if there are any issues with neutrality, they are extremely minor. — Deckill er 01:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  - I removed it, since no explanation was given. When good faith efforts have been underway for (what?) two months to rewrite the article, an editor having NPOV concerns should specifically detail them on the article talk page or on the FAR, with specific issues that can be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Since everything has stabilized, I'll say keep. — Deckill er 19:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Anybody else? Marskell 06:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Am I allowed to vote, having worked on the article? I'm new to this FAR thing :/ Fvasconcellos 14:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

- Here's where I tell you it's not a vote. You are perfectly free to make a vote-like-comment (as I call them :). Marskell 14:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Of course. Damn, I love WP :) I believe the prose has greatly improved, no statements remain uncited and the Wiki-as-RS discussion has been IMHO successfully resolved. I'm a keep. Fvasconcellos 15:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 09:33, 9 February 2007.

[edit] Panavision

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Girolamo Savonarola, California, Filmmaking, Southern California, and Media. Sandy (Talk) 21:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

A well written article, but has no inline citations and very few references (failing WP:WIAFA criteria 1c), images lack fair use rationales and detailed source info (failing 3), and there is no section dealing with criticism (I know that Panavision is not criticized very frequently, but I'm sure there's something or other that some people don't like about the company), failing 1d. Finally, the article is somewhat short compared to other recent FA's (which would fail 4). The image sources and fair use rationales can be fixed fairly quick, but the references and related items could take a while to fix. Green451 05:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring the references and images, both of which I am sure someone else will comment upon or deal with, if the subject of an article is not criticised frequently, wouldn't adding a whole criticism section be undue weight? And "4" requires articles to be concise ("appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail") - making the article longer to fit some arbitrary length requirement would be counterproductive. Do you think something is missing, so it is not comprehensive, failing 1(b)? If so, what? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you've got a point. This is the first time I've put something up for review, so I'm just feeling my way around. A google search for Panavision Criticism doesn't yield much except for a court case involving cybersquatting (which should possibly be mentioned in the article), but I agree that there is no point in giving undue weight. And yes, now that you mention it, there are other FA's that are actually shorter than this one, and the article seems fairly well detailed, so there goes my issue with the length. I have striked those out. Thank you for your comments. Green451 16:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask for a clarification on the problem with the images? To my knowledge, all of them have fair use justifications on the image space - two are promotional images created by Panavision, one is their logo, and one is an excerpt from the credits of one of the Matrix films. Is there something else required? Reference-wise, it's an issue I've been well aware of for some time and just kept putting off doing, so I guess this'll force me to get it in gear! :) Now as far as criticism goes, I do hear various criticisms of the camera systems from time to time from people in the camera department. The thing is that everyone does grumble about one thing or another, and there are pro- and anti- opinions about virtually all camera equipment from someone or another. Unfortunately, most of this remains oral criticism, so it is tough to properly reference. How should/could this be handled? Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 21:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

See Help:Image_page#Fair_use_rationale. I hope that helps. Jay32183 21:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments See also looks like it could use some pruning, or for some of those links to be incorporated into the article. References has a lot of blue links that need to be expanded. The article is completely uncited, and images should be examined per above. The lead needs attention - for example, it mentions spherical lenses without linking or defining those, and needs to summarize the article. Sandy (Talk) 01:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments: apart from the inline citations that is the most fatal failure of this article per WP:WIAFA,

Image:PanavisionCredit.jpg fails to satisfy WP:FAIR criterion #8 that the image is significant to the article. The image only serves for decorative purpose, because by writing "Filmed with PANAVISION(c) Camera and Lenses", as in the lead, is enough. Furthermore, the image is actually cropped version from a screenshot. I am not sure if it is allowed to make a derivation of a copyrighted screenshot.
External links section: link to the official site is used for reference, one link to a rental website, one link is broken currently (the master thesis), two links to the same site.

— Indon (reply) — 14:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Currently working on providing in-line citations. Fixed the broken link and eliminating some of the reference links. LACameraman 10:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c) and images (3). Marskell 19:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

In progress I am currently working to address the citations deficit, and I expect that it should hopefully be complete by the end of the year at the latest. At the moment there are only a limited number of written sources on most of the company history, so I'm trying to obtain as wide a variety as possible in order to show some research diversity. I will also look into brushing up the lead a bit more.

Done I've removed the screenshot image as per request, even though I disagree, because I don't feel it's worth the effort of a contentious fair use debate. That being said, it would be nice to be able to include something similar, IMHO. I trust that the other images are fine, unless someone comments otherwise. (They do have documentation on their respective pages.) I've also moved the official page to the external links section, and am working on folding the references into the notes section (or vice versa).

Disagreement The two links from the same site which are mentioned above are links to separate topics within that same site. Unfortunately they don't have a common upper-level link which is specific enough, so I've left them as such for the moment.

Any further comments are welcomed. Many thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 23:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove Insufficient inline citations. LuciferMorgan 00:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please expand on this entry. Is this a vote for removal of the article due to insufficient inline citations or is this a comment to remove the complaint of insufficient inline citations as it as been fixed? Please elaborate on your comment. LACameraman 23:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a vote for remove on the grounds that there are not enough inline citations. Jay32183 23:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

~~Remove~~ - List: Hold, pending copyedit

~~There's a website in References: if it's used as a reference, it needs a last access date and full bibliographic information about the entry. Otherwise, move it to External links.~~

nothing in internet archive. I put retrieval date in. It is only an external ref now, anyway, since it is not used as an inline ref.Jeffpw 17:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

~~The Master's thesis also needs a last access date - if there is an internet archive link, that would be even better, since such links tend to go missing.~~

ditto. Jeffpw 17:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

~~The thesis is listed as a reference *and* as an External link - which is it?~~

since it is not cited in the text, I pulled it from refs and left it as an external link. To be totally clear, I deleted the refs section, and moved everything there to external links. Everything cited in the article itself is under footnotes. Jeffpw 17:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of the footnotes are just blue links that need to be expanded to include full biblio info and last access date. If the editors don't know how to do that manually, they can use the cite templates, or at least include manually the info specified in the cite templates. For example, a cite to everything2 article" is insufficient - we need to know the name of the article, pub date if available, etc. And, by the way, what is everything2? It loos suspiciously like a Wiki mirror, and doesn't seem to be a reliable source, which is another reason we need more information.

Done. Jeffpw 17:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

More needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes cleaned. LACameraman 04:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

~~See also needs pruning: work them into the text if possible, delete any already present in the text.~~

Done. Jeffpw 17:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Still wondering why common terms are listed in See also? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up See Also section considerably LACameraman 04:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

~~See WP:FN - footnotes are not properly placed. I'll fix those, but please learn to do them correctly.~~
~~Headings don't conform to WP:MSH~~
~~Article is seriously undercited - one random example - of which there are gazillions:~~
- Following a number of attempts to marry up standard and high definition TV cameras with film-type lenses in the 1980s, Panavision entered into a joint partnership with Sony which produced the "Panavized" HD-900F "CineAlta" High Definition Camera System in 1999, first used by George Lucas for the second Star Wars installment, Attack of the Clones (2002). This is generally regarded the first commercial HD 24p camera system.
I'll let someone else examine the prose: given the high number of problems in the article, I suggest it will need examination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Back for another look.
  - ~~Can someone run through See also and determine why some of those very common terms are listed as See also, rather than linked into the article text?~~
  - References have very inconsistent formatting and punctuation - can we get Author last name comma author first name period, for example, rather than various versions thereof? Some have author buried in the reference rather than listed first - the reference formatting is all over the map.
  - Full biblio info is not given on many references - example: Panavision history; Retrieved on 2007-01-19 Who published this website? Who is the WideScreenMuseum? Does it have an author? Give us enough info to know it meets WP:RS. Blue links on websources need to be expanded enough for us to know who the publisher of the website is. There are no publishers listed on almost any website, so we can't determine the reliability without clicking on each one.
  - Everything2.com is still cited - it still looks like a Wiki mirror. Who is the publisher, is it a reliable source?

Removed LACameraman 04:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

- I'm still quite strongly in Remove territory - the references need work, and the prose needs even more work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Note - I'm currently out of town on business for the next two weeks, so I may not be able to do too much at present, unfortunately. I'm going to try to get some more work done as time (and access) allows. I'd appreciate having some more review time for that, but if that can't be accommodated, I understand. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 03:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Please Hold - I am fairly new to FAR, so didn't know this was about to be delisted. I have done some work on it yesterday, and plan on working on the refs tomorrow (I am beginning tonight, but it's almost bedtime). With luck, all actionable objections will be addressed by Sunday evening. Jeffpw 19:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Time granted. Please update status Sunday. Joelito (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Status Update - I have referenced everything essential. I added about 50 references. I also changed a few sentences for style, removed all redlinks, changed the headers to what I think is conforming to WP:MSH, clarified the "spherical lens" term in the lead, and added a couple images. I realize one image was requested to be deleted, and the image I inserted is similar, but the caption gives the reason that I think the image needs to be there (as an example of the aspect ratio that cinema goers experienced). I also removed most of the external links, since they were used as references. I took some info from the links for some of my references, but not from the sections that are linked in the article. The referencing went easier than I had thought it would. I had a running start with what was already provided in the footnotes and external links. Here is a diff to show the work completed. If somebody could check the article out, I still have time to make more changes tomorrow. As a quick aside, I was surprised at how little editing was done on the article since it was listed at FAR. Is that typical of most nominations? Jeffpw 22:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove unless fresh eyes can be found to tighten up the prose. It's not bad, but not yet of the required "professional" standard—wouldn't take the LoC long. I shouldn't be able to find little problems, for example, in the lead:
- "Unlike most of its competition, including rival Arri, Panavision operates"—"competitors".
- Redundant "also"; redundant "currently" (what is the present tense for, otherwise?).
- "Any major production that uses Panavision's services is contractually obliged to provide a credit that says"—Do we need to grammatically mark the first point? Why not "Major productions that use ..."? "Display", not "provide". Tony 23:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony1. I only referenced and fixed the most glaring errors. (Full sentences inside of brackets with a period are an error. Yes?) I left a message at LoC this evening, and will also try to copy edit myself, tomorrow. Jeffpw 23:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Both Girolamo Savonarola and I have been working and unable to attend this issue. I have, however, taken a considerable stab at copy editing through the first two sections of the article. I will continue late tomorrow and into the week. One major problem with this kind of article is that the expert Wiki editors are often working and unable to attend the needs on such tight time constraints. Please continue to be patient with this process - I was not fully aware of the editorial requests until today. All the best, LACameraman 10:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

To add to LACamerman's comment, the article was not submitted to FAR for prose issues, but rather citation problems. That has been dealt with. The prose was not suggested as a possible issue until January 5, when it went to FARC. I went back and checked the version that was made FA, and see that the prose issues Tony1 cited were in the article at that point, so I am not sure it is appropriate to demote the article on those grounds. It's not as if the prose degraded in the time between being made FA and now. I see that LACameraman has done a lot of work on the copy yesterday. I suggest letting him do more before making a decision about removing this from Features. Jeffpw 10:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter when the issues came to light or on what basis the article was nominated; if 1a (or any other criteria) is not met, it's an issue. Many articles get by FAC with FA deficiencies. Time is always allowed when ongoing progress is evident. (I haven't yet had time to go back and check the concerns I had.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been back through my list now (see above) - the references still need a lot of work, in addition to the ce needs raised by Tony. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: Prose concerns are appropiate for a review regardless of when they were raised and an article will be demoted if they are not met. Prose is one of the FA criteria and all criteria are judged equally. FA criteria are not ranked by importance, i.e. all are equal. Joelito (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

References have now been cleaned up and See also is pruned: I'm still strongly in the Remove category. The lead is inadequate, and the sourcing is not up to the standard required for a featured article. Everything2.com is a wiki - it is not a reliable source. I've been raising the issue for quite a while, but it's still there. There is nothing on http://www.widescreenmuseum.com to indicate it's a reliable source, and plenty that argues against it, including the disclaimer. Too much of the article relies on the widescreenmuseum website. The article has been dramatically improved during review, but in my opinion does not fulfill 1c. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Update MUCH work has been done. The prose has had several copy-editing passes, and I'll make one or two more. The footnotes have been revised and reformatted. Any controversial footnotes (such as Everything2.com) have been eliminated. There are now considerable references cited. I'm not really sure how the FARC should go from this point, but I would like to request a re-evaluation and, I suppose, a re-vote to return this article back to FA status. All the best, LACameraman 04:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The only concerns registered so far are mine, Lucifer's, and Tony's - I'll have a second look soon. Tony is quite busy - you might leave a note on his talk page asking him to re-evaluate the prose, and a note to Lucifer asking if there is any specific text he'd like to see cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

My remaining concerns are that the WP:LEAD doesn't summarize the article, and the reliability of http://www.widescreenmuseum.com hasn't been established - it is used extensively and, as far as I can tell, is one man's personal website. I'm still a remove based on 1c and 2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I must wholeheartedly disagree. Widescreenmuseum.com is a highly respected and oft-cited source. In my 10 years of professional technical writing, I have NEVER found a single inaccuracy in Martin Hart's work. He is a recoginized expert in the field. His work has been recognized by many reliable sources including American Cinematographer, Entertainment Weekly and Reel.com among many others. To discredit his work is to discredit the entire concept of the Internet as a resource. There is more accuracy in Martin's work than 20% of the published magazine articles I read. This is not some Blogger who spouts out random information, but a film historian and scholar who provides considerable information that cannot be easily found elsewhere. This article covers highly specialized information that is not compiled in too many published texts. In addition, there are only 8 references to Martin Heart's writings out of 61 total cited references. That is only 13% of the citations. If it is determined by consensus that his work is not acceptable, I can work to replace Martin's references - but that research could take weeks, if not months, to track down - even with my extraordinary resources and expertise in the field. I'll also point out that Martin's work does not violate reliability, in that he IS a peer-reviewed site who will amend his text, if found to be in err. In addition, reliability is a guideline, not a policy. As far as the lead is concerned, I will certainly take a look at that and revise, and invite anyone (yourself included, SandyGeorgia) to BE BOLD, as is the Wikipedia policy, and make the editorial change yourself if you see a minor inadequacy. LACameraman 20:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've been asking for about ten days for some indication of reliability - glad to have some. No one is discrediting his work: I'm asking the editors who added that as a source to establish its reliability, since his website doesn't seem to do that. Please give us some means of verifying who exactly he is and what makes him an expert. Do you have links or info about others who cite him or defer to him as an expert? Is any of this available on his site (I couldn't find it) or elsewhere on the web? If it's not on the web, can you quote something from any source in hardprint? What do you mean his site is peer reviewed - by whom? His website doesn't establish who vets his work, what is his expertise, whether he has any affiliations that could contribute to bias, etc. - please give us something to go on. And, no, I won't write someone else's lead - to me, the lead is much too "personal" to have an outside reviewer writing it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia - Fair enough. I think I'm getting a little too emotional as I feel some kind of personal responsibility as a founding member of Project Filmmaking to defend this article. But, contrary to that, I do have to disagree with you on the "personal" note with reference to editing the lead. Wikipedia is for everyone. The very spirit of the entire Wikipedia is that no one owns any article, you - as an editor - are invited and welcome to make any and all edits to any page. With my busy schedule, the amount of time I can dedicate to a project like this is incredibly limited, so it is frustrating to me to recieve criticism that threatens the FA status of this article - without any assistance; especially with something like the article lead which does not require technical expertise to edit. In any case, as far as Martin's references - here is a quick list I found with sites referencing Martin's work (ignoring Wikipedia, within which he is one of the most cited authors I've seen):

http://www.reel.com/reel.asp?node=movienews/confidential&pageid=16647
http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/portraitjennie.php
http://www.dvdscan.com/aspectratio.htm
http://widescreenmovies.org/WSM02/index.html - this is also an actual publication - Wide Screen Movies Magazine, Issue 2 March 2003
From Martin's own page: "This website is so thorough that it's exhausting..." Noah Robishon, Entertainment Weekly

Also - please note the supporters/contributors of/to Hart's work on his "Benefactors" page:

Jack Cardiff, Academy Award winning cinematographer of Black Narcissus and three-time Oscar nominated for War and Peace, Sons and Lovers and Fanny. Jack was also given an Honorary Lifetime Achievement Oscar in 2001. Note that many of Jack's early films were CinemaScope, VistaVision, etc. the very subject of Martin's Website.
Greg Kimball a visual effects artist with work on Independence Day, Star Trek: First Contact, Bravehard, Seven, The Right Stuff, Clockwork Orange Greg was also a key researcher for the Cinerama Adventure project.
M. David Mullen, ASC - one of the chief technology experts for the ASC (American Society of Cinematographers). David will also be the editor of the 10th edition of the ASC Manual.
Academy Award Winning John Pytlak - Senior Technical Specialist EI Worldwide Technical Services Eastman Kodak Company
Roy H. Wagner, ASC, Emmy and ASC award winning cinematographer.
The Smithsonian - U.S.A.
International Film Archive - U.S.A
He's also received the endorsement from Brittannica Online.
Please note Martin's involvement with Cinerama Adventure

As a technical editor for American Cinematographer Magazine, I have utilized Martin's site many times - unfortunately for the magazine we don't cite references in our articles, so I have nothing in "hard print" to show you.

Martin is very much like Leonard Maltin, a film buff turned historian/schollar. Martin is only missing the published work as he's concentrated on the Internet for his work. As far as peer review, Martin's site has been scrutinized and reviewed by all of the above. As I said before, if a consensus decides that Martin's work does not qualify for reliability, I can find othe sources to support the 8 citations to Martin's work - but it will take time. I humbly request that this not be a factor that puts this article's status in jeopardy. All the best, Jay Holben LACameraman 21:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

allrighty, sources above look good, thank you for establishing reliability of the widescreenmuseum. As soon as you expand the lead (per WP:LEAD to be a complete, stand-along summary of the article) and copyedit concerns are addressed, I'll be a Keep - I'm now satisfied with the referencing. If I tried to edit every article I review, I'd have no life :-) Reviewers can help you retain your star, but we can't do all the work. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I understand the limitation of time quite intimately. I appreciate your support and will get to work on that lead. All the best LACameraman 04:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Hi there. Sorry I sort of abandonded this after nominating it, but I've been on wikibreak for a while. One comment about the lead; the information about "Filmed in Panavision" demoting the use of anamorphic lenses is not true anymore (see the discussion on the Panavision talk page). Green451 03:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point. I didn't really feel it belonged in the lead anyway. It will be removed. LACameraman 04:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Not surprised - that's why I questioned a fact sourced to everything2.com - which is a wiki - a good example of the need for highest quality, independent, reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've made a couple of passes on the lead - but I'm not very happy with it. I'll return to it and try to refine, but I'd love some help with this. LACameraman 05:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've made a pass at refining the lead. Jay's prose was quite good to start out with, so I mostly tried to tone down what seemed to me as a "Panavision is great!" undertone. As well, I would say that Super 35 is now the most commonly used widescreen format, and anamorphic (as much as I love it) is falling in popularity. I also split the sentence into two paragraphs, as it was difficult to read the huge block of text. Comments, anyone? Green451 16:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

From the lead, is anyone else having a problem with this prose?

This allows Panavision to invest the most research and development funding and integrate the highest quality manufacturing into every product without worrying about the end retail value. Maintaining their entire inventory also allows Panavision to constantly update their existing equipment and apply those updates to every model in the inventory, as opposed to just the newest models getting the upgrades.

"Most"? "Without worrying"? Maintaining their own inventory? As opposed to clause is strange.

What is the meaning of "common" here? Frequent? Commoners?

At the time of Panavision's formation, Gottschalk owned a camera shop in Westwood Village, California, where some of his most common customers were cinematographers.

What is this sentence saying?

The technology was originally designed during World War I to increase the field of view on tank periscopes by horizontally "squeezing" thus allowing a wider field of view once unsqueezed by complementary anamorphic optical element.

Why say "to utilize" when you can say "to use" or "for use"? Can't it just say "for use in underwater photography"?

Gottschalk and Moore bought some of these lenses from C.P. Goerz, a New York optics company, to utilize in their underwater photography.

I'm not finding this prose at all accessible; maybe it's just me and perhaps this is just stylistic, but I'd feel much better if Tony had a look - I know he's quite busy, but there's something about this prose that isn't working for me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Gawd, this review... Two months and so much done, but just a little more needed for 1a. Anyone still watching? I took care of the clunker in the lead. Marskell 05:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed WP:MOS issues: wikilinking on full dates, [4] non-breaking hard spaces between numbers and units of measurement, [5] and m-dashes. [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow. That was a lot of tedious work, thank you Sandy for taking the time to fix the non-breaking spaces, dashes, etc. I don't see any full dates except in the citations - do those need to be Wikified? If so - that was totally my mistake, I removed all the Wikilinks on dates when I reformatted the citations - I wasn't clear on the MOS for full dates. If that work needs to be done, I'll re-do that as I'm the one who mucked it up to begin with! Have you contacted Tony to take a pass at the prose? All the best, LACameraman 10:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Dates with a month and a day should always be wikilinked to allow date preferences to kick in. Trebor 13:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Tony's talkpage indicates he's real-life busy - the last person who requested he have a look resulted in Tony placing a larger "I'm busy" message at the top of his talk page :-) Deckiller is having a look now, I think - he does good ce work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Bottom-up ce underway.—DCGeist 22:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

DC is an expert on the subject, so he'll improve the meaning more accurately than the rest of us; I'll give it a followup afterward. — Deckill er 00:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a pass after DC's excellent rewording, and I believe the prose is close to meeting the 1a standard. — Deckill er 22:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Much better; but. Wikilinking. Needs a serious review. I hit a number of technical terms that weren't linked or defined, as well as a number of terms that are wikilinked repeatedly, rather than only on first occurrence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Dashes are usually the same as commas; it's mostly a stylistic difference. — Deckill er 03:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I know - aiming for consistency (which I may not have achieved, because I lost interest). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the issues with the prose, consistency, and wikilinks are done, although I'm going to give the wikilinks another pass. — Deckill er 05:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm almost a Keep at this point. I'm just waiting on the answer to a technical query I put to LACameraman regarding the latter-day exhibition of old Ultra Panavision movies. He was able to make a small edit suggestion, but has passed the heart of the query on to his projection expert. That's my last significant (and hardly crucial) concern. General query: are there any still-obscure technical terms in the article that it would be particularly helpful to explicate in a sentence or so?—DCGeist 08:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep on my end, although I'd like to see DCGeist's concerns addressed if possible. — Deckill er 09:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Ultra Panavision query resolved. A few additional brief explanations provided. Keep.—DCGeist 21:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I've had a bash at the prose, the lead should read a lot better now. I also rooted out a few typos (integratated? Bauch and Lomb?) it seemed everyone missed. A few techy terms could do with being better defined (or at least appropriately linked). There's one claim that really could do with a cite in the introduction ('groundbreaking') that I commented out for now. Keep, though, it's just about there. Proto::► 22:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and "nonanamorphic" is not a word. It's "non-anamorphic" - "unsqueezed", "nonwidescreen", and "takeup" also got a damned good hyphenating. Proto::► 22:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No, they got a "damned" improper hyphenating (except for the debatable "take-up"). Non- and un- compounds were consistently closed per Chicago Manual of Style and Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, as they are again. Consistent and proper styling of em-dashes has also been restored. Taking the effort to become familiar with the range of acceptable, proper, and preferred styles of English orthography and punctuation is a good idea for any Wikipedia editor. Within the bounds of acceptable styles, you can apply your personal preferences to articles you are the primary writer on or that reflect a jumble of styles when you encounter them; in other cases, recognize when a consistent style is already in place and leave it be. Thanks for catching the typos and for many of the substantive edits.

Good (partial) catch on the lead: it's the Millennium XL, rather than the first-generation Millennium, that was truly "groundbreaking." No cite necessary in intro. The article text details precisely how each of the two cameras in question was groundbreaking.—DCGeist 23:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, a lot of the edits were mostly stylisic, but many thanks for catching the lingering redundancies and typos that we missed. — Deckill er 02:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was kept 13:42, 3 February 2007.

[edit] Superman

Messages left at Modemac, Comics, Superman and Films. Sandy (Talk) 22:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Review commentary

[edit] 2006

I love Superman but this article has insufficient cites. Wiki-newbie 17:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Article has a large references section, actually. Steve block Talk 21:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- It seems like it doesn't clearly define where it is getting its information. It has a large reference list, but it doesn't say what goes where. It almost seems like some original research edits have taken over the article in places: Like "It is implied in the One Year Later Superman story.." is an example. It appears to draw conclusions as to what the "One Year Later" story is saying. I don't know if this is just incorrect writing, and the "One Year Later" story was clear in its meaning (i don't know, because I haven't read it) but trying to guess what a story is "implying" seems a bit OR to me. I think that is the value behind "in text citations", because it's easy to check sources (at least the online ones). Bignole 23:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my. The cleanup tag says it best. Yikes. If anyone is willing to dig in, I'll supply a long list. Sandy (Talk) 00:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Gimme. WesleyDodds 10:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a list would be helpful. Steve block Talk 13:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is getting lots of cite tags. Wiki-newbie 15:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Finding sources where I can. Steve block Talk 17:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

List

Ineffective use of Summary style and incorrect use of template tags. The overall article size is fine at 72KB, but because the article is undercited, most of that KB is in prose, with prose at a whopping 53KB. Too much of the prose is taken up with re-telling the Superman story, and not enough encyclopedic content; the article needs about a 10KB reduction in prose.
Several of the summary templates are the Main template, when the daughter articles are not summarized back to the main article. Summary style could be better used, or at least some of the templates switched to Further info or See also.
~~The lead is two paragraphs, one long. An article of this size warrants a three or four-paragraph lead, and the lead needs to be rewritten to adequately summarize the article.~~
~~Notes - it's hard to tell what is going on - they are numbered to 11, and then start over again at 1. Some of the notes are just blue links that need to be expanded.~~
References - it's not clear that these are actually references - some of them may need to be pruned, or may be better listed as External links. If they are References, they should be expanded to include full biblio information, and last access date.
Additional reading is a curious mix of See also, Further reading, and External links (or external jumps). It uses no consistent style, should be cleaned up, with each entry allocated to the correct category (External link, See also, or Further reading). See WP:LAYOUT
~~ISBNs on all books, last access dates on all websites.~~
Two entire sections (at least) are very speculative, ORish, weasly, and largely uncited : Superman in popular culture, and Cultural influences. Can't these two sections be merged, and summarized from a daughter article, since the article is too long? A lot of the info in those two sections needs to be cited, or deleted.
The overall article organization is strange and rambling, bouncing from topic to topic. We usually find awards listed almost last, just above See also (by the way, since awards is basically empty, it should be expanded or deleted). There are multiple sections covering characters, and they're all over place, in no overall order that makes sense. A restructuring of the article may help cut down the bloated prose size.
An example of Summary style/template issues is found in the section, Powers and abilities. It says the main article is Powers and abilities of Superman, but the content summarized back to this article is very large, and it doesn't appear to be a summary of that article. Summary style is not used correctly or effectively.
~~There is strange and sporadic use of bolding in the article.~~
~~There are many needs for citation, and more that can be added as work progresses. I added some very obvious cite needed tags to the Cultural sections.~~
~~I'll fix footnotes per WP:FN, where to place ref tags next, but there aren't many to fix.~~
~~External jumps (mostly in the Progeny section) need to be corrected by converting them to Wikified text or referenced text.~~
This is not compelling prose, for example: "Comedian Jerry Seinfeld is known to be a very big Superman fan.[citation needed] In many episodes of Seinfeld, there are many references to Superman in addition to various memorabilia placed in Jerry's apartment."
Once the entire article is reorganized and rewritten, Wikilinking needs attention. Unimportant words shouldn't be linked, and words should be linked on first occurrence. For example, the word Kryptonian is linked repeatedly.
~~Extensive inline comments and questions which should be dealt with.~~
~~I see there is an External link to the DMOZ category on Superman: pls review other external links, and eliminate them if they are already listed at DMOZ.~~
~~Mixed reference styles - there are some Harvard-style inline references that need to be converted to cite.php.~~

There is an edit summary which says, "(Cleaned up some stuff. Is this article's condition really bad enough to merit that "quality standards" tag?)" Yes.

Once some of these structural issues are addressed, a closer look at the prose would be beneficial. Sandy (Talk) 01:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You mentioned the reference sections going 1-11, then starting over. I believe someone has add trivia to the notes section thinking that was where it should be added, and not realizing that it was a place for in-text citations. It should probably just be removed (maybe better place if it can be..didn't read through all of it to see how encyclopedic). Bignole 01:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

My main concern is with the fictional biography. It needs to be written more in the style of Batman's (simply the best comics article around), summarising the main points. Wiki-newbie 10:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I would devote time to it, but right now I'm overseas. I'll be back home in over a week, so here's hoping someone can help substantially with that section. It helped when I was reworking the Batman article that I had the Les Daniels book on hand. The author released a companion book for Superman a year before the Batman book (1998, Superman's 60 anniversary), and it should be widely available at libraries and bookstores for those who want to take a crack at it. WesleyDodds 11:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've got a family funeral to prepare for, but I'm going to nab the book from the library within the week, it's not in my local one so I'll have to run around to get it. Sandy, do we still get an extension if we are showing good faith in improving the article? I don't really dispute any of the concerns to the point that it makes a difference this second, but I'm willing to put the work in, it's just this review is perhaps at the worst possible time in the calendar year. I'm thinking it may be an idea to work this one up in a temp page, because it gets hit by vandals quite badly, which makes progress even harder. Any thoughts or objections? Steve block Talk 13:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

We always give extensions when we know people are working on it and retaining status is within the realm of possibility, but since so many of you are busy in real life, please be sure to keep us posted - we have defeatured articles when we get no feedback for several weeks and see no progress, and then people are mad at us :-) Keep us posted, so we *know* there's progress. There's a lot to be done. As I have time, I'll see if there's anything on the list I can do. Sandy (Talk) 15:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've had a bash at the further reading, see also and external links, but please feel free to take it further. I'm not sure how many fictional works we should have in the further reading, I'm worried it will become a dumping ground for every story ever written about Superman. I've tried to keep it to the works typically considered important parts of the canon, but I'm open to other people's thinking on that. Off to make dinner. Probably won't be back until middle of next week, but I hope to be armed with some good reference works. Steve block Talk 17:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and took care of the "Kryptonian" linking. I left the Infobox's link and the link in the "Golden Age" section. Bignole 19:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you think we could take out a lot of the examples of Superman's abilities, from the "Powers and Abilities" section? I've read some things that I believed were either unnecessary or OR, and some of them were examples of his powers (ex. His powers have again increased, he can now throw mountains......). I'm not a frequent editor of this page, so I don't want to step on other's toes by jumping at things. Bignole 20:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

My "opinion" is that it would be more effective to first trim and reorganize a LOT of the text, before referencing and wikilinking. A LOT of content needs to go to daughter articles, or should just be deleted. It will be easier to work on a trimmer article. Sandy (Talk) 22:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Move to FARC, more work needed. Much improved, but still largely uncited, and has imbedded links (external jumps). Sandy (Talk) 00:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Wait! Can you hold off on FARC until after the Christmas holidays? This is a busy time of year for many people. And I'd hate to see it needlessly stripped of FA status while we're still working on fixing the article. - Lex 04:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. I won't be able to work on this until after New Year's. WesleyDodds 06:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, we'll wait til first or second and see. Marskell 19:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Any chance you could wait until the 7th or 8th, I mean the first or second doesn't really give a huge amount of time. I'm still waiting for relevant books to come back to the library my end, above having contribution time cut by the kids being off school. Steve block Talk 10:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Got a couple of books from the library, so am going to attack in the next few days. Steve block Talk 17:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2007

Okay, I'm making headway. I'm workshopping new legacy and influences sections in a user sandbox and I've restarted the publication history. I think it'll take me about a week to address all the concerns I can, so I'd appreciate that time. I hope you'll grant it. The popular culture section I intend to rewrite as well as I go. Hopefully, once I get the article built and sourced, people can address my prose, the layout will assert itself and more minor issues such as wikifying and citation formats can be hit. Is that okay? Steve block Talk 10:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's fine. Wiki-newbie 10:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

We can leave it open until your done. Do you think "In popular culture" is a redundant title given that it's popular culture top-to-bottom? Sections of this sort have also been denigrated here as trivia. Perhaps "In other media"? Marskell 07:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Other media was my thinking, yes, it's how such sections are treated elsewhere. Thanks for extending. Steve block Talk 09:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

My main concern with a cleaning up the article is taking away emphasis in the four particular stories in the Modern Age section. The likes of The Death of Superman, Birthright etc may be high points but we need to follow the Batman article and summarise the main points of these tales. The Man of Steel and Birthright could share a paragraph on retcons as well as discussing the other 1990s stories that made a big fuss like Death. I've not read all Superman stories so I'm unsure of how to summarise them, but I'll try. Wiki-newbie 09:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

At 50KB of prose, the article is too long, and needs to lose some content via better use of summary style. Prose size should ideally come down to around 35 - 40 KB. See WP:LENGTH. If you first decide what content to summarize to daughter articles, the rest of the cleanup needed will be easier. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is 70 KB, we're making a little progress I guess. Wiki-newbie 15:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

With respect to the end product, please keep an eye on *prose* size, not overall size - it's the amount of text our reader has to digest that shouldn't get too long. You started at 72KB about a month ago, so you still haven't done any of the necessary trimming. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned-up Man of Steel and Birthright sections, down to 65 KB overall (sorry, I can't measure KB at all). Wiki-newbie 15:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I've got a script from dr pda that does it auto :-) Prose size is now at 45KB - still too long - should get down to around 35 - 40. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

My plan was to assimilate what sources I've got and then trim afterwards, but I guess this is a collaborative project. I was going to sort out all the summary issues once I knew how the article looked once I'd finished writing it, if you see what I mean. Steve block Talk 18:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- oops (sorry) ... but I mentioned three weeks ago that prose size was an issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  - I'm sorry I hadn't made it clear that was going to be addressed. Steve block Talk 20:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we can cut down on the "Powers and abilities" section, since it has a separate article anyway and it seems like one of the more fancrufty sections. WesleyDodds 05:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That's one of the problems I've been wanting to jump in and help out with, but I want to make sure I'm familiar with the summary style before I do. - Lex 10:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Status? Editors requested til the 7th or 8th - the FAR has been up for a month, yet the article is still not cited - how is it coming? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been working, had the flu and had my hands tied up elsewhere the last few days. Tintin was on the main page Friday and that took all my attention keeping an eye on it. I've set some time aside this week to hit it hard. Sorry to keep asking for delays, I am willing to pull this around, it's just other things get in the way. Appreciate whatever slack can be cut. Am settling in for an hour of work now. Steve block Talk 13:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep citing there: the recent Warner Bros DVD collection of the films has done some good with the cites. I've also cleaned up the powers section. Wiki-newbie 18:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, I've hit the Cultural influences section, renaming it influences. I've referenced what I can, jettisoned what I can't and added what I've found. I'm off to bed now, more work later in the week. Steve block Talk 23:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A note to editors: CITE THE COMICS. It'll bump it up in no time. Look at Storm (comics). Wiki-newbie 21:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've hit the publication section, tried to break it into more relevant sections. I'm thinking the best bet is to merge the Character history section into the History of Superman article, with a summary installed. Then rewrite the popular culture section as "In other media", sort the awards section out, I'm thinking a legacy section, and then add a crticisms section. Then have a look at what to trim, sort out the citations for the comic books rewrite the lead and get some proper featured article writers to maybe hit over the text for style. Hope that's okay. I'll try and pull another hour now, and then another three or four tomorrow. Hopefully get this sorted sooner rather than later. Appreciate the slack on offer here. Steve block Talk 23:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Good lord, what a clean-up. Keep referencing. Wiki-newbie 16:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ta. Nice work yourself. I've done the other media section. Next up is a sandboxing of legacy and criticisms sections. I think then it's a question of what to cut. Steve block Talk 23:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel "Cultural influences" should be a part of "origins" in the publication history, instead of its own separate section further down in the article. WesleyDodds 01:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm putting Progeny into the main Abilities article. I think influences should go into the History section and Awards expanded into all about his popularity. Overall the article is short enough now. Wiki-newbie 21:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Just had a peek; the size is reasonable now and the TOC looks streamlined - nice work so far. On quick glance, I saw an awkward sentence, but assume ce hasn't been done yet. Another Biblical figure Superman is often seen as being an analogy for is Jesus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Status I'm willing to close this one if people feel it's within the criteria. Any glaring violations left? Marskell 11:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The article isn't quite broad enough yet, the Popularity section is a stub and we need to write about alternate versions of the character: I'll start that to use up the remain citations in the Further Reading section. Wiki-newbie 11:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Not there yet. Many of the references aren't complete (just blue links, with no biblio info), there are still cite tags, and I just saw chunks of text that need citation in Personality and character ("Recent writers have attempted to deepen ..." and "Survivor's guilt has also been cited ...") Statements like this need to be attributed: I didn't read further. Holidays are behind us: it's really time to pick up the pace here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm working over the weekend. My plan was to bash out a legacy section, a criticisms section, hive off the character and cast sections to a separate article and then get a better writer than me in to copy-edit. Hopefully I could pull my end through by Weds or Thurs, if that's okay? Steve block Talk 19:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- When I say working over the weekend, I mean working off wiki, not on the article, just to make that clear. Steve block Talk 19:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The reorganisation of the article is pretty much done now, I think there's still inline comments to look at and the summary style issues, and I know I've got a couple of short sections I've just put in, I'm going to think them over tonight, but I think it's nearly there. Thoughts? Steve block Talk 00:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Great on the Cultural Impact, but I'm restoring the Fictional Biography. Wiki-newbie 19:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This is my response to a message from Steve block, I personally feel when a user comes to the article they would want information on Superman as a character, not a personality in pop culture. I'll cut down the internal links and move some stuff about Superman's popularity. Wiki-newbie 20:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that we're targeting a general audience and our top level article on Superman should explore the character as an icon, rather than as a comic book character. I think the comic book side is well served by the article, and that the fictional biography and powers and abilities sections are not written entirly from an out of universe view, and that such a detailed look is better served in a sub-article where greater detail can be developed. Steve block Talk 21:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Superman is in a sense beyond comics now, being an American pop icon, and that deserves to be covered extensively. However, I agree with Wiki-newbie that the edits unfortunately caused a situation where almost all details of the character itself were removed from the main article aside from the lead section, and placed in hard-to-navigate sub-article. It's oddly the opposite situation we've run into often with other comcis articles, where its all fictional bio but nothing about the character's relevance. My opinion is to try and style it after Batman and Captain Marvel (DC Comics) but more succinctly since we already have those FAs as templates. WesleyDodds 02:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Batman is larger than Superman at the minute, and Captain Marvel isn't of the same stature. The Adventures of Tintin is another FA and is another one to consider. Personally I feel the balance is about right at the minute, because a lot of the detail on the comic side of the character are in sub-articles which are summarised back. This will help the article since it will stop editors from adding details to the top level article, and will thus give it a greater degree of stability, and help avoid recentism and bloat as people add the minor details of the latest Superman stories. Like I say, there needs to be some idea of the structure of the article. A lot of the sub-articles really need a lot of time invested on them as well, they are full of original research and unsourced material. Steve block Talk 22:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Initial criteria concern was citations (1c); on-going debate on focus of material (4) and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell 12:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The last few comments indicate that more work is required before people are going to be happy with this. It has been in the review section for 6 weeks, which is far and away a record, and I don't like the precedent of not moving a review after so long. There'll still be another two weeks in FARC, at least. People can perhaps hold off on kp/rm for a little while longer. Marskell 12:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Funny how we went from one issue to another. It is now factually accurate but no longer comprehensive. Wiki-newbie 18:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

How on earth is it not comprehensive? It covers every aspect of the topic. I'm bemused. I think there may be a misunderstanding of what summary style is. The larger sections, such as the fictional biography and the powers and abilities, have been split off into sub-articles. Steve block Talk 22:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Size question. The article is now 62 KB, which I would consider fine due to the amount of references we have. That's one short of Batman, which overall is an article not in need of a review. Any objections? Wiki-newbie 11:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Should I attach those categories at the (Category:Fictional orphans, e.g.) to Category:Supermen?--Rmky87 15:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Nevermind.--Rmky87 05:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Status?. The size is now an adequate 35KB of prose. If 1a (prose) and 1b (comprehensive) issues are now settled, we can turn our attention to 1c - cleaning up the refs, which are formatted all over the map. Are you all settled on the prose, now? If so, I'll give you a list of issues to be dealt with in the references, and we can begin to review the prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine then if the article is short enough now. What's wrong with the references? Wiki-newbie 16:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

How about the {{fact}} tags that are apparently still there? Scroll down to the bottom if you don't believe me.--Rmky87 21:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Lots - I'll start a sample list below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

References

The following are samples only - all should be checked:

Is this a news source? The link to the Herald goes to a dab page, and the author name should follow a standardized format similar to other refs - author last name first, etc. Seriously, Perilously" The Herald (Glasgow); Sep 29, 1998; Grant Morrison; p. 14 . Is Grant Morrison the author? Also, newspaper titles are italicized. Punctuation after the title? You need not use the cite templates, but they can give you an idea of standardized format. (Missing quote on Seriously, also.)
Look at your ref number 6 vs. your ref number 2 - does author go before the book or after? Does date go after the author or after the publisher? Please use a standardized format, whichever you choose. Engle, Gary. "What Makes Superman So Darned American?" Superman at Fifty: The Persistence of a Legend. Dennis Dooley and Gary Engle, eds. Cleveland, OH: Octavia, 1987. or Daniels, Les (1998). Superman: The Complete History, 1st, Titan Books. ISBN 1-85286-988-7.
Inconsistency throughout - look at this example in relation to others: Richard von Busack "Superman Versus the KKK" July 2-8, 1998 Metro. . Author last name first or not? Who is the website publisher? Where do dates go - they are different in each. Again, review the cite templates or any of the citation styles at the end of WP:CITE to choose a standardized format.
What is this? No publisher, no last access date (all websources need last access date and identification of the publisher, also author and date if those are given). Superman vs. the KKK (or Stetson Kennedy vs. Freakonomics)- The story behind Superman's battle against prejudice
Is this a news source? Is there no online link? Author name first? No punctuation between article name and newspaper name, newspaper name should be italicized. "Up, up and oy vey" The Times (London); Mar 5, 2005; Howard Jacobson; p. 5 .

*Your current reference number 24 is blank - got lost somewhere back in the edits, needs to be found in edit history. Those are samples only from the first few refs - please run through all of the references and employ a standardized biblio format, so the reader can tell what's what. Also, there are no page numbers given on book references. All websources need last access date, author names should be listed first, with last name first, decide what style you are going to use for pub dates, and all websources need publishers. Please keep us posted when the referencing is finished; if your text adjustments have settled down, we should begin to look at the prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

And what on earth is this:

Scott Bukatman has discussed Superman, and the superhero in general, and discussed the ways in which the humanize large urban areas through their use of the space, noting especially Superman's ability to soar over the large skyscrapers of Metropolis.

supposed to mean?--Rmky87 22:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a literary analysis, a critical theory of Superman's cultural worth and an examination of the manner in which superhero comics work. Bukatman argues that one of the reasons they are so popular is that on one level they grant the reader a mastery of otherwise soulless built up areas. He notes the superhero becomes popular at roughly the same time as skyscrapers become popular, with the Chrysler building and The Empire State Building, and that the superhero iterates or fulfils a subconscious desire within humanity to assert supremacy over such towering objects. It's in part perhaps to a response of fear that some felt of such tall buildings. Does that help? Steve block Talk 22:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment—It's not badly written, so I guess it should stay. Pity there are still a few glitches, though, like:
- "Initially titled The Superman, Siegel and Shuster created a comic book story and offered it to Consolidated Book Publishing, who at that time had published a 48 page black and white comic book entitled ...". Siegel and Schuster weren't titled that, were they? Publisher is not a person. Black-and-white as a triple adjective, like the existing "pants-over-tights outfit".
- "This third version of the character was also given extraordinary abilities". Remove "also" and it's smoother.
- Why are the simple years blued out? Real nuisance to our readers. Normally, I'd say remove just on that basis. Tony 10:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  - I don't understand these comments, could you explain in more detail what the issues are, sorry. Steve block Talk 16:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Since Tony is more or less satisfied with the prose, I will be a keep as soon as the references are cleaned up ~~and the solo years are unwiki'd.~~ Please keep us posted on progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    - I just had another look: ~~not only are solo years linked, but full dates are not linked.~~ There is also a significant amount of legal text having to do with coyrights and lawsuits that is not cited at all. And I found a strange wiki references stranded mid-article. This article has been an awfully long time in review - it would be good to get it finished up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
      - I cleaned up the dates myself - it seems there are still a lot of External links that should be pruned per WP:EL and WP:NOT. 17:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I just turned my attention fully back to this article, wikilinking full dates and cleaning up prose. Wiki-newbie 18:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

How much prose do we have now? Wiki-newbie 18:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

37KB prose - good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I've done the references to how you wanted them? Steve block Talk 00:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep I cleaned up the refs, so considering Tony didn't object to the prose, it looks good enough - but I do think it would be good for an eagle eye to run through the prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

How about the others involved? Are we at keep? Marskell 05:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if my comment counts, I'm a keep. Like Sandy I would like to get someone in on the prose though, if that's okay. That's my weakest area. Steve block Talk 13:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course your comment counts :). I have asked Wiki-newbie for another opinion. Marskell 07:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, how much prose now? Wiki-newbie 19:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I can answer that. 41kb, still under Sandy's target of 43kb based on the comment at top of page of knocking 10kb off the then 53kb size. Steve block Talk 19:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, Dr pda script confirms 41KB prose - longer than I like, but not object territory - you all will need to keep a close eye on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was kept 16:09, 15 January 2007.

[edit] Palladian architecture

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Giano, Bishonen, and Architecture. Sandy (Talk) 01:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Lacks inline citatons. One entire section contains only a name, though it is clear that more should be present. —Cuivi é nen 00:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Thanks for the message. Looks OK to me. If someone can see a mistake they ought to fix it. If not delete it Giano 07:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Cuivienen, if you have any specific concerns that some detail may not be factually verifiable, please let us know. I looked through the article and I have not seen any dubitable assertions. If you were able to spot something questionable, please go ahead and add an inline citation where needed, rather than wasting everybody's time. Thanks, Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Looks very handsome. Thanks for the message, but it's not a subject I have a grasp of, few people do. I'm not in a position to say if any facts in it are less than generally agreed on. The references look complete as far as I understand it, and the experts commenting above seem to think them sufficient. But if inline references for all mentioned facts are a sine qua non for FA, it's probably as well to defeature it. Bishonen | talk 11:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
Comment. I thought the purpose of inline citation was to provide them for "Material that is, or is likely to be, challenged" (WP:CITE). What specific aspects are contentious here, it all seems quite straightforward to me. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree to some extent, but inline citations have become a requirement for FA promotion these days. I wouldn't necessarily argue to defeature this because of a lack of inline citations, but I do think it should be brought up here (which might encourage inline citations to be added). —Cuivi é nen 14:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If it is not good enough then de-list it or delete it. Giano 14:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

To avoid a protracted discussion like we had on James Joyce, can we please get a *sample* (only) list from someone knowledgeable about the topic, the nominator, and others of statements that need to be cited? I don't know architecture. Sandy (Talk) 18:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Comments I see the single section has been fixed: can someone knowledgeable pls review the external links vis-a-vis WP:RS, WP:NOT and WP:EL? Sandy (Talk) 18:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- "Someone knowledgeable about the topic, the nominator, and others"... oh, I see, the nominator was me? Sandy, it wasn't part of the FAC culture at the time (long time back) that nominators necessarily had to be specialists in the subject of articles they nominated. Heck, ALoan was always getting in there first and nomming texts I had written, I don't think he would claim specialist knowledge of them. Being the nominator was more an expression of trust in the writers. Anyway, considering I already stated above that I don't know the subject, it's not a lot of use for you to call on me again. I believe the wikipedians who do know it have already commented. Bishonen | talk 19:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
  - No, Cuiviénen is the nominator here. Sandy (Talk) 20:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    - I had a look at the links - most are quite expansive and authoritative regarding palladianism - I removed Banqueting house, Holkham hall and Woburn abbey - if there's historical information on those sites its either scant or too deeply buried for me to find. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I have added Robert Tavernor, James Ackermann and Rudolf Wittkower to the References. Generally speaking, I'm sorry to see in-line citations used as a stick to beat people with: not in this case, needless to say. The argument from ignorance— "I've never heard that Palladio was the most influential 16th-century architect" etc.— is a weak one, though it is universal at Wikipedia and is considered definitive, apparently. There is not a phrase in the present article I would consider out of the mainstream of literate architectural discourse, though I could pick through it and "tweak" wording. The question is: is this an example of Wikipedia at its best? Of course it is. --Wetman 20:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- The purpose of Wikipedia, and any encyclopedia, is, first and foremost, to be an accessible source of information to those unfamiliar with the subject. To you, and to any specialist in architecture or indeed anyone who has ever taken an architecture lesson (myself included), it may seem obvious that Palladio was an extraordinarily important and influential architect. That is not in question. However, for those who do not know such facts, and for those who might wish to dispute them (it is, after all, still little more than opinion, even if nearly universally held), we have an obligation to provide source material. Would you leave a scientific article uncited because there is little debate on the subject in the scientific community? No! Absolutely not! The same goes for architecture. —Cuivi é nen 00:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hence the references at the end. There are several articles like this where they're simply not presenting breaking information. If I explain that the first usage of the word "parody" to refer to prose is in A Tale of a Tub, I need citations, as that's new stuff. If I say that A Tale of a Tub is Swift's first major satire, I don't. If I say that it is a chaotic and difficult satire ("opinion"), I again do not, because no one who has ever written on it has suggested that it is either easy or predictable. A list of references at the end will give the reader several other overview works to consult. We should cite, but we need to keep this impulse to cite from making our articles look less like articles than undergraduate research papers. Geogre 02:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Per Wetman, the problem is that an omnibus encyclopedia article like this is a synthesis of universally agreed upon facts. In other words, one cannot find a single source that doubts or refutes or gainsays these facts. Every source one can find agrees, and therefore none of these are suspect statements that needs a specific reference. Instead, it needs a summary of the particular sources, which it has in the references. One can find sites and accounts ignorant of the facts, but none with different facts. Geogre 23:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Here we go again. A common knowledge of someone does not always the case for someone else. I am not an architect nor have taken an architecture lesson. If I'd like to know about Palladian, then sorry to say that i cannot trust this article. There is no way to avoid the fact that this article was completely written out of the head from the editors, because all WP editors are anonymous. One way to avoid it is to supply this article with inline citations, where the fact comes from, from which page of a book, is the source reliable?, etc. By telling "here is the reference list given at the bottom" is no good either. For instances, these facts are taken randomly from the article:
- Buildings by Palladio himself are all in Venice and the Veneto. → is that true that only these 2 cities contains buildings by Palladio himself?
- During the 17th century, many architects studying in Italy learned of Palladio's work. → how many? I only see one from the article, Inigo Jones.
- One of these students was the English architect Inigo Jones, who is directly responsible for importing the Palladian influence to England. → was he ordered to influence England with Palladian? by whom?
- The baroque style, popular in continental Europe, was never truly to the English taste. → again this fact needs an inline citation, why was baroque stye never truly to the English taste? All right, you might say that it is out of the scope of this article, but what if a reader wants to know more. Where should (s)he find out the source of this fact?

… and many more. I don't want to put {{fact}} tags in the article, as some might say that it is WP:POINT. — Indon (reply) — 16:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That facts are "common knowledge" or "widely accepted" does not mean that everyone knows them automatically, nor that they are "made up out of the editor's head". It simply means that the facts are uncontroversial and included in pretty much any reference - just pick one from the cited sources.
You cannot trust any Wikipedia article, with or without references - nor indeed can you trust implictly any encyclopedia or any other source. However, you should at least be able to verify a Wikipedia article that has cited sources.
The Veneto is not a city - just follow the link. But yes, that is where they all are (or in some cases were). Please let us know if you find one somewhere else.

Actually, the phrase "buildings by Palladio himself" could be clearer, I think--here it means as opposed to random stuff he worked on like the interiors at Duino, not as opposed to buildings by his "workshop" or some such. I tweaked it. Chick Bowen 09:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

How many 17th century architects learned of Palladio's work? I don't know, although Inigo Jones is certainly a notable one. How many 20th century architects learned of the works of Frank Lloyd Wright? Quite a few, no doubt; some more notable than others. I doubt anyone could make a list.
Inigo Jones imported Palladianism into England by going to Italy, studying the works of Palladio there, bringing his knowledge back to England, and designing the first Palladian building in England. As the text makes clear.
If you want to learn about Baroque, try Baroque. The article does not express a view on why it was not that popular in England.
Adding {{fact}} templates to particular points that are thought to need specific citation is helpful. Carpet-bombing an article with them is not. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply: ~~Please put inline citations to the sentences/paragraph that I took above! I want to know where it comes from, if you insist that it didn't come from the top of your head.~~ Yes, I cannot trust any Wikipedia article, but I trust more featured article than ordinary one, because it is verifiable based on reliable sources. This is FAR and we review FA article based on WP:WIAFA. If there is no 1.c criterion about factually accurate sources, then I will not complain about inline citations. — Indon (reply) — 10:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe samples that were taken above are not good examples here. Thus, I read again the article, and I came up with two {{fact}} requests. To avoid of being called "carpet-bombing", below I put the reasons why I want specific inline citations:
1. Whatever the name or the origin, this form of window has probably become one of the most enduring features of Palladio's work seen in the later architectural styles, evolved from Palladianism. → it looks opinion to me if there is no inline citation.
2. One of these students was the English architect Inigo Jones, who is directly responsible for importing the Palladian influence to England → the same as above. The text did not tell me why it is said that Jones is responsible for importing Palladium to England. Please just supply it with an inline citation where the directly responsible comes from.

— Indon (reply) — 11:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

A direct quote was just added to the article: I tagged it because a page number should be provided for a direct quote from a book. Sandy (Talk) 16:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Status? I see 3 inline citations added: leaving talk message for nominator. Sandy (Talk) 18:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'd rather see more, but this doesn't need to go to FARC. The two-week period isn't quite up, yet, though. —Cuivi é nen 18:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Needs more inline cites, move to FARC. LuciferMorgan 02:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is lack of citations (1c). Marskell 01:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Inline citations are needed if the sources are not otherwise clear. That is not a problem here, since this is a broad introduction and does not make specific interpretive statements that would need to be tied to particular architectural historians--the claims here are backed up collectively by the references section. Chick Bowen 00:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove Clear lack of inline citations, a violation of criterion 1. c. LuciferMorgan 00:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, meets requirement of appropriate use of inline citations. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Doesn't meet the requirement in any shape or form. It's ludicrous to even suggest it does. This article wouldn't even meet GA at the moment. LuciferMorgan 14:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'll refrain from describing your comment as "ludicrous." But obviously there is disagreement about the accuracy of your statement. The important thing to remember is that no number of inline citations is required for a featured article. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

*I think it's a great pity that this looks like being demoted—so nicely written and a great topic. I suppose it will have to go if no one will help it to satisfy 1c; none of the regular reviewers is qualified to do so, I think, so we're stuck. <grumbles> Tony 14:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I can do math articles, medical articles, etc., but not architecture; all I know in that area is someone should shoot my ex-architect, or at least take away his license. I have to rely on the architectural reviewers here, and we haven't heard enough from them. It would sure be nice if they'd add citations where/if needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Further comment The article makes a lot of comments and opinions., and they need citations. Whole paragraphs remain uncited - articles which satisfy (not fully may I add) 1c a lot more than this article are demoted, so this one should be no different. LuciferMorgan 17:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Per my comments above, and those of C Parham and Chick Bowen. Giano 17:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep: Not this argument again? First, repeating your view won't help, LM. Second, the interpretive elements here are very, very, very much not things requiring footnotes. If I cite that a bridge went up in 1740, then that it had traffic of 30,000 drays a day by 1750, and then I say, with no citation, that the bridge was vital for the city's growth, it's just a syllogism. There is no citation needed for the third statement. It can be disagreed with but it cannot be called unfounded. It has the limitation of conclusions from presented data, but not of being "some dude's opinion." This is the distinction between encyclopedia writing where a thesis is coherently and cogently argued and a nervous drudge's regurgitation of the library stacks. Geogre 19:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep: Review is always welcome, however, there seems to be some 'sledgehammer to crack a nut' arguments being presented here for inline citations - they should be provided for "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". Most of the qualified architecture editors have stated the material is unlikely to be challenged - certainly by any authoritive source. No one seems to be able to say what is likely to be challenged. It seems the proposers have taken a quick look at the article, seen the simple fact it has no inline citations and plonked it on FARC with a knee jerk despite the extensive references section. Joe bloggs may verify the article himself by obtaining the books and reading them. I can find very few parts of the article that might represent anything offering an opinion; I was well into the article before....

"Palladio deeply considered the dual purpose of his villas as both farmhouses and palatial weekend retreats for wealthy merchant owners. ......... They were, however, in no way intended to be part of the main house, ......"

Statements of intent by Palladio might need a citation, but it's fairly obvious stuff apparent to all those in possession of mark 1 eyeballs and reference to the excellent images contained in the article. The following sentence - "and it is in the design and use of these wings that Palladio's followers in the 18th century adapted to become an integral part of the building" certainly doesn't need citations. --Mcginnly | Natter 01:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I don't think the article would spoil from having a few extra footnotes, but if several highly respected wikipedians vouch for the verifiability and accuracy of the article, and the article provides a list of sources, I believe it to be enough to consider the article FA-material. I mean, this is exactly what good encyclopedia editors are supposed to do; sift out well-worded bits of information from extensive source materials for everyone's reading pleasure without necessarily engaging in gratuitous footnote sprinkling. Adding a footnote for every other sentence, fact or figure is assuming that ordinary people can't possibly read books without being guided to specific pages. This smacks of a fetish for citation format and a very obvious form of instruction creep, and to me this seems to encourage institutionalized cherry-picking instead of constructive and enlightened review of content. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No actually. Utter rubbish - this smacks of actually reading the FA criteria, and criterion 1. c. is there in black and white. Go and read it. Highly respected Wikipedians? By who? The largely unaware public who click on the pages who don't even edit? Once again, rubbish. LuciferMorgan 01:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't push interpretations on others, Lucifer. 1. c is as far as I know intended to be flexible and the hard line "everything Joe Blow doesn't immediately recognize needs a footnote"-interpretation is quite clearly something which does not enjoy universal support. Just because many recent reviewers have set almost arbitrary and clearly exaggerated standards for the amount, not so much the actually quality of, citations and verifiability, I don't see why this interpretation should be seen as an absolute standard. And most importantly, it's very inappropriate squabbling about a topic of which you seem to little or no in-depth knowledge. I can't see how Wikipedia is improved by this type of debacle. / Peter ^Isotalo 07:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Are claims "verifiable against reliable sources" and do they "accurately present the related body of published knowledge"? Yes. Are claims "supported with specific evidence and external citations ... where appropriate, complemented by inline citations"? Yes, they are. Some more inline notes or footnotes would be nice to have, but we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I see a lot of reviewers above saying the article could benefit from more cites: I wish someone who knows the subject area would just do it, so we won't see this back on review a year from now. It's been a month. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"could benefit from" = "nice to have", yes; must have, no. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Must have = yes. Whether you like it or not ALoan (which you don't, whatever you try to say to the contrary), criterion 1. c. is there and here to stay. LuciferMorgan 01:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

LM, you seem to have missed my point, so let me quote 1(c) in full, rather than just the relevant phrases, as I did above:

(c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations (see verifiability and reliable sources); this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations. See citing sources for information on when and how extensively references are provided and for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.

Is it factually accurate? Yes.
Are its claims verifiable against reliable sources? Yes.
Does it accurately present the related body of published knowledge? Yes.
Are claims are supported with specific evidence? Yes.
Are claims supported by external citations? Yes.
Is there a "References" section? Yes.
Is the References section "where appropriate, complemented by inline citations"? Yes.

Which of the above statements do you disagree with and why? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I shall not be doing it, because it does not need them, and I have better things to do with time Giano 16:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It DOES need them actually. LuciferMorgan 01:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

- Comment Repeating my views is due to the fact that if this article is kept, it would make an utter mockery of Featured Article Review. There are lots of opinions attributed and the article, and opinions need inline citations. It's as simple as that. LuciferMorgan 01:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"In 1570 Palladio published his book I Quattro Libri dell'Architettura, inspiring architects across Europe." Inspired who? According to what researcher? Needs citation, otherwise is original research. LuciferMorgan 01:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"I Quattro Libri dell'Architettura" Is one one of the worlds greatest, most famous, and important architectural works, I have no intention of referencing such an accepted and well known fact - it would be akin to refencing the current Queen of England is called Elizabeth. Giano 08:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"Palladio deeply considered the dual purpose of his villas as both farmhouses and palatial weekend retreats for wealthy merchant owners." What? We're actually assuming what he thought now? Needs inline citation. LuciferMorgan 01:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact is so obvious, if one has a grand house with farmbuildings stuck on the side all built at the same time by the same man it is quite apparent that he "considered the dual purpose of his villas as both farmhouses" Giano 08:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"They were, however, in no way intended to be part of the main house, and it is in the design and use of these wings that Palladio's followers in the 18th century adapted to become an integral part of the building." In no way intended? Did he say that? If so, where to? Needs citing. LuciferMorgan 01:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

In what was would you immagine Palladio considered a cow shed to be part of the main house? Regarding your second point look at the pictures read the captions and open your eyes! Giano 08:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

A quick glance this is from, so I'd dread to think about all the other possible original research in the article. LuciferMorgan 01:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother to comment on the remark above. Giano 08:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any previous knowledge about any of these statements? Do you have reason to doubt that they are false other than you suspect that they're wrong? Have you perchance read any of the sources?

Peter ^Isotalo 07:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment (update: no "vote" implied). What a fascinating FARC. Clearly the duelling views of what a Featured Article should be are coming to a head, and interpersonal dynamics are, by my observation, affecting the proceedings considerably. ~~Completely in spite of myself, I find myself leaning toward Remove—in doing so,~~ I am choosing to apply the current Featured Article standard, rather than subverting the standard to the very good editors involved, or trying to make other points about FA criteria. (And the points of Geogre and others seem more valid than their inverse, to me.) In other circumstances, we'd have prose- and verifiability-oriented editors pointing out sentences like:
- "The Palladianism of the White House ~~is interesting as it~~ is almost an early form of neoclassicism, especially the South facade, which closely resembles James Wyatt's design for Castle Coole of 1790, also in Ireland. Ironically, the North facade lacks one of the floors from Leinster House, while the Southern facade gains a floor extra than Castle Coole, and has an external staircase more in the Palladian manner."—"Ironically" is editorializing; "a floor extra than" is awkward.

Reworded Giano 08:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

- "In Palladio's architectural treatises, as well as the buildings he designed and built,"—the dreaded "as well as".

Reworded Giano 08:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

- "If on a hill, such as Villa Capra, all facades were often designed to be of equal value so that occupants could have fine views in all directions."—"all" and "often" don't work together.
- "They were no longer villas but 'power houses' in Sir John Summerson's term, the symbolic centres of power of the Whig "squirearchy" that ruled Britain."—awkward, making the reader wonder if this is a run-on sentence. Summerson's term is not referenced. Again, current FA standards.

I don't what is wrong here could you re-word|edit yourself? Giano 08:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

- "Castle Coole is, in the words of the architectural commentator Gervase Jackson-Stops, "A culmination of the Palladian traditions, yet strictly neoclassical in its chaste ornament and noble austerity"." The current FA standard requires page attribution for a quote.

I have reffed Jackson Stops quote and left a request on Wetman's page for Summerson quote ref. Giano 08:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Summerson's term is in his essay "The Classical Country House in 18th-Century England", and all through his major work Architecture in Britain 1530-1830 (1993), a book that doubtless informs all the discussion here— but of course it is employed by writers like Mark Girouard too. Tacitly it informs all discussion of architecture as an expression of social standing in Britain, doesn't it. Summerson is also the source of the expression "prodigy houses" to describe those grand Jacobean piles so familiar to all of you. Some time last month I removed this discussion from my Watchlist: nec dilectare volunt nec prodesse, or so it appears, and I require both. I would never subject any article to this process myself. --Wetman 09:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

So am I saying the writing is poor? Hardly, but stuff like this is used as a basis for objection in many other candidacy discussions. At the same time, I say to the article's creators—because the accomplishment achieved in a given article and the article's FA status are becoming less and less correlated—very nice work. If the FAR system is going to function consistently—whether for the better or worse—then this article should no longer be an FA because it no longer meets (FA) expectations for verifiability. –Outriggr § 07:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed the points you make, please feel free to edit any awkword phrasing (or indeed anything else on the page) yourself. Giano 08:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I am striking my "remove". What I wished to communicate can be said without it. Many times I've seen the reviews of older featured articles fail because they do not meet the current standard for referencing. Heated discussion ensues, asking whether there isn't a grandfathering for older articles, and so on. The answer comes back negative. Unless a new precedent is desired, I think the review process should be applied consistently. –Outriggr § 08:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Reading LuciferMorgan's list of need-inline-citation items and what the editors reponses are, I am leaning toward remove. I am not questioning the editors' credibility, but it's a nature of Wikipedia that all editors are anonimous. The burden of whether statements are true or false is not on the readers'. Okay, readers can go to find books listed in the article, but what's the point of writing bla..bla..bla in the article where there is no pointer to which book and page I should read more? We have FA standards and we have three pillars of Wikipedia. Obviously, this article does not satisfy one of them: verifiable. Should I borrow all the books and browse all the pages to verify a single statement that I'm doubting at? Unbelieveable. — Indon (reply) — 08:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. With experience I've found the table of contents and index invaluable though. --Mcginnly | Natter 01:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

With your experience then, why don't you simply put inline citations in the article to help inexperience reader who is really new about this subject (including me)? — Indon (reply) — 00:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added citations to those aspects that have been challenged - for further help Indon [inexperience reader who is really new about this subject] I can only suggest reading this. --Mcginnly | Natter 20:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not a native English person, who still have troubles with English grammar. Is there something wrong with my English grammar? Being stupid in English, what are you suggesting to me to read the Grammar article? Please explain. — Indon (reply) — 21:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm towards Indon's good faith effort isn't helpful; his points have merit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, no offence intended Indon you're not stupid in English, but your grammar's a bit 'non-standard'. --Mcginnly | Natter 01:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I see citations, I strike my vote, I am out of this FAR process, I am sick of editors responses and I apology for this non-standard grammar sentence.— Indon (reply) — 09:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

**I'm leaning towards Keep, although I'd really like to see more referencing.Tony 15:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing from this one: conflict of interest. Tony 03:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Several editors have now taken time to review and make suggestions: their requests don't seem excessive or burdensome; they will support verifiability, and they make sense to me. An article this well written shouldn't leave any area for future editors to FAR it again for the same reasons. And where is the nominator (Cuiviénen), who wanted these citations? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- He stated above that he didn't feel a need to proceed to FARC, unless I am misreading. So perhaps he has stopped watching this page. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding more citations, Mcginnly; they should help avoid seeing this article back on FAR sometime down the road. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I went about trying to find some sources that I could add as inline citations to this article. Of course, I don't have access to the current references. What I found—and I admit that throwing around quotes in matters of aesthetics may not prove much—are a couple of points that are counter to the effect of the article.
- "Palladio's drawing in the Four Books presents the [ Villa Rotunda ] as an object that could be placed anywhere, with no regard for the site" (Learning from Palladio). The article says "Palladio always designed his villas with reference to their setting."
- "American expressions, few in number and more modest in scale, have not attracted either the scholarly or popular attention of their European counterparts. Architectural history has defined the whole of American Palladianism by a small number of eighteenth-century public buildings and private dwellings." (Palladian architecture and social change in postrevolutionary Virginia. PhD dissertation.) Compare this to the overall effect of the section Palladianism#North American Palladianism. On the other hand, excerpt from Palladio's Architecture and Its Influence: A Photographic Guide supports the section much more.
I have no POINT here. My intention was to add some cites to the article. In context, I don't put much stock in the above contrasting references (it looks like the dissertation intro is probably further from the truth than WP's article, and the other issue is quoted from a book that likely has a "re-interpretive" thesis)—but since I put the work in, I thought I'd write this up. –Outriggr § 01:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Within 24 hours of the above comment, I left a message here, clarifying that "I didn't know the FARC was closed when I made the Jan 16 comment". That message has mysteriously disappeared (in history, as well), so I am adding this again. –Outriggr § 01:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was kept 14:50, 18 January 2007.

[edit] Punk rock

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Punk music and Music genres. LuciferMorgan 00:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm nominating this for FAR because;

It needs further inline citations.
The lead needs expansion, and needs to be an adequate summary of the article. LuciferMorgan 00:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. A lot of inline citations have been added since this article was listed as lacking citations, and it is close to finished. With a bit more work, this article should be able to retain its FA status. Expanding the lead, a copy edit review, and finishing up the citations are in order. Sandy (Talk) 00:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment I agree. With one or two editors working on this, it should be wrapped up soon. LuciferMorgan 01:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Article has improved over last few days. The lead now covers most of the main content, and cites continue to be added. - Coil00 22:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Glad to see the improvement! ~~Be sure to keep a consistent bibliographic style in the footnotes - they're kinda bouncin' around, but that can be fixed when you're closer to finished.~~ Sandy (Talk) 17:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Reference format fixed. Sandy (Talk) 20:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Is comprensive, balanced and sourced. Lead has been expanded as mentioned above. + Ceoil 20:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm unsure of trying to trace punk's roots back to the US. Punk began in the UK as far as most critics are concerned. LuciferMorgan 22:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Lucifer, this is a can of worms. Punk was defined by the '76 UK bands, but they crystallised the lead of the Ramones and New York Dolls, as well as The Stooges and the earlier US garage bands. See the talk archives for an extended, and heated, discussion on this. + Ceoil 22:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but more cites are needed. LuciferMorgan 22:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Whichever way, I'm not voting Keep yet, and people don't vote until FARC.

"Punk rock may have been influenced by the snotty attitude, on- and off-stage violence, aggressive instrumentation, overt sexuality and political confrontation of artists such as The Who, the Rolling Stones, Eddie Cochran, Gene Vincent, The Velvet Underground, Alice Cooper, The Stooges, the MC5, The Deviants, and the New York Dolls. Other likely influences include the English pub rock scene, and British glam rock and art rock acts of the early 1970s, including David Bowie, Gary Glitter and Roxy Music. Early punk rock also displays influences from other musical genres, including ska, funk, and rockabilly."

May have? Says who? Which music critics? And which music critics disagree? I'd like to see citations in this specific paragraph, and also the "Characteristics" section needs more citations. Keep up the good work though. LuciferMorgan 22:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair point, I'll find something on that one. I'd appreciate a few 'cite needed' tags else where, if needed, to focus the mind, like ;) + Ceoil 22:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Add the most urgent first though, its a heavily edited article, carpet bombing might draw some reverts. If you see a lot of gaps, maybe add them in a few manageable phases, and I'll do what I can. Thanks. + Ceoil 22:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to add the tags, but I've been accused in the past of going overboard (see the Operation Downfall FAR). The main problem is that when you've cited something, I'll most likely scour the article for other areas that need cites. LuciferMorgan 22:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you approch, knock your self out here. + Ceoil 22:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Fill whatever cites you want, and if there's some you disagree with then feel free not to fill them. LuciferMorgan 22:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Lucifer, I'll need a few days though. + Ceoil 22:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ceoil, just a note to let you know, we don't vote Keep or Remove during FAR; if concerns aren't addressed in more or less two weeks, the article moves to FARC for another two weeks, and that's when you enter Keep or Remove. Sandy (Talk) 04:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ooops + Ceoil 23:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I see some problems with this article right off. For one thing, the editors don't seem to understand the need to keep original research (WP:NOR out of the article, even in the lead paragraph.[7] & [8] A lead paragraph that is full of what could not be more "self-evident" is not part of an encyclopedia--encyclopedias are not insiders clubs. Punk Rock has been around for ages, there is tons of research on it, some from the late 70s even. I would like to see this article approached as if it were a serious subject, culturally relevant, and important enough to be included in an encyclopedia, not just an editors evidence of himself as if Wikipedia were a blog. Self-evidence is not part of a FA that I can see. And if a FAR is telling the editors that more citations are needed, editors should consider whether a citation is needed or not, rather than saying, no, bollocks, this could not be more self-evident."

"...and placed emphasis on music that was fast, short in duration, and simple, often accompanied by a political or social outlook."^{[citation needed]}

"The punk rock movement also encompasses a punk subculture, involving youthful aggression, specific clothing styles, ideologies, and a DIY (do it yourself) attitude."^{[citation needed]} (In spite of its self-evidence to one editor.)

"...but its popularity was more sporadic elsewhere."^{[citation needed]}

"Over the course of the 1980s, various forms of punk rock emerged in small scenes around the world, often outright rejecting commercial success or association with mainstream culture."^{[citation needed]}

"By the end of the 20th century, punk rock's legacy had resulted in the formation of the alternative rock movement, while new punk bands popularized the genre decades after its initial heyday."^{[citation needed]}

I had intended to go into the article and see how these other statements are supported, but learning that the first is supported by "self-evidence" showed me it would be a waste of time. This article desperately needs citations, citations that are readily available. KP Botany 15:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

KP, agree that 'self-evident' not good enough, and thought the reversal of you cite requests was plain rude. I kind of warned LuciferMorgan above about fact tags being rv'd by others, and have sandboxed the article so that tags can be added and dealt with in peace during the FAR. Please feel free to place more requests there, as you say there is an abundance of sources to choose from.

One thing though, I think I remember reading somewhere that you don't need to cite statments in the lead if they are ref'd further down in the main body of the article. I've searched around but can't find it again. Does any one know if this is actually true or not? + Ceoil 21:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

True. The lead is meant to be a summary of the article, so all info there should be in the article body also. LuciferMorgan 23:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Status? ~~I noticed that publication dates are missing on news sources - perhaps cite web was used rather than cite news?~~ Does this article need more time? Sandy (Talk) 18:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- I did some ref cleanup, and fixed most of the missing dates on news sources, ~~but this ref is wrong: "Punk Music in Britain". BBC.co.uk (2002).~~ Sandy (Talk) 04:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Thanks for tidying up, & url for 'Punk Music in Britain' now fixed. Ideally, I'd like to extend this by a few days if possible, still need to track down sources for a number of statments highlighed by LuciferMorgan. + Ceoil 07:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As you get further along, I'm hoping the lead will improve. There are a lot of references in the lead. Since the lead should summarize the article anyway, perhaps some of that text could be expanded in the article, with the references provided in the body of the article rather than in the lead. Sandy (Talk) 16:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

See also is quite long: can some of those be linked into the text and eliminated from See also? Sandy (Talk) 01:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

List has been trimmed. + Ceoil 01:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ref 31 was lost: I'm having Wiki-technological problems, and can't track it down - someone needs to find it in the history. Sandy (Talk) 16:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

That ref was ok when I checked it out; in that it pointed to a website, but not a very good one. I need to validate the sources created before this FAR, and also attend to POV issues noted by KP Botany. Realisticlly, this will take a week, at least. I'd prefer not to go to FARC; any objections to putting this out until the 31st? I picked up a few source books while x-mass shopping; as soon as my father tires of reading "Punk Dairy: The Ultimate Trainspotters Guide to Undergounf Rock 1970-1982" and other books like it, will incorporate ;) My openion is that the article is adequately cited for an FA, but the text needs work + Ceoil 00:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it needs a lot of work, but as far as I am concerned, if you're willing to do it, we should wait. I think Wikipedians can be impatient about what it takes in time and commitment to make an article something useful. Allowing extra time should, imo, always be a given. KP Botany 01:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Marskell 19:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm kind of a stickler about readability. Consider making the paragraphs a bit smaller, and more even.
I love all the music in there - you got all the good ones right on the money. Consider moving some pictures to the right underneath the "music" boxes so the text isn't so squeezed.
Inline citations are fabulous for other folks. Personally, they make things hard to read as the formatting stands now. Hopefully, that will change, but multiple inline citations for non-controversial points I feel are unnecessary.
Lets diversify. Don't forget Bikini Kill, Le Tigre, Hole, etc. as well.
- Two bands were particularly influential @ 1981 to span punk and new wave, though lesser known (currently). They're Pearl Harbor and the Explosions and Romeo Void. I'd particularly love to see Romeo Void in there, because it was headed by the largest Samoan woman you ever saw. If you can find references for them, I'd love to see them in there. This is not OR, they were both on the charts.
- There's also the Waitresses; this band was a chart-topper back in the day.
- PJ Harvey was a HUGE influence, particularly "Sheela-Na-Gig"; don't forget her.
- Ani DiFranco - punk/folk, most notable for "fucking the system" and starting her own label and doing her own distribution before she ever released anything.
- Pansy Division - have been around for 15 years.
- Was Bad Brains "different"? How?
I'm not farting in the wind here. I want to see some of these people in this article:).Nina Odell 14:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are inline citations (1c) and LEAD (2a). Marskell 07:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: This was given extra time but I don't see any notes suggesting all the issues have been cleared up. History shows work is on-going. Marskell 07:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Almost there, just checking back over a few old refs. Will let you know later this evening when I'm done. Thanks for the patience. + Ceoil 13:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Article has undergone an extensive restructure and copy edit. Hopefully it is also more balanced that it was, and that concerns re citations have been met. + Ceoil 23:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, although I don't like the "See also" section.--Yannismarou 18:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Have moved the "See also" links into categories, where they belong. + Ceoil 22:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Requesting that this be held. First phase was to take care of obvious weaknesses, but the article would benifit from an overall polish. + Ceoil 01:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Despite the changes since nomination, I find this not well enough written to satisfy 1a. Take, for example, the lead:
- "a number of artists that emerged"—Are they people or robots?
- Remove the redundnat "as" in the first para.
- "and placed emphasis on music that"—Why not "emphasised music that"?
- "fast, short in duration, and simple"—What does "simple" mean in this context? Musical simplicity comes in so many forms.
- "accompanied by a political or social outlook"—You mean in the lyrics?
- What's a "do it yourself" attitude in this context? If I don't understand it, many people won't, I guess. Engage with those who aren't experts in this field.
- Do we really need to link United Kingdom, United States and Australia? They're so obscure, aren't they. And why is "UK" (wrongly) dotted in a title?
- "often outright rejecting commercial success"—clumsy.
- "punk rock's legacy"—nicer as "the legacy of punk rock"; it's a major statement, too, so the informality of the inanimate apostrophe is even less appropriate.

We expect better writing throughout starred articles. Please fix the whole thing by finding copy-editors who are interested in this field. Tony 05:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats why I'm asking for more time, I haven't worked on the copy yet. + Ceoil 05:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

At some stage soon, the reviewers may be happier with some idea of a timeline. Tony 05:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It's taking much longer than I expected, but I can work towards finishing up for next friday. + Ceoil 20:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: What are these five inline citations doing in the first paragraph of the lead? They're attached to perfectly straightforward information that wouldn't even need to be cited in the main body of the text, let alone up front as they are. The lead should, in general, summarize the entire article and should, again in general, be free of citations. As long as everything stated in the lead that needs a citation is cited in the text of the article, there's no need to cite up top. And, as noted, these are facts that don't even need citation in the main text. Remember the cite guideline: "Attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." It's also desirable to cite (a) uniquely sourced and (b) often misreported info, but the five citations in question don't come anywhere near those realms. And packed in the first graf of the lead, to boot. This is hardly FA-level presentation. I would go in and simply remove them, as is proper, myself, but I see two are uniquely cited from there (to support the claims that the United States and the Sex Pistols were important to punk...ye gods!). Proposed remedy: (A) Determine if those two sources are needed for citations elsewhere; (B) Cite them there, if called for by Wikipedia citation standards; and then (C) Eliminate all five of these superfluous, distracting, and non-FA-worthy cites in the lead.—DCGeist 11:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The cites in the lead are discussed earlier in the review; a rewrite is in progress (it's often easiest to rewrite the lead last, once the text is complete), and most reviewers here would disagree with your interpretation on whether those facts should be cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I see. I caught the colloquy about the lead on Dec. 12 above. I didn't notice that you'd already followed up on the 18th. At any rate, I'm prepared to help out Ceoil with a general copyedit of the article to bring the language closer to FA quality. In light of that, I want to be clear on your position (let's encourage "most reviewers here" to speak for themselves):

I gather you agree that locating punk's emergence in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia does not call for citation in the lead; I gather you also agree that identifying the Ramones and the Sex Pistols as exemplifying the seminal wave of punk does not call for citation in the lead. I'm sure we agree that, if the latter claim is made in the lead, it needs to be supported by discussion in the main text, appropriately referenced per Wikipedia standards to the best available sources. What I remain unclear on is how you would want the broad geographical observation to be cited. The observation is supported by discussion of the many significant bands from each locale; what, if anything, would you want to see cited specifically in the main text on this point?—DCGeist 19:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in secondguessing Ceoil's ongoing efforts; I like to re-check articles that show ongoing progress once the main editors have finished their work. I'm confident Ceoil will work it out just fine, depending on what text is kept where once the rewrite is done, and I doubt that cited text will suddenly go uncited. I'm also confident that reviewers here will come to a consensus as to whether the article is well cited when the work is completed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume then you won't be interested in secondguessing my work either. Tony has suggested finding copyeditors who are interested in this field. I'm a copyeditor interested in this field. My aim is to assist Ceoil, as I clearly expressed, in improving the article's language and presentation. I asked you to weigh in on specific content and its appropriate citation. You've chosen not to weigh in. Fair enough. And once again you've spoken on behalf of "reviewers here." Interesting. I'm still waiting for one of those reviewers to step forward in support of your claim that "most" of them would say that a broad statement about the central role of British, U.S., and Australian bands in the emergence of punk rock should be specifically cited.—DCGeist 22:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

DC, Sandy is right in that I'm leaving the lead for last. And for the record, he did a lot of work fixing poor citation templates when the article was first nominated for FAC. However, help from you on the copy would be much appreciated - I've mostly been concentrating on a rewrite and restructure, and a copy edit is still needed. Following a skirmish this morning, I've had to sandbox the article tonight to further tweak the structure, meaning some of the sections will be significantly rewritten by tomorrow evening. But if you could help clean up the "Characteristics" & "Legacy" sections, that would be great. And BTY, you should add your star to B movie! + Ceoil 23:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: I'm more or less there in terms of content, hoping for a white knight re copy. DCGeist helped out tonight, have also left a note at WP:LoCE. + Ceoil 01:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the update: I had a look, and saw some backwards progress on the refs, which will take some time to untangle and explain <sigh> ... will get to it as soon as I can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I can take care of the untangling and fixing if you let me know the problem. + Ceoil 20:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Still working on it - got distracted elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Good work here, lots of progress, much improvement, but some small steps backward since I last checked. (Noting that you've taken what was a very old brilliant prose promotion - with no original editor/author - and brought it very far. Great effort so far.)

It looks like some "Main" templates are now being used incorrectly. The Main template is used when this article contains a summary of another Main article (think of is a min-lead of that article): that doesn't appear to be the case in all uses here - templates usage could be reviewed. Some of the templates could be switched to either See, See also or Further (can't remember which is which, someone should check), depending on the situation. For example, is the Pop section of Punk rock a summary of the Pop rock article, or is that further information ?
Even on a large screen, text is being scrunched between images and music samples. (When I go to another computer with a smaller screen, they look fine, since the text is forced to below the image and sample). Perhaps images or samples can be moved up or down to avoid this problem.
Tony1 is up on the legalities of Music samples: has he looked at these? If not, can you ping him? It's Greek to me: I just know there was a problem recently.
Some statements may need cites, example (I always work from the bottom of the article first): Some punk rockers complained that by signing to major labels and appearing on MTV, ... Maybe make another pass, looking for any vague-ish statements without attribution.

Paragraph in question heavily revised, fully cited.—DCGeist 07:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor prose issues, example (working from the bottom): Many groups such as Screeching Weasel that fused punk rock with pop melodies would follow in their wake. Trying to eliminate the redundant "many", maybe something like: Groups that fused punk rock with pop melodies—such as Screeching Weasel—followed in their wake. I see you've got a request in at LoCE.

Done.—DCGeist 03:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ceoil, do you have most of the reference books? Some of the extensive editing may have taken the text away from what is supported by the refs, so pls let us know that you can verify a lot of the ce changes. I see combined refs which I didn't see before, so checked to see what's up there, example:
- - The first issue of Punk was published in December 1975, and tied together earlier influences such as Lou Reed, the Stooges, and the New York Dolls, with an array of new bands centering around the CBGB and Max's Kansas City venues: the Ramones, Television, Talking Heads, The Heartbreakers, Blondie, and others. (Fowler, Damian. "Legendary punk club CBGB closes". BBC News, October 16, 2006. Retrieved on December 11, 2006; Sabin, p. 155; Walsh, p. 15, 24)
- Yikes, disentangling this: I've seen the notion on several FACs that refs must always come at the end of a sentence, which is a misread of WP:FN. If specific facts, phrases, or words are referenced within a sentence, the refs can be mid-sentence. Combining these refs has munged verifiability, in some text that wasn't clearly sourced to begin with. Before the refs were combined, the text was:
  - The first issue of Punk was published in December 1975, and immediately tied together earlier influences such as Lou Reed, the Stooges, and the New York Dolls, with an array of new bands centering around the CBGB^[1] and Max's Kansas city^[2] venues: the Ramones, Television, Talking Heads, The Heartbreakers, Blondie, and others.^[3] ...
- so each piece of the sentence was separately sourced, and is now run together. But, the first (BBC) source doesn't appear to verify the text it is sourcing; by combining all of the refs into one, an individual piece that doesn't seem to be sourced is obfuscated, and we now have to look at three sources to find the text. Do you know where the text supporting the first part of the sentence is? I saw several examples like this in the text, so we need to doublecheck a few refs, and perhaps move them back to individual facts they were sourcing. The changes came from here; the original BBC text needs to be figured out, and the refs should probably go back to verifying each piece of text separately.

Sentence split. Specific source given for initial publication date. Sourcing improved.—DCGeist 02:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are some other edits which warrant checking, where refs look to be lost or combined: [9]. Refs were combined here, also adding new text, the latter taking its name from a Minor Threat song - does that come from Sabin?

Sourcing changed to best available on topic.—DCGeist 02:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Does Savage 440 say hardcore developed on both sides of the country (the ref was moved to the end of the sentence, so it looks like it is now citing text it wasn't citing before)? Similar here; refs were moved, so it's not clear if text was incorrectly cited before, or is incorrectly sourced now - can you verify vs. refs ??

Looks ORish, sounds like opinion, needs a cite: In its noisy, fun-loving way, pop punk bridged the divide. Perhaps this is supported by Reynolds, p. xvii; can you check?

Quote substituted, cited.—DCGeist 02:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm close to a Keep - if you have the books, perhaps just a quick perusal of the refs that got moved around will suffice. In general, since a lot of text was rewritten and sources were moved and combined, a run-through of the article making sure that refs are still sourcing the text they are attached to is in order before passing this one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Whew. Over 60s edits since I had last looked at the page!

Sandy, thanks for taking the time on this. I have hard copies of most of the books (and two are from an online library); and judging from his work this morning, so does DCGeist. The article has improved greatly since I left it last night, but I need to give a run back over some of the older refs, read up on "Main" templates", and check on the acceptability of the sound files. This I can do tonight and tomorrow night. + Ceoil 11:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, have another look at the concerns I raised above as to running though one more time on the prose and cites needed - the two examples I gave were only samples from the bottom of the article - entire article should be checked for similar. If we can get Tony to look at the music sample issue, we should be able to wrap this up. I'll add this to the urgents list, to get others to look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, the rearrangement of image/sound files in the New York section is better on both of my screen sizes: would it be possible to do similar in other sections? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Another question: not being familiar with the lingo, why is New Wave capitalized, while other similar terms (Punk rock, Pop rock etc.) aren't? Wondering about WP:MSH and section headings, but saw New Wave capitalized throughout - pls educate me? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Good question, it's almost always capitalized, while punk rock sometimes is, and sometimes isn't. Anyone know? KP Botany 17:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that because its origionally an art phrase, and art movements tend to be capitalised in general (Art Nouveau, Magic Realism, Color Field etc). Also, strictly speaking its 'the New Wave', rather than 'New Wave'; if that makes any sense.

I accept Sandy's point that the issue noted above are examples only; have printed the article, ticking each one off individally. However, most of the inserted text that led to the refs being undermined was valid, and greatly added to the quality of the article; just need to go back to the sources and back it up. + Ceoil 19:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, darn, I came over to see if I could add a Keep yet, and found a new problem. A new Reynolds source was just added to the References section [10], without adjusting all the footnotes to account for there now being two Reynolds sources. (Lesson learned; always use year on sources, even if there's only one.) Now every Reynolds footnote needs to be sorted out as Reynolds (1999), p. no. or Reynolds (2005), p. no. I am going to be traveling soon: if I'm not able to get back to this article, pls consider me a Keep once all of these recent changes to refs are sorted out - someone now needs to check and edit every Reynolds source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to worry. All book refs will be styled to best Wikipedia standards.—DCGeist 21:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, All concerns have been met. + Ceoil 19:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, excellent job Ceoil - you've taken a "brilliant prose" promotion and turned it into an FA that can be held up as an example to others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed status

The article was removed 16:09, 1 February 2007.

[edit] Illmatic

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Chubdub and Albums. Sandy (Talk) 22:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculously high volume of quotations, both inline and blocked off—in terms of word count, about 50% of the article is made up of quotations. A related problem is the poor writing quality. Liberal use of unfree images—I see 15 out of 18 that should be removed. Lead contains unique information regarding record sales. Punctured Bicycle 23:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I have some problems with the linkages in this article. It's a black and blue mess. "guest appearance" is linked to List of hip hop collaborations, "masterpiece" to Magnum opus (not usable for debut album--it has to be part of a body of work!, "influential" to Seminal work for a 1994 album for a music genre that had almost a few decades on it (maybe East Coast hip hop, but all of hip hop?), "underground circuit" to Alternative hip hop (call it that if that's what it is). "RIAA" should not be abbreviated the first time. Repeat "producer" in this line "The origins of Illmatic lie in Nas' ties with Large Professor," since he's rather awkwardly introduced as the producer in the introduction. The quotes are poorly used and, rather than adding information for the reader, serve mostly to disrupt the flow of the text. This is not an article on an obscure topic, which might require simply quoting from one of the limited few texts available. It's really got to be redone. KP Botany 03:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I am also seriously concerned about a copyright violation from Wikipedia with so much material taken directly from a single source. KP Botany 03:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Too many quotes (see WP:QUOTE for guidelines), footnotes aren't correctly formatted. Sandy (Talk) 10:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Abuse of fair use images (fair use reduce: Image:NasIllmatic.jpg, Image:Illmaticbackcover.jpg; No fair use rationale: Image:Illmaticbackcover.jpg, Image:Nas making illmatic.jpg, Image:Illmaticcdpic.jpg, Image:Nas2.jpg, Image:Intv.jpg, Image:114000952m.jpg, Image:4908.jpg, Image:Nas worldisyo 101b.jpg, Image:COLUX64712.jpg, Image:Nashalftime.jpg, Image:Nasitainthardtotell.jpg, Image:Onelove.jpg, Image:Nastheworldisyours1.jpg, Image:Nastheworldisyours2.jpg, Image:Pic small 170.jpg; to be deleted: Image:090104.jpg). Extensive quotes from a single source, it can be considered a problem per the text section of our Fair use guideline. Lyrics sites are usually discouraged, as they break copyright. The Music videos and Singles can have their images removed, as they are used as decoration (8th point of our Fair use criteria). -- ReyBrujo 03:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Just to be clear, extensive quoting is not only problematic for copyright reasons, but it also makes the writing less compelling. "The overuse of quotations can drown out your voice and leave the reader wondering what happened to you—the writer."[11] Overuse of block quotes is especially discouraged because readers will get bored and simply skip over them. Punctured Bicycle 09:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment I deleted 4 of the 6! quotes of large section of text from one short journal article, as almost entire article was directly quotes. Properly attributed, but unlikely within fair use for article not in the Public Domain. I deleted the single cover images from the article. Nobody working on the article has commented, which is a shame, because someone did some serious work, initially, to put together a good article. KP Botany 20:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment I just removed the quotes section, I'll try to help to keep it's FA status but Chubdub is a better expert on the subject. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Move to FARC, external jumps, accolades uncited (probably more cite needs in text, haven't checked). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep I'll cite the accolades Chubdub 10:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are writing quality (1a) and images (3). Marskell 11:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Some work has been but no consensus to close early. Marskell 11:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove per Sandy's concerns. LuciferMorgan 02:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove. External jumps throughout the text, ratings and other info still uncited, incorrectly formatted footnotes; still very quote heavy with little content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 06:27, 29 January 2007.

[edit] LSD

[edit] Review commentary

LSD was a "brilliant prose" promotion - no original author. Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants. Sandy (Talk) 20:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

LSD needs review for many reasons.

It has a massive external link farm that needs pruning (see WP:EL and WP:NOT); See also needs pruning as well, with relevant entries incorporated into the text, and articles that are already in the text deleted from See also.
Many of the References (Footnotes) are not properly formatted, some are missing completely, some are missing basic info, some are missing last access date, and journal-published articles should have PMIDs. There are numerous citation needed tags, and many more that could be added - the article has many facts which are not cited.
The article is replete with uncited text and weasle words (example: Debate continues over the nature and causes of chronic flashbacks. Some say HPPD is a manifestation of post-traumatic stress disorder, not related to the direct action of LSD on brain chemistry, and vary according to the susceptibility of the individual to the disorder. Many emotionally intense experiences can lead to flashbacks when a person is reminded acutely of the original experience. However, not all published case reports of chronic flashbacks appear to describe an anxious hyper-vigilant state reminiscent of post-traumatic stress disorder.) Sandy (Talk) 20:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. Move to FARC. KazakhPol 18:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  
  KazahkPol, we have at least a two-week review period before we move to FARC - hopefully problems will be addressed in that time. Then we have at least another two weeks in FARC, when people can vote to Keep or Remove, and improvements can still happen. Sandy (Talk) 18:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I was, coincidentally, about to nominate this very article for review. My main reason was that references are skimpy: many statements of fact are made without one. --Oldak Quill 12:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Move to FARC, many edits, little improvement since nom (diff). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns citations (1c), formatting (2), POV (1d). Marskell 11:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove per Sandy's concerns. LuciferMorgan 02:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove I cleaned up what I can in the article structure, but the article remains massively undercited and weasly, with no one apparently willing to work on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove I did some checks of the references and it was hit and miss... the one for the other names LSD is known as didn't confirm many of the ones our article claims. Chunks of US government text are used but not attributed, that's possibly plagiarism. Also many paragraphs full of non-trivial claims are not cited at all. Article really isn't that bad but it needs some TLC to meet modern FA standards. --W.marsh 21:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove per Sandy. Pity—it's quite well written. Tony 14:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 06:27, 29 January 2007.

[edit] History of Central Asia

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at SimonP, Central Asia, and History. Sandy (Talk) 23:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This is in need of a major update, as this does not appear to take into account the last seven years of Central Asian history, other than a brief mention of the color revolutions. Notable facts not mentioned in this article: Karimov is on the verge of launching Uzbekistan into a war with all his neighbors over land, Niyazov died, Kazakhstan is almost, and may already be, a majority Christian nation, the EITR terrorist organization is fighting for independence and the Islamicization of Turkestan, Kazakhstan has not done nuclear testing for years and no longer has nuclear weapons, the 2001 War in Afghanistan, India has gotten a military base - its first - in Tajikistan, construction of the BTC pipeline, discovery of petroleum fields in Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, and the AIDS accident that led to Dosayev's dismissal and is still claiming victims. KazakhPol 01:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You have to be careful about adding too many recent events to articles like this. This page has to cover several millenia of history, and already more than 10% is on just the last fifteen years. The ideal solution would be to create some sub-articles, such as has been done with most national history articles. A History of Central Asia since 1991 page would be able to cover the events you listed in proper detail. - SimonP 03:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

What an incredibly huge topic for a single article! However, regarding solely the reason for this proposed FAR, can't this information just be added in a section on the past 7 years? As it's an article about history, that it hasn't been updated with events of the past 7 years is only a current and remediable omission, not a failing of the entire article. Is there anything else wrong with the article, that should cause it to be reviewed as a FA? If this is not the case, how about a post, instead, on the WikiProject Central Asia board requesting this update, and on the talk page requesting this update? Or have you tried that? And ditto, SimonP's comments. The topic is just immense! The last 7 years are merely a blip. KP Botany 03:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with KazakhPol, the period since independence is the most densely packed with history of a regional and perhaps global scale since Chinggis Han, it's no longer a Soviet backwater or merely a pawn in the new Great Game, and deserves an update. Chris 03:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Fails 1c, largely uncited, mixed reference styles, footnotes that are provided aren't formatted correctly. Sandy (Talk) 10:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment. "Since 1991" is tragic!!! It completely fails to grasp the current momentum of events! It generalizes and fails to give the appropriate infos. Terrible! What about the internal tensions in all these countries? The challenges these totalitarian regimes faced? The role of Russia and its antagonism with USA? The efforts of Russia to control the natural sources (petroleum and natural gas) in this area, which is the true essence of a hypogeous energy war? Anyway ... I think this article treats a very interesting topic. It actually looks like a challenge to try and save it. I might give it a shot but I promise nothing. First, I'll do some search to see what I can do with citing and then we'll see. In case I undertake the task to save this article, I definitely need somebody to copy-edit.--Yannismarou 18:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Would not pass 1a or 1c in the FAC room. Here are random examples of why this needs a thorough copye-edit throughout.
- Opening: "The history of Central Asia has been determined primarily by the area's climate and geography. The aridity of the region makes agriculture difficult, and its distance from the sea cut it off from much trade." Great concepts, but clash of tenses ("has been determined" vs simple past "cut").
- "Turkic expansion begain in the 6th century, and following the Göktürk emipre,..." Typo, and do you mean "following the fall of the G empire"? That would be more nutural.
- Audit the whole thing for commas; one is definitely missing here: "One of those powers, the Parthian Empire was of Central Asian origin, but adopted Persian cultural traditions." And here: "With no cities and little wealth other than the herds they brought with them the nomads had nothing ...".
- Overlinked. Why "16th century", "firearms", genetics, and "chariots"? Please don't distract the readers with unfocused links. (Yet "wheat" is quite focused as a link, unusually.) Needs to ration the blue speckling.
- Seriously under-referenced. Tony 05:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Move to FARC, no edits since Tony's review. Yannis has done some work on the article, but refs are still incorrectly formatted, mixed referencing styles, and undercited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Move to FARC per SandyGeorgia. KazakhPol 02:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is non-up-to-date coverage. Marskell 11:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment and remove. I don't think I have the time to work from scratch on the article. I'm sorry, but as it is now it is under FA status. Maybe we'll be able to re-nominate it in FAc within the next months.--Yannismarou 21:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove KazakhPol 21:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove Insufficient citations. LuciferMorgan 02:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 16:42, 27 January 2007.

[edit] WGA screenwriting credit system

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Filmmaking and PedanticallySpeaking. Gzkn 07:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

No inline citations at all, even though there are many direct quotes. Lead is probably inadequate (three sentences). However, there is a list of References, so hopefully this one can be saved. Gzkn 07:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I agree with Gzkn. No inline citations, the "examples" section should probably be prosified (and even then there might be too many examples), the picture lacks a fair use rationale (I'm not even sure if its use in the article counts as fair use), and the points that Gzkn raised. If the references are revisited by someone who has access to them and converted to inline cites, then that would be a big step forward. Green451 02:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Move to FARC, two edits since nom, no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c) and LEAD (2a). Marskell 21:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove Needs inline citations. LuciferMorgan 02:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove seriously undercited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 11:56, 26 January 2007.

[edit] English poetry

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Filiocht, Seglea and Poetry. Sandy (Talk) 22:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm listing this article for review because I don't believe it satisfies the following criteria of WP:WIAFA:

1a. The prose is too choppy and listy to be considered as "compelling" or "brilliant". Short paragraphs ruin flow.
1c. There are no inline citations and only one book is referenced; English poetry must be the single easiest topic to reference in the world.

Seegoon 21:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment.The article should use summary style for many of the sections. It starts off doing that with its first section and then it's not used again. Much more can be written on many of these sections such as the Metaphysical poets. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 01:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Help! - I've started making some changes, and while there is much good here, and I think the stylistic issues will not be too difficult to solve, this isn't my area of expertise and some help would be appreciated. Sam 00:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Status? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have done some edits, but honestly think less of this article the more I work on it. It's not bad, but not something I would push for FA in its current state. Many of the later sections have very little substance, other than to cite to various schools active in a period and list many of the poets from the time. A number of places display rather strong POV as to the relative merit of different poets, without giving sufficient insight into why the favored poets are important (the POV likely is not far from the prevailing POV generally, but it is still POV). I plan to keep chugging away, little by little, to improve it, but will not be committing sufficient time of my own to salvage it's FA status over the next couple of weeks. Sam 02:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are writing (1a) and citations (1c). Marskell 21:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove; in addition to those concerns cited above, it's also extremely vague, and the rapid-fire approach to literary history is both stylistically unsatisfying and results in lack of accuracy (Shepheardes Calender the first English pastoral? no, but to adequately explain the status of the genre in the 16th century would take, oh, its own article). It is of course almost impossible to write a decent article on a subject this broad; poetry was removed from FA for similar reasons a while back. This should probably be a summary-style article with {{main}}-article links, modeled on history of science. Chick Bowen 03:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove Insufficient inline citations. LuciferMorgan 02:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove per Chick Bowen, Seegoon and Ganymead - unfortunately, no one is working on correcting the deficiencies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 15:19, 25 January 2007.

[edit] Battle of Leyte Gulf

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Gdr, Raul654, MilHist and Japan. Sandy (Talk) 22:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

An older FA, has no inline citations and has a cleanup tag on top, needs alot of work Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Needs inline citations. LuciferMorgan 13:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Expand the lead section, and adjust it to a more encyclopedic tone. Incline citation is a must! AQu01rius (User • Talk) 05:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Move to FARC. Mostly uncited, cleanup tag, and citation needed tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Move to FARC. Per reasons given by SandyGeorgia. Buckshot06 21:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is lack of citations (1c) and general clean-up (2). Marskell 21:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove Needs in-line citations.UberCryxic 23:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove per my nomination Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove. Per Jaranda.--Yannismarou 21:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove per above. LuciferMorgan 02:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 20:34, 24 January 2007.

[edit] Central processing unit

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Wackymacs, Video games, Computing, Computer science, and Arcade games. Sandy (Talk) 23:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Fails criteria 1c. Practically nothing in this article is referenced; how are we to know that anything it claims is correct? The refs situation should be improved. -- mattb @ 2006-12-14T21:15Z

A very brief look at the article makes it seem that much of the article consists of summaries of the relevant articles. I don't think summary style requires the references be re-cited in the summary. -- SilverStar ★ 23:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to relist all the of the references, but any statement that would otherwise require an inline citation should still have one. Jay32183 01:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, the daughter articles aren't referenced either. Sandy (Talk) 06:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It requires inline citations if it wants to keep its FA status. LuciferMorgan 01:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless someone here wants to take up that task, it won't happen. I wrote this article and have little intention of adding an inline reference to every third sentence. I feel that the current dogmatic interpretation of WP:V as far as FA standards are concerned is, frankly, ridiculous. I just wanted to nominate this for de-listing myself before someone else got around to it. -- mattb @ 2006-12-15T03:25Z

You probably could have taken it to WP:ARD. Those guys are pretty good at getting inline citations. Jay32183 03:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Needs more citations to support statements and facts throughout the article in all sections. At its current status, this article doesn't live up to current FA standards being met by many other featured articles. — Wackymacs 08:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is lack of citations (1c). Marskell 07:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove Insufficient citations. LuciferMorgan 02:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem with external links, see also, references, and referencing - is anyone working on this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- See above. -- mattb @ 2007-01-23T23:16Z

Nobody is working on the article - the FAR nominator and original FA nominator are one and the same. LuciferMorgan 00:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 07:41, 23 January 2007.

[edit] Regular polytope

[edit] Review commentary

I have notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics / Fred-Chess 22:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Message left at Mike40033. Sandy (Talk) 23:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This article has the same problem as some other older Math FA:s -- they do not contain any inline references. I hereby make a test to see whether Wikipedia's increased demands for FA apply to those articles. I understand that articles on Math are often not perceived as requiring inline citations to such a great extent, but this article contains large sections of history that I think would need inline citations in any other article. Even Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines now recomends inline references, even if they appear to be of a different kind than for other articles. / Fred-Chess 22:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The structure of this article (Layout, MOS, External links, See also, etc.) looks very clean relative to some of the older FAs that come through, and the article looks to be in good shape. The References could benefit from having ISBNs added to the books, and the online reference (Haeckel) should be fully expanded and include a last access date. There are some external jumps (imbedded links) which should be fixed. It looks like adequate reference sources are given so that citing the article shouldn't be too difficult, and there are some inline, Harvard style refs already in place. This article should be salvageable, but I'd sure hate to the one who had to work on it over the holidays :-) Sandy (Talk) 23:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems to have a fair number of Harvard style inline cites, I count 17 in the text. --Salix alba (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, *embarrassed* , I notice that it used the Harvard referencing. I withdraw my objections. / Fred-Chess 23:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be withdrawn: with a minimum amount of work, it could be a nice Save/Keep. There were Harvard citations, but not thorough or complete (I've now converted them to cite.php .) The external jumps and inline URLs need to be dealt with, and there are still some statements that do need to be cited. If anyone is willing to work on it, I can add cite tags. Also, some of the inlines that were there aren't specific (page nos). There are also some minor prose issues which should be cleared up (example: "Cayley gave them English names which have become accepted. They are: (Kepler's) the small stellated dodecahedron and great stellated dodecahedron, and (Poinsot's) the great icosahedron and great dodecahedron.") If someone could comb through it, it could be closed as a successful FAR. Sandy (Talk) 03:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I converted most of the external jumps to notes, and cleaned up See also, which contained articles already linked in the text. I saw a lot of copyediting needs in the article - unencylopedic commentary and sentence fragments - in addition to the statements needing citation. I hope someone else will comb through it - it's not in bad shape, but if we could complete the work, it can be taken off of the list of articles with citation needs. Sandy (Talk) 04:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You've been reverted.--Rmky87 20:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

They can use whatever style they want, but the article is still undercited, some of the references are incomplete, there are prose issues, and there are imbedded links to external websites (which should be either wikified or converted to a reference). And, since all of my work was reverted, the article now needs attention to wikilinking, consistency in capitalization of platonic, and See also cleanup (for articles already linked in the text). If someone reverted, the good news is that the article is not abandoned like most older FAs, and maybe the necessary cleanup, polishing and referencing will happen. Sandy (Talk) 06:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

List (entirely random - there's much more - these are samples only):

Fix blue link on Haeckel reference, and provide last access date.
It would be nice if the references had ISBNs
Platonic solids - sometimes capitalized, sometimes not, linked throughout the article, but then listed again in See also. (In other words, all Wikilinking should be reviewed.)
H. S. M. Coxeter and List of regular polytopes linked in article, yet re-listed in See also (I had corrected items like this, my changes were reverted).
History is largely uncited. The introduction to history could use some variety in the choice of words (wide and gradual): "The history of discovery of the regular polytopes can be characterised by a gradual broadening of widespread understanding of the term. Gradually, the term "regular polytope" has been given successively wider meaning, allowing more different geometric objects to be so labeled. With each widening, new geometric figures are uncovered — these new figures usually being completely unknown to previous generations."
(A sample of uncited, weasle words, as well as poor prose style, sending Wiki readers "elsewhere in the article") It may be argued, however, that the construction of this form was inspired by the pyritohedron (mentioned elsewhere in this article), as pyrite minerals are relatively abundant in that part of the world.
The entire next paragraph, beginning with "Preceding even the Etruscans" is uncited, contains an imbedded link to a room in a museum, and a throw-away sentence ("It is impossible to know why these objects were made, or how the sculptor gained the inspiration for them.")
(The next sentence in history is unreferenced, and weasly) There is no existing evidence that the Etruscans or ancient Scots had a mathematical understanding of the regular solids — nor is there any proof that they did not. The discovery of the three-dimensional polytopes, particularly of the simpler ones, is probably impossible to trace.
(This section is referenced, but a snake for the chopping.) Some authors (Sanford, 1930) credit Pythagoras (550 BC) with being familiar with the Platonic solids, whereas others indicate that he may only have been familiar with the tetrahedron, cube, and dodecahedron, crediting the discovery of the other two to Theaetetus (an Athenian), who in any case gave a mathematical description of all five (Van der Waerden, 1954), (Euclid, book XIII). H.S.M. Coxeter (Coxeter, 1948, Section 1.9) credits Plato (400 BC) with having made models of them, and mentions that one of the earlier Pythagoreans, Timaeus of Locri used all five in a correspondence between the polyhedra and the nature of the universe as it was then perceived - this correspondence is recorded in Plato's dialogue Timaeus.
(Moving further down in history, another throw-away, filler sentence.) More have been discovered since, and the story is not yet ended.
(Still in history, whose opinion is this?) The latter reference is probably the most comprehensive printed treatment of Schläfli's and similar results to date.
(Still in history - spot the redundancy) This concept may be easier for the reader to grasp if one considers the relationship of the cube and the hemicube.
(Moving out of history - interesting prose): (One could ask the same question about the polygons, of course.) ... The English word "construct" has the connotation of systematically building the thing constructed.
(Samples of unencylopedic, weasly prose, linking to external website): Some interesting fold-out nets of the cube, octahedron, dodecahedron and icosahedron are available here. ... In theory, almost any material may be used to construct regular polyhedra. Instructions for building origami models may be found here, for example. They may be carved out of wood, modeled out of wire, formed from stained glass. The imagination is the limit.

In short, Fred has no need to be embarrassed for nominating this article for review: references and prose need work throughout - these are samples only. Sandy (Talk) 06:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of Sandy's comments about the lack of citations and vague prose. I have a few additional comments.

Whenever the article claims that regular polytopes had a particular definition at some moment in time it should provide a reference to a source who uses or describes that definition. I doubt that the Greeks had any definition for the phrase regular polytope; the article implies that they did. What seems to be true is that the regular polytopes include the polygons and polyhedra known to the Greeks.
If this is a math article, it should be edited to meet the spirit of the scientific citation guidelines. In particular, the article does not explicitly point out a general reference, and many sources are omitted.
The references section should be edited to agree with the examples at WP:HARVARD.

CMummert 13:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Move to FARC, no significant change, little activity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria is lack of citations (1c). Marskell 19:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep I agree that the handful of historic speculations should be removed; in fact, I'll go remove them; but they are marginal to the article anyway. As for Coxeter's book: it is the standard work on the entire subject, and anything else which is uncited is almost certainly sourced there; this is therefore unlikely to be challenged by anyone who has actually looked at the listed sources: I would be surprized if most of them, taken at random, do not support this characterization. I see no other flaws that amount to lack of clear citation for challengeable assertions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- I removed some speculation. Both the discoveries in Tuscany and in Scotland are sourced; I left an assertion that the purpose or intent of non-functional prehistoric artifacts is unknowable, as both obvious and a useful reminder to our more non-conventional readers.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  - I suggest a thorough read of the article, and the list of issues discussed on review, most of which have not been addressed in any significant way. Your edit to one paragraph addressed a miniscule part of the list of issues. (And please don't tell me to do the work - I started on it, and my work was reverted.)
  - It shouldn't be too hard to clean up the See also, fix the wikilinking, and decide whether you all want to capitalize things like platonic solids or not - I already did that sort of work once, and my corrections were reverted - it's not really rocket science, but someone needs to do the work.
  - I'm wondering if the Math Project considers these to be samples of brilliant and compelling prose and good referencing worthy of FA status? I suggest that editors complaining about other areas of Wikipedia that count cites should at least read an article before defending it.
    - Brilliant and compelling - I don't believe Britannica or textbooks routinely send their readers to [1] to read up on topics. Also, 1b would indicate we shouldn't be sending our readers to external jumps anyway; for an article to be considered comprehensive, we should write the text ourselves and reference or link to it:
      - For example, the fold out nets mentioned in the previous section have higher-dimensional equivalents. Some of these may be viewed at [12].
    - Choppy, compelling and brilliant external jumps :
      - Such a tessellation forms an example of an infinite abstract regular polytope. An example may be seen at this page.
      - Other examples may be found on the web (see for example [13]).
    - Here are my two favorite examples of this article's encyclopedic, brilliant and compelling prose:
      - For a given polyhedron there may be many fold-out nets. For example, there are 11 for the cube, and over 900000 for the dodecahedron. Some interesting fold-out nets of the cube, octahedron, dodecahedron and icosahedron are available here. (Reminder to check WP:MOS for usage of commas in 900000.)
      - In theory, almost any material may be used to construct regular polyhedra. Instructions for building origami models may be found here, for example. They may be carved out of wood, modeled out of wire, formed from stained glass. The imagination is the limit.
    - Does this add to the wealth of encyclopedic knowledge on the topic (is it an advert?) Such models are occasionally found in science museums or mathematics departments of universities (such as that of the Université Libre de Bruxelles).
    - Encyclopedic tone? In this way, we can see (if not fully grasp) the full four-dimensional structure of the four-dimensional regular polytopes, via such cutaway cross sections. and One might even imagine building a model of this fold-out net, as one draws a polyhedron's fold-out net on a piece of paper. Sadly, we could never do the necessary folding of the 3-dimensional structure to obtain the 4-dimensional polytope, because of the constraints of the physical universe.
    - Choppy prose The outer protein shells of many viruses form regular polyhedra. For example, HIV is enclosed in a regular icosahedron.
    - Hypothesized sounds weasly, should say by whom Although C60, the most easily produced fullerene, looks more or less spherical, some of the larger varieties (such as C240, C480 and C960) are hypothesised to take on the form of slightly rounded icosahedra, a few nanometres across.
    - "As an aside"? (Entire paragraph uncited as well.) As an aside: In ancient times the Pythagoreans believed that there was a harmony between the regular polyhedra and the orbits of the planets.
    - Compelling, and truly encyclopedic prose: Kepler's work, and the discovery since that time of Uranus, Neptune and Pluto, have thrown the Pythagorean idea well and truly into the dustbins of scientific history.
    - More compelling brilliant prose - the world of minerals? In the world of minerals, crystals often have faces which are triangular, square or hexagonal.
    - "Fascinating" is encyclopedic prose? Another fascinating example of regular polygons occurring as a result of geological processes may be seen at the Giant's Causeway in Ireland, or at the Devil's Postpile in California, where the cooling of lava has formed areas of tightly packed hexagonal columns of basalt.
    - Honeycomb is "famous"? The most famous hexagons in nature are ...
    - Passive voice, missing punctuation, then a snake, followed by choppy prose. There also exist animals who themselves take the approximate form of regular polygons (or at least have the same symmetry) for example starfish and sometimes other echinoderms (such as sea urchins) display the symmetry of a pentagon or sometimes other polygons (such as the heptagon). In fact, echinoderms do not display exact radial symmetry. However, Jellyfish and Comb jellies do, usually fourfold (like the square) or eightfold.
    - More brilliant prose, a type, and choppy parenthetical writing: Moving off earth into space, early mathematicians doing calculations using Newton's law of gravitation discovered that if two bodies (such as the sun and the earth) are orbiting one another, there exist certain points in space where a smaller body (such as an asteroid or a space station)will remain in a stable orbit, following (for example) the earth but never catching up or falling behind.
    - Choppy, disjointed prose. These points are called Lagrangian points. The sun-earth system has five Lagrangian points. The two most stable are exactly 60 degrees ahead and behind the earth in its orbit. That is, joining the centre of the sun and the earth and one of these stable Lagrangian points forms an equilateral triangle. Astronomers have already found asteroids at these points.
    - Brilliant. Cite needed on weasle, and an exclamation point to round out the encyclopedic tone. It is still debated whether it is practical to keep a space station at the Lagrangian point — although it would never need course corrections, it would have to frequently dodge the asteroids that are already present there! (Already there are satellites and space observatories at the less stable Lagrangian points, which do not form the point of an equilateral triangle with the earth and the sun.)
    - Of course - I encounter "of course" all the time in encyclopedias and textbooks. Of course reasonably accurate approximations can be constructed by a range of methods; while theoretically possible constructions may be impractical.
      - Sandy may or may not; but I read mathematical scholarship, and I do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  - That's only a few sections at the bottom. Rather than continue, I'll skip back to the top to see if it has improved yet.
    - I see we still have this piece of gradual-broad-wide-gradual-wide-wide brilliance: The history of discovery of the regular polytopes can be characterised by a gradual broadening of widespread understanding of the term. Gradually, the term "regular polytope" has been given successively wider meaning, allowing more different geometric objects to be so labeled. With each widening, new geometric figures are uncovered — these new figures usually being completely unknown to previous generations.
  - I'll stop there. Please fix the prose, finish referencing, correct the wikilinking and ce issues, and remove the external jumps. Per 1b, please wikify text, and link to it internally or via references. Is this really work the Math Project is proud of and wants to display as an example of Wikipedia's best work in Math? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    - I am tempted to conclude from this that the complaint of lack of citation is withdrawn, since no examples are specified. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
      - Several examples were given during the review: I haven't yet re-checked to see if those are resolved or if there are others - was waiting for some progress on the article before rechecking everything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC) PS - And, I gave two more examples in this list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment -- the concerns presented above seem to me to have varying degrees of validity, as far as the featured status of the article goes. I've corrected some issues and will try to undertake some more; however, some of Sandy's complaints I don't quite see the thrust of (honeycombs aren't famous?; what's wrong with fascinating; etc.) And the external jumps, though I haven't checked them all, appear to be useful and quite valuable. Although we may have to agree to disagree on that. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- External jumps discussed at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Monty Hall problem (Curiously silent section). It's not that the info in the jumps isn't useful or shouldn't be included: if it should be included, and it's not Wikified, that argues against 1b. We can either Wikify the content (per 1b), or discuss the content, linking to the external site as a reference (WP:NOT and WP:EL), or if we simply must include an external jump in text (e.g.; copyright reasons, and we truly can't write it ourselves), at least the text should conform to 1a, good prose. "Fascinating" is editorializing, not encyclopedic prose, and I can't really add more to the honeycombs as "famous" issue. :-) It would be helpful if the Math Project would get a topnotch copyeditor on board, because neither of these two articles on review are difficult mathmatically; yet, the prose is making the topics appear difficult. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  - None of the material that is linked to should be included in this article, as far as I can tell; however it is information that may be helpful to someone who is interested in further examination of the particular topic being discussed. If someone wants to create a new article on Wikipedia about the topic, that would be great, and we could link to that article instead. Until that happens, the external link is the best choice; either way, whether or not that other article has been written shouldn't impact whether this article is featured. If you feel that the text surrounding those links is not good prose, please suggest an alternative. It seems fine to me. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Went back to check only on External jumps (haven't yet checked to see if the extensive list of other problems has been addressed):

Examples of these stones are on display in the John Evans room of the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford University. It is impossible to know why these objects were made, or how the sculptor gained the inspiration for them.
- This text adds nothing to the topic. The second throw-away sentence is still there. Since the link is dead, I'm wondering what value you find in the external jump? I looked it up in the internet archive, and even if the link were live, it adds nothing to the topic. [14] The second sentence is a throw-away sentence. I can see no justification for this jump.
  - The link is dead. Obviously it should be removed. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Euclid's elements (see for example Euclid's Elements) gave what amount to ruler-and-compass constructions for the five Platonic solids.
- Euclid's elements followed by see Euclid's elements is not good prose. The page demonstrates nothing; it's a collection of links. Editors should write whatever it is they're intending to convey with that link, and use it as a reference. Fails 1a and 1b.
  - The page is the index for directions, accompanied by vector graphics, of the construction of each of the five solids. Obviously these instructions should not be included in the article, but I think they may well be of interest to the reader. I've clarified the prose to indicate what sort of examples are indicated. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
In theory, almost any material may be used to construct regular polyhedra. Instructions for building origami models may be found here, for example. They may be carved out of wood, modeled out of wire, formed from stained glass. The imagination is the limit.
- Again, throw-away, speculative sentence still here, no progress apparent in this article. Instructions for building origami models should be found in an origami article - there is no need for an external jump here, and the prose is not unencyclopedic. Would you expect to find "may be found here" when reading the article in hard print? We put external jumps in External links for a reason.
  - Obviously there are many things here that I would not expect to find in a print encyclopedia; in print the link would have to be expanded to include the full URL. Putting this link at the end of the article wouldn't make much sense given that it applies to this sentence in particular. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Other examples may be found on the web (see for example [15]).
- Not defensible. See [4] isn't good prose; we don't need to link out for examples - we can do that in External links or a Wiki article on orthorgraphic projections.
Coxeter's famous book on polytopes (Coxeter, 1948) has some examples of such orthographic projections. Other examples may be found on the web (see for example [16]). Note that immersing the 4-dimensional objects directly into two dimensions is quite confusing.
- Please don't tell readers what to note. "Famous" is unencylopedic. Some is redundant. Other examples can be included in External links. See [2] fails 1a. Quite is redundant. Again, the math here isn't the issue: it's the tortured prose and the insistence on the use of external jumps and convoluted referencing that makes the math appear harder than need be. Write plain text, reference it to coxeter and the external site, add the external site to the refs section.
  - This link is a good candidate to be moved to the external links section, since it has general relevance. As far as your comments on the prose go, I don't see what's unencyclopedic about "famous" (the book is indeed famous). Christopher Parham (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The mathematics department at UIUC has a number of pictures of what one would see if embedded in a tessellation of hyperbolic space with dodecahedra. Such a tessellation forms an example of an infinite abstract regular polytope. An example may be seen at this page.
- What is this section doing (or trying to do); it adds nothing but an advert for Champaign-Urbana. Why does the reader care about the Math dept at UIUC? Write the text without referring to the math department, say it simply, reference the site inline with a link in refs.
I could go on - but I can see that nothing has yet been done to bring the article to standard. It fails 1a, and probably still 1b and 1c as well. The problem here is not only the lack of citations (of which there is still plenty in this article); it's the poor prose making the math appear harder than need be, made even more difficult by too much of the prose being about the source, rather than using the source only to reference facts. It's time to stop waving arms about citations and assuming others don't understand the math: this article is simply poorly written. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Generally, links like these need to be evaluated on an individual basis. But certainly I think your standards for inclusion are unreasonably narrow. As far as the article needing a copyedit, I don't disagree; if I get a chance to do it to my satisfaction, I will. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove Insufficient inline citations. LuciferMorgan 02:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove as per Lucifer. And it's not well written at all. When the citations issue is addressed, consider asking the LoC.
- "because they do not have plane faces"—Just "lack". It's a complicated topic for non-experts, so attention to clear, plain expression is essential.
- Please don't use "indeed" in an encyclopedic register. What does it mean?
- "Overall, however, the history of the study of regular polytopes has been one where the definition has been steadily generalised, allowing more and more objects to be considered among their number." At first glance, elegant. A few seconds later, you realise that it's flabby. Be straight, plain and concise for us poor dummies. Remove the thematic equative "the history [equals] one where ...". "Among their number" is redundant, as is "of the study". Try: "Since Euclid, the definition of regular polytopes has been gradually expanded to include more objects." How simple is that, now?

These examples from the top indicate that the whole text requires careful attention by fresh eyes.Tony 00:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Remove. Long list of unaddressed problems, including 1a - prose, 1b - comprehensive, 1c - citations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SandyGeorgia (talk • contribs).
Remove - Citation problems remain unaddressed. Jeffpw 15:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 22:24, 21 January 2007.

[edit] Ryanair

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at CGorman, Ireland and Airlines. Sandy (Talk) 02:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ryanair has deteriorated since its promotion. It contains external jumps (embedded links), mixed referencing styles (some inline links, some cite.php), uncompleted footnotes (URL links only), several cite tags (many more needed), and weasle words ("He is said to have a pugnacious and aggressive management style, using a flat management hierarchy.^{[citation needed]} The largest section of the article is Criticism, raising POV concerns. The article needs to be thoroughly cited, cleaned up, and reviewed for balance. Sandy (Talk) 02:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Sandy's nomination is a good summary of what's wrong in the article. LuciferMorgan 02:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment As concerns balance, it needs sources in Ryanair's favour, but good luck in that endeavour. Ryanair has come under fire from tons of critics, while the only sources in their favour have usually been the airline themselves. The article aside, Ryanair's poor reputation is justified. LuciferMorgan 14:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Further comment I addressed some of the external jumps, which I hope has helped, if only a little. LuciferMorgan 17:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Wow! "Disguising fares as surcharges" is one of the worst sections I've ever seen! This article needs rewriting and restructuring. Major effort needed here. And the lack of an active main editor is obvious.--Yannismarou 21:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The reference to a "duopoly" on London-Ireland in 1985 is not correct. Dan-Air London flew regular scheduled services between London-Gatwick and Cork throughout the mid-eighties.

Move to FARC, almost no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are format and sufficiency of citations (1c), POV (1d). Marskell 09:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove Insufficient citations. LuciferMorgan 20:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove as per Lucifer. It needs a copy-edit, too. For example, in the first paragraph:
- "However" in the second sentence is a false contrast.
- "It"—spell out the referent here.
- "Over the years"—Not my favourite chronologically precise item. Not encyclopedic.
- "running at remarkable margins by passing its costs directly to its customers."—"Remarkable" is a problem in terms of precision and POV. I'm unsure of the justification provided; ultimately, customers almost always directly pay the costs.
- "praised and criticised in equal measure"—What, exactly equal? Measured how? This is weasley, whereas we need to be taken seriously as a source of solid information. Tony 23:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 22:24, 21 January 2007.

[edit] Cladistics

[edit] Review commentary

Promoted as "brilliant prose". Message left at Evolutionary biology. Gzkn 07:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Additional messages at Amphibians and Reptiles, Gastropods, Molecular and Cellular Biology, Aranae, Opabinia regalis, and Samsara. Sandy (Talk) 23:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe this article does not meet 1(c), 2(a), 2(c) and 4 sections of FA requirements.--Crzy cheetah 06:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment To Make Things Easier, these are the specific points:

1(c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations (see verifiability and reliable sources); this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations. See citing sources for information on when and how extensively references are provided and for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.
2(a) a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections;
2(c) a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help).
4 is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

--Cody.Pope 17:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The article needs to be cited. With the effort of knowledgeable editors, this one should be salvageable. Sandy (Talk) 23:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are some suggestions to improve the article:

I think the distinction between cladistics and phenetics should be addressed a second time once plesiomorphic and apomorphic terms are introduced. Cladistics is interested in synapomorphies. Phenetics does not distinguish between the two. An example of how the two could come up with a different tree would also help.
I'm a bit unhappy with the discussion of what it means to be basal. I completely agree that usage of the term primarily refers to a taxon-poor clade that branches off early. I also think that the term gets used in reference to the ingroup, the taxon sampling, and the question being asked. For example, gibbons will commonly be said to be basal among the hominoids, yet there are 13 species of gibbons in four genera and only 7 species of great apes (also 4 genera). In this case, the research question usually being posed is really about a focus organism (us) and relationships among the gibbons is less important in that particular discussion. Bats and insectivorans are basal to the rest of the Laurasiatheria in spite of the fact that over 50% of described laurasiatherian species are bats and 20% are insectivorans. The research question is how are bats, insectivorans, carnivorans, pangolins, perissodactyls, and cetartiodactyls. From that perspective, bats and insectivorans to qualify as basal to the cetferungulates. Being "primitive" shouldn't qualify a group as basal (although it probably is used that way in some instances). Bats fly, echolocate, and look nothing like the ancestor of the Laurasiatheria.
The distinction between synapomorphy and autapomorphy should be clarified.
The second paragraph of the section titled "Cladistic methods" is confusing. Plesiomorphies were present in the last common ancestor of group discussed. Apomorphies arose subsequent to the last common ancestor of the group discussed. To say that an apomorphy was present in the last common ancestor of the ingroup is false. A synapomorphy was present in the last common ancestor of the clade it characterizes (and may have arisen anywhere along the branch leading to that clade). Autapomorphies are also a type of apomorphy and they weren't present in the last common ancestor of any two taxa in the analysis.
Eliminate the use of "we" in the 4th paragraph of the same section.
I think at least 50% of the field would consider maximum likelihood and Bayesian methods to be both Hennigian and cladistic. They are still constructed on the basis of synapomorphies, they just incorporate information about how characters evolve and attempt to incorporate the potential for additional evolution hidden in a final parsimony analysis. They are definitely not phenetic methods. I'm also amazed that there still isn't an article on maximum likelihood in phylogenetics.
The total evidence approach advocated in the 6th paragraph isn't universally accepted. I think it's safe to say that >50% of the field would agree, but there are those who argue that a little bit of quality data is better than a lot of noisy data or even a little bit of quality data + some noisy data. Most (but not all) do agree that data where homology is questionable should be excluded. That should be addressed in the paragraph as well and I'm not all that comfortable with the behavior example (without expansion and clarification) for that reason. That statement that molecular, morphological, etc. not are all equal is definitely an opinion and is definitely disputed. Homoplasy is more common in morphological data? Are we sure about that?
Paragraph 7. A small point, but cladistics does assume that evolution is bifurcating as opposed to hybridizing, reticulate, or having lateral transfer.
In my opinion, the "Cladistic classification" section can reasonably stay, but seesm to ramble on as if it was written by several editors who had differing opinions and tried to jump back and forth in such a way as to make it sum up to NPOV. I'm not happy with the notion that about half of the text of a featured article on cladistics is spent discussing the PhyloCode and Linnean hierarchy.
There is a subtle, but important philosophical difference between cladistics and parsimony. This article should address that clearly.
The "see also" is an odd list. It should have links to phenetics, parsimony, maximum likelihood (phylogenetics), maybe Bayesian (phylogenetics), as well as some of what's already there.

--Aranae 02:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

To address your last point only, all those terms are already linked in the body of the article, which is probably why they are not repeated. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Copied these suggestions to the talk page for easy reference. I hope someone besides me has an interest in working on this, because I know nothing about the morphological side of things. Opabinia regalis 03:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see this article rescued, but the chances of me doing any substantive work on it before the holidays are approaching zero - I haven't had the time to gather sources together and won't have any relevant books with me while I'm out of town next week. I don't really deal with FAR much - if this review period can be extended until early January, that would be great; if not, maybe it'll get a new star eventually. Opabinia regalis 06:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Status: able to do any work now Opabinia? Marskell 07:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

See this thread - after waffling a bit on this, I've concluded that my efforts alone would not be enough. The article as it stands has serious oversimplification problems and is not comprehensive, and cladistics is far enough outside my field that I don't have the necessary familiarity with the relevant literature to write a balanced and up-to-date article. (Also, I admit I don't like the subject very much :) I did leave a message for User:Felsenst, who is an expert on the subject and has previously expressed an interest in the article, but any work that might be done may not be in time for this FAR. As I said on my talk page, I'll try to make this article not suck, but that's not the same as bring to FA standard. Opabinia regalis 03:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have replied on User talk:Felsenst with a rant on what's wrong with the article. But what's right about the article is that, although quite muddled, it thus fairly reflects the field! My own views are highly controversial to most people who identify themselves as cladists, and are regarded as borderline-crackpot and dismissable. So I am not a good person to edit this article. Thanks for thinking of me, but ... Felsenst 13:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are factual accuracy (1a), citations (1c), LEAD (2a), TOC (2c), and focus (4). Marskell 09:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove, no improvement whatsoever. --Crzy cheetah 19:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove Needs inline citations still. LuciferMorgan 12:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove. Per above.--Yannismarou 18:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Tim, factual accuracy is Criterion 1c, I think (could be beautifully written rubbish!) Remove as per previous reviewers; really needs an expert or two. Tony 23:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 14:39, 20 January 2007.

[edit] Olympic Games

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Jeronimo and Sports Olympics. Sandy (Talk) 04:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The main reason I am nominating this article for FAR is not by far because I would like it delisted. I am an avid Olympics page editor, and I think that this page may be falling behind, and I would hate to lose it as a FA, as the Summer Olympics page did. I am looking to see what specifically could be changed, both content-wise and aesthetically, because I think that would help the page. I just saw that this page had never been listed as one of "Today's Featured Articles" and I was shocked, and that's what initiated this request. I hope to see some very helpful feedback that editors can look back on for guidance! → JARED ^(t) 21:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The article is well detailed, but needs lots more references. The article currently only has five, and only four inline citations which are "notes" (really references). Image:Larisa Latynina.jpg requires a fair use rationale. I only did a quick scan of the article, but at the moment, the above problems I noted are enough to get this article demoted from featured status (failing criteria 1c and 3). You probably could have also taken this to peer review as well and gotten quite a few responses, but I'm pretty sure listing it here is okay. Green451 21:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment. The article's problems are obvious from the lead. Three stubby paragraphs! The article is informative, but has no inline citations and some sections are too short and under-analyzed. I did not read it in full detail, but judging from the lead, I have the impression that the article may well need an overall copy-editing.--Yannismarou 19:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Move to FARC - nothing happening. Sandy (Talk) 01:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Now, wait a second, if you read my first comment above, you'd have known well that I just wished to gain some comments on how to fix up this page. I am unfamiliar with WP:FAR, so I had no idea that I had to be editing this page continuously before it was nominated for deletion. It was definitely on one of my things to do in this coming week; I was just waiting for this to close, but I guess it doesn't work that way. Anyway, for this reason, I request another week during which I will fix up the page before it is nominated again; I appologize for now knowing the happenings of this page. → JARED ^(t) 14:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Glad to hear there is an involved, concerned editor - please let us know if you need more detail on items to address, besides the obvious lack of citations and possible fair use on the images. Sometimes moving an article to FARC is the only thing that brings concerned editors out of the woodwork :-) Sandy (Talk) 22:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    - Thank you for your understanding! I'll get on that ASAP! → JARED ^(t) 23:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
      - Further remarks while JP continues his rewrting. I think the 4 pars in the lead are stubby. The problem with the stubby paragraphs is bigger in "Doping".--Yannismarou 17:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are references (1c), LEAD (2a), and stub paragraphs (2). Marskell 07:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: This has also received some work. Moving down as it's been up a while. Marskell 07:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

~~Oppose.~~ Keep. It is not necessary to remove this page from FA. It does require some work, which is being handled slowly but surely. Give it some time, and if no more work is made to fix it, without a doubt nominate it for removal. → JARED ^(t) 22:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the reviewers can wait. Are you actually working on the article? How much time do you need?--Yannismarou 18:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  - I don't think it's a matter of time. I think it's a matter of my doing it. And I'm doing it, but I'm only one person with other responsibilities. Here's what I suggest: this FARC should be removed from the page, which would take the pressure off of me for finishing the job. If you notice that the page still isn't up to par in a reasonable amount of time, bring this back here for removal. I just feel that pressure if being put on me personally because I am being sort of hounded to finish the job and I can't operate that way. I would appreciate your understanding! → JARED ^(t) 20:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Just letting you know, the usual window during FARC is two weeks. There's no pressure (yet). Also, the FARC process can be extended if there is progress being made on the article. Gzkn 10:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
      - I don't think the FARC can be removed now, but it can be extended per Gzkn. I think that people here show the adequate patience, when they see a user working on an article.--Yannismarou 08:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        OK, thank you both. → JARED ^(t) 11:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        Also, the lingo here is to Keep or Remove the featured status - you entered oppose on FARC (it's already in FARC), but I think you mean Keep - you might want to strike and change. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        Thanks, I should have known that.... → JARED ^(t) 21:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove—1a and 2a. The lead is scrappy, and its prose exemplifies a generally poor standard of writing throughout.

- First sentence: "comprised of"—what a blooper; it's "comprising" or "consisting of", which each carry slightly different meanings.
- "these ancient Games"—used generically, probably small g.
- Paragraphing in the lead is askew: 1896, then cross to next para for 1896.
- "Tremendously"—weasely.
- "World wild"—one word.
- "are constantly gaining more supporters"—Spot the redundant word.
- "the two sports of baseball and softball have been removed from the schedule of the following games"—Remove the first four words, since they're redundant. "Following" is unclear.
- Is the point about London really important enough to include in this small lead? Tony 08:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove Insufficient citations. LuciferMorgan 20:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Status. I've asked Jared if he has anymore to add to this. We'll wait a couple of days. Marskell 15:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Marskell and others, I would love to continue to work on this, and will continue doing so often, but other responsibilities, namely upcoming exams, will impede me from making the changes that are requested by this FARC. In the beginning I was only looking for suggestions, and it seems that I have gotten some. I recognize that the page is in an "on-the-fence" state right now, and so if the consensus here is to remove for the time being, I have no other option than to allow this article's delisting. I am certain that with time, this page will be back on the featured status list. I appreciate everyone's patience while I attempted to fix up the article! While I still urge for a keep, I realize that the page still needs some work. Thanks. → JARED ^(t) 22:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 19:42, 19 January 2007.

[edit] Tynwald Day

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Emsworth and Politics. Sandy (Talk) 01:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Good article, but lacking any inline citations. Also, a bit short, those who are interested might want to see if this topic can be expanded at all. Just a suggestion. Judgesurreal777 22:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

"a bit short"? What is missing? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a lot. I'll look at adding citations if nobody picks it up (the references section looks fairly comprehensive and I think Lord Emsworth is busy with the rotten boroughs) Yomangani ^talk 02:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm speaking from a position of ignorance, largely. As such (and this might place me in the majority of Wikipedia readers) the article leaves me with a sense of a tourist brochure. By this I mean that it describes what is going on, what is seen, but doesn't bother with "why."

Here are a few "for examples."

Why is it that this is the only ceremony at this site? If it is such an important cite packed with such meaning, why not conduct all of the business here?
Is everyone entirely united in their admiration of the ceremony and the historical appeals? Is there any dissent at all on the happy Isle, and does this dissent ever influence what happens on Tynwald Day? (And if there is such uniform happiness, why are the Manx so entirely different from every other people within a thousand miles!?!)
Has the ceremony been a rallying point for or against any significant event? Was it fought over? Why or why not?
Is it significant that the current Royal Family seem to show up more frequently than ever before? Does it seem like an honor for the good people of Man when the Royalty drop by, or is it more of a bother? If this is so important to this part of the Empire, why is it that royalty are not always presiding in person?
Do the people seem to respond to one historical era or another in an especially notable way? That is, from which eras are the ceremonies taken? Is all of the tradition, dress and speech as it would be at the time of the establishment of the Isle of Man? from the beginning of the Stuarts? or from a hodge podge of eras? Would a freeman from 1800 feel at home visiting the ceremony today?
This article seemed even more unfinished to me in that I had just been to the New York Times presentation which contained a moving and deep explanation of the curious custom of US Marines celebrating the "birthday of the corps." (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtml/2006/12/06/world/20061207_MEDIC_FEATURE.html)

The reason I mention it, and would encourage the editors of this article to visit, is that it does a good job of tying the ceremony into the present. It could, I suppose, just show the various quaint little traditions and rituals, but if it only did that it would be trivializing much of what is at the heart of a US marine. I'm a pacifist and believe we glorify war way too much, but was struck, and informed, with insight I had not before experienced.

Isn't this exactly what a great encyclopedia should do?

I guess I am expecting that this Tynwald Day celebration can function as a window into the culture, history and people of the Isle of Man. Yet the article as it now stands makes this event sound a bit like a tourist play--the archaic language and funny clothes make for a bit of drama in an otherwise mundane day.

I do sense there is something else there, that this Tynwald Day is not a fun piece of theatre put on for the tourists, that in order to truly understand the Manx, you must understand Tynwald Day. Is this the case? How could you explain that relevance to those of us who do not already know.

I'm not sure that a lot of additional "facts" are needed. To the contrary, many bits of information given (such as the history of the Gregorian calendar change and the possibility of including guests of honor) may be fruitfully left out, unless they contribute to our understanding of the Day.

I believe I am missing the reason for the facts that are given. This might be thought of as the difference between and encyclopedia and an almanac. The former explains, the latter lists.

I do hope this helps. Roy 04:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Move to FARC - not a single edit since nominated. Sandy (Talk) 01:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), and insufficient length (1b). Marskell 07:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove Lack of inline citations. LuciferMorgan 21:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove as per Lucifer. I've done my bit by alerting eight former contributors. But it's still a ghost town. Pity. Tony 08:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove issues not addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove. No citations.--Yannismarou 18:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 19:42, 19 January 2007.

[edit] Diego Velázquez

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at DanielNuyu, Bio and Spain. Sandy (Talk) 01:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Also Visual arts. Chick Bowen 02:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

My major problem is the lack of citations. Zero! Not even one!! Only some references with printed sources and sites, but no indication about the way they were used. Some further minor problems:

The lead is a bit problematic. For example:"His two visits to Italy while part of the Spanish court are well documented." Is this a proper phrase for the lead? The phrase could say that "Velázquez visited twice the Italy in the X and the Y year", but the documentation of the visit is an issue of analysis for the main article and not the lead.
"Selected works" is tagged, and this is an important issue for a FA. Personally, I believe that the section in question is incomplete.--Yannismarou 19:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment The headings don't conform to WP:MOS, but probably an easy fix. Jay32183 22:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Move to FARC - uncited. Sandy (Talk) 01:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), LEAD (2a), and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell 07:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove, unless my concerns are addressed.--Yannismarou 18:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove—Seriously under-referenced and poorly written. 1a, 2a and 1c. Tony 08:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove per above. LuciferMorgan 10:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 14:50, 18 January 2007.

[edit] Shakers

[edit] Review commentary

Talk messages left at Kingturtle, Religion, and Christianity. Sandy (Talk) 18:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This article seems to suffer from many of the same problems that a lot of the older featured articles have: its quality. It doesn't seem to cite many of its sources at all. This alone should merit its featured status being removed.--HisSpaceResearch 05:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment -- I've identified some problem images as well. Jkelly 19:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Insufficient inline citations. LuciferMorgan 07:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Move to FARC - still uncited, little improvement in article. Sandy (Talk) 01:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article is short on citations, but I disagree strongly with Rjensen's approach to that, which has been to delete entire sections that I'm pretty certain are completely accurate, and that I think provide useful background to understand where the Shakers fit into the history of dissenting Protestantism. - Jmabel | Talk 01:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are sources (1c), and images (3). Marskell 17:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove. Fails 1a and 2a.
- "The Shakers, a Protestant religious denomination, originated in Manchester, England in 1772 under the leadership of Mother Ann Lee, who moved the 9-person group to the United States in 1774, where they built 19 communal settlements that attracted over the next century some 200,000 converts." It's a bit of a winding track to open with. "9-person group", then "four". Spell out single-digit numbers unless there's a good reason not to. Relocate "over the next century".
- "Strict believers in celibacy, Shakers maintained their numbers through conversion and adoption of orphans." Add "the" before "orphans".
- "Turnover was very high; the group reached maximum size of about 6,000 full members in 1850, and now has four members left." "Turnover", as opposed to "recruitment", means the coming and going of members. Is that what you mean? It's rather sudden to stick the bit about only four members left into the same sentence, unexplained.
- This stubby second para is unnecessary, since there's a disambiguation note at the top: "The Shakers of New England should not be confused with the religion of the Indian Shakers of the Pacific Northwest of North America." It's an order, too, to our readers.
- The lead is quite inadequate.

Further down, I see at random:

- "where a unique communal life began to develop and thrive"—can't "began to" be removed?
- "so that men and women did everything separately"—Presumably they mated together, though. Inelegant and exaggerated statement.

I won't go further. Needs significant work. Tony 05:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove writing is sloppy and needs to be fact checked and cited; work does not seem to be happening. --Peta 22:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove as it is now. Uncited.--Yannismarou 08:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 14:50, 18 January 2007.

[edit] Convair B-36

[edit] Review commmentary

Messages left at aircraft, Military aviation task force, and MilHist Gzkn 11:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Additional message at Ingoolemo. Sandy (Talk) 04:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This article needs quite a bit of reworking to continue to be considered Featured. It is bloated, somewhat poorly written, and not particularly well referenced. The time has come to either rewrite it or revoke the status. Karl Dickman ^talk 11:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Lacks inline citations, none in the history section. The website references are not formatted properly, use {{cite web}} or similar. The lead is too short to adequately summarize the article. Jay32183 20:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Move to FARC short lead, mostly uncited, incorrectly formatted references, unaddressed. Sandy (Talk) 01:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are writing (1a), bloating (4), and citations (1c). Marskell 17:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove. Precious little has been done to improve this article. 1a and 2a are problems.
- "mass-produced"—US editors wouldn't hyphenate unless a double attributive.
- "Although there have been larger military aircraft, they have all been transports."—The last word seems informal, jargonistic or vague.
- "Prior to"—Why Latin, when "before" is perfectly good?
- Metric equivalents for 96% of the world's population?
- Stubby paragraphs.
It could be fixed, but where are the contributors? Tony 05:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove FA status per Marskell. Lacks citations (and the vast majority are other websites of various quality and verifiability), bloated, a lot of fluffy language. I went through and dropped {{fact}} tags. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 07:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove After comparing the article now to its state when it got FA status, I had to change my mind. The article now is bloated and not as well written. It would take a lot of work to fix it I think.Patrick Berry 16:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove per above. LuciferMorgan 10:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 14:50, 18 January 2007.

[edit] Octopus card

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left on related noticeboards of WP:CHINA, WP:HK and at Juntung -- Chez ^{(Discuss / Email)} 00:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Additional messages at Nurismatics. Sandy (Talk) 01:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC) and WT:HKWNB WP 11:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This article was featured way back in Feb 2005. It has been almost two years now, and while I was going through it, I thought, it needs a review and significant improvements based on current standards. I'll list some of which I feel, may be needed.

Individual paragraphs are very small. A decent copy editing will help.
Inline external links be removed and cite.php be used.
Although the article has a lot of valuable data and information, they have to be organised in a much better way.
There are a lot of stuff unnecessarily in parenthesis, which needs to be cleaned up.

Please feel free to add more comments if you've got any, to improve the article. -- Chez ^{(Discuss / Email)} 00:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments (Yikes, that's a long sig line). Inadequate citation, external jumps, sections headings don't conform to WP:MOS, mixed reference style, references are blue links which should be expanded, doesn't follow WP:LAYOUT, prose needs attention. Sandy (Talk) 01:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment, lacks of inline citations and sections are rather long. Suggest moving to FARC since I don't see much improvement. Ter e nc e Ong 08:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Move to FARC, unaddressed. Sandy (Talk) 01:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are stub paragraphs, organization, and focus (2), citation sufficiency and format (1c). Marskell 17:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove—Flabby writing. Here are a few examples from the top.
- "widely-used"—No hyphens after 'ly words.
- " not only for virtually all public transport in Hong Kong, but also for"—"not only ... but also" is such a tired expression, and an unnecessary marker here.
- "In addition,"—Every sentence is in addition; remove.
- "Some charities even accept Octopus cards to receive donations."—Replace "to receive" with "for".
- "Making a payment involves placing the card in close proximity to an Octopus card reader and a tone from the reader will confirm the merchant has received funds." Clumsy: "and" is awkward as a joiner here; "will" is doubtful; "that" required before "the merchant".
- "with approximate 14 million Octopus cards"—sloppy.
- "and other transport providers in Hong Kong such as KCR, KMB, and Citybus." The "such as" means there are some you're not telling us about. Is that the case?
- Seriously under-referenced.

Fast train to demotion. Tony 05:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove per long list of unaddressed problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove per above. LuciferMorgan 10:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 16:09, 15 January 2007.

[edit] Carlsbad Caverns National Park

[edit] Review commentary

~~"Brilliant prose" promotion.~~ Messages left at Geography and Protected areas. Sandy (Talk) 22:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Message has also been left at Bevo. Sandy (Talk) 01:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Much of the "Geology" and "Bats" sections, and some of the "History" section, is copied off of [17], which is copyrighted. Needless to say, the referencing is poor and the "Rooms" section is not very comprehensive. --Schzmo 16:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Needs inline cites, and the copyvio info removed. Once left with the rest, there's a lot of work to be done in order to retain FA status. LuciferMorgan 22:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment How do you know this article is the copyvio violator and not the external site? Maybe both use the same PD work. --mav 00:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- The only indication of copyvio is an exact copy-paste from non-PD external site and the external site is not a fork from wikipedia. I'm not an author/editor of this article, so I ran google search test. There's not exactly copy-paste material, except from [18] for the Bats section. I'm going to run several tests again later. — Indon (reply) — 01:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  - (Edit conflict) I checked the Internet Archive of http://www.carlsbad.caverns.national-park.com/info.htm and it looks like the Bats section was written way back in 1998 (the other sections were added a few years later). Did some digging around in the history of this WP article, and it looks like the earliest version of it was a direct copy/paste job from the outside page. Unfortunately, no one ever bothered to reword some of the text :(. Yikes. Not good. Gzkn 01:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  - (Edit conflict too) Wait a minute... I checked again the site [19], and it turns out that there are some exact sentences from this site appear in this article. And I don't think that site is a fork from Wikipedia. Yes, it's not good. — Indon (reply) — 01:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  Damn! I didn't read it carefully the nomination text that it has pointed the original site: http://www.carlsbad.caverns.national-park.com/info.htm. So no need to run google search, it's a copyvio. :"> — Indon (reply) — 01:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  
  And some still wonder why we insist upon citing older FAs. Sandy (Talk) 01:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  
  At the bottom of the page, there's this note: "The initial content for this article was provided by the National Park Service Carlsbad Caverns Information Page." Unfortunately, whoever wrote that erroneously thought that the Carlsbad Caverns Information Page was in any way affiliated with the NPS. Gzkn 01:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  
  OK, I searched phrases from each section and I found out that the Geology section is not copyvio, as the text from that website was copied from this NPS web page, which is in the public domain. However, I could not find anything else for the other sections, so they may still be copyvio. --Schzmo 02:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  
  Hmmm, well that's reassuring. Maybe http://www.carlsbad.caverns.national-park.com/info.htm got all of its information from the public domain...I'll do some more research... Gzkn 02:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  
  This seems to suggest that the National Park Service website actually copied its information from there too, as the former appeared much earlier than the latter. Gzkn 03:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Cough - There were many things published before the Internet came along. :) --mav

Heh, true. Perhaps the best way to resolve this is to contact the NPS or that guy who owns www.carlsbad.caverns.national-park.com and wrote it? Gzkn 03:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I had thought that some had not bothered reading anything until it appeared on a CRT screen: A tendency still present.

On the copyright/borrowed issue. At the least, public domain or not, the sections taken from another site must be cited. This is a separate issue than is that of the original source questions (something from the public domain can still be plagiarized--as can be something publicly reprinted with private approval of the original author).

Given the significant age of the original as well as sea-changes in our common sensitivity to, and sense of outrage about, the commercial destructive exploitation of public treasures (I'm thinking I heard something about protests against the continued in-cavern vendors and new evidence that this commercial presence was deteriorating the caves--but I have been wrong already several times today!) perhaps the best route would be to delete the offending parts and invite a "from scratch" contribution. Does this make sense to anyone? Roy 01:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to ask if there is any real reason to have a "Rooms" section in this article. Granted, some of the most important rooms should be described, but in articles on buildings we don't describe every room, so why should we describe them in a cave?

I would encourage keeping the rooms distinction. This flows from the historic categorization of caverns. That is, unlike rooms of a building, the different caverns are subjected to sometimes subtle differences which over time, result in strikingly different (or similar) appearances. While the trained geologist may inwardly snicker these caverns should be featured here because of their impact on, and influence of, the public. Poets have often invoked metaphors in an attempt to do justice to the unexpected beauty or drama.

Perhaps it would be best for us to retain both of these perspectives: The academic geologic and the popular rhapsodic? This is not to suggest that geologists are not so mechanical as to be immune from a gasp at an unexpected scene, or that the public is not fully interested in the geologic details. Perhaps both of these perspectives should be honored. Perhaps through some new or renewed structural mechanism in the article's organization?

Oh, and somewhere in the wikipedia entry covering the residence of the President might in fact mention "the White House", and even "the oval office" and "Lincoln's bedroom. . ." Roy 01:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

- The geology sections should be broken off into an article along the lines of Geology of the Grand Canyon area.
- The section on bats should be expanded to include other fauna (and may be even flora if there is any) in the cave.

Just a few suggestions of things I can see. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 17:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

- - Geology of the Grand Canyon area (which I wrote) was never split off from the Grand Canyon article. It is a full article about the geology. The geology section at Grand Canyon (which I also wrote) is a several paragraph summary that should really be a wee bit longer. The geology section in this article is starting to get a bit long, but not long enough yet to warrant splitting and summarizing since the summary left here would need to be well over half the size of the full separate daughter article. Thus little point would be served by a split at this time. --mav 05:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Move to FARC - unimproved. Sandy (Talk) 01:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are possible copyvio (1c) and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell 15:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove, copyvio (even if it didn come for the Parks Service, cut and pastes from the PD are not FA material), referencing, tone, other comprehensiveness issues when compared with more recent US parks FAs (like Glacier National Park (US)). --Peta 02:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove, except for Gzkn's work on the copyvio, nobody's working on the article deficiencies, no one seems to care, no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove—1a and 1c.
- "Carlsbad was first designated a National Monument on 25 October 1923. Congress upgraded the monument to a national park on 14 May 1930. Carlsbad Caverns was also designated a World Heritage Site on 6 December 1995." What's "also" doing here? Do a search and destroy for this word throughout. Oh, there it is in the very next sentence, too.
- "Visitation" is something angels do.
- "helping to ensure no future changes will be made to the habitat"—"Future"? Isn't it already in the future tense?
- "The story of the creation of Carlsbad Cavern begins 250 million years ago with the creation of ..." Repetition.
- "The exposed reef became part of the Guadalupe Mountains and the underground chambers became the wonder of Carlsbad Cavern." POV? Reference?
- "Some of the more unusual formations to occur in Carlsbad Cavern are helictites, which grow seemingly without regard to gravity, their twisting shapes governed by crystal shapes"—"to occur" is redundant; shapes x 2.

I won't read further until major copy-editing has been done. Tony 05:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove due to lack of inline citations. LuciferMorgan 21:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 14:11, 15 January 2007.

[edit] Libertarianism

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Harry491 and Politics. Sandy (Talk) 01:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This article needs a cleanup/review of External links and See also. It also has an extensive list of References; it's not clear if all of these sources are used as references for the article, or if some should be Further reading and/or pruned. The article is undercited, with seven footnotes and a mixed reference style, in spite of the lengthy Reference list. The article is full of weasle words and uncited claims. There are external jumps, and a cleanup tag. Sandy (Talk) 01:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Per above. LuciferMorgan 03:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Move to FARC - unimproved. Sandy (Talk) 01:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns citation sufficiency and format (1c), weasel words (1d), general cleanup issues (2). Marskell 15:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove per Sandy's criteria concerns. LuciferMorgan 22:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove. Per Sandy's remarks and Lucifer. I also see a section tagged for clean-up.--Yannismarou 18:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove. Pity; seems to be well written, but Sandy's concerns are the clincher. Tony 07:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove Yes, too few citations for an article this size. Structure is another problem.UberCryxic 23:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 12:11, 13 January 2007.

[edit] Names of God in Judaism

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Zappaz, Judaism, Religion and Orthodox Judaism. Sandy (Talk) 22:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This article definitely needs some inline citations. Also has some deprecated image tags. Judgesurreal777 19:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Needs inline citations. LuciferMorgan 19:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Move to FARC, no improvement. Sandy (Talk) 18:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is citations (1c) and images (3). Marskell 19:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I don't see any specific issues raised here. "Needs inline citations" is insufficient: please indicate what points in the article may be disputed and thus need inline citations. Ditto for images: please name those with deprecated tags. In addition, please consider raising concerns first on the article talk page instead of going straight to FAR. Beit Or 22:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep based on Beit Or's comment. 6SJ7 20:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove Zero inline citations. LuciferMorgan 22:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove. Even the existing citations do not have the proper format. Additionally, there are structure problems: Some sections consist of just half sentence!--Yannismarou 18:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove. WP:MSH confusion, and undercited (one random weasly uncited example: Many Jews do not actually ever write God's name on paper or say it, this is to sanctify his name and not to come to desecrate God’s name.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove as per reviewers above. Tony 06:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 19:13, 7 January 2007.

[edit] First Amendment to the United States Constitution

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Lord Emsworth, United States, Law, Politics, and U.S. Supreme Court cases. Sandy (Talk) 17:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ancient, short, unsourced, bad lead, etc. Punctured Bicycle 12:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This is far short of FA standards. Let's look at just the writing. At the opening, we're treated to:
- "Textually, it prohibits the federal legislature from making laws that ..." Textually? The subsequent list is framed as a single sentence, yet each item starts with an upper-case letter.
- "The First Amendment only explicitly disallows any of the rights from being abridged by laws made by Congress ..." Hard to understand the meaning, and there are redundancies.
- "Additionally, in the 20th century the Supreme Court has held that ..." Remove the first word. Can it be a little more exact chronologically?

The rest is poorly written too. Tony 13:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been watching this article for awhile now, and I have to agree with your assessment. I would add, though, that while the article incorporates summary style for some subsections, the "freedom of speech" subsection is not abbreviated at all, and the "main article" (Freedom of speech in the United States) is pretty bad, thus the entire subsection needs to be moved to the "main article" and summarized in the First Amendment article. However, I tried to get talk page consensus on the issue months ago to no avail. I'm not sure why this one subsection seems to be exempt from the summary style that is used in the rest of the article, but that shouldn't happen in featured articles. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Needs inline cites. LuciferMorgan 20:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Move to FARC, no improvement. Sandy (Talk) 18:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b), LEAD (2a). Marskell 16:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove for now. Lack of inline citations, stubby sections and prose problems people more qualified than me have underscored.--Yannismarou 21:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Remove per all of the above. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Remove, no inline citations, fails to meet current FA standards. Ter e nc e Ong 08:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Remove per above. LuciferMorgan 01:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove as above. Tony 06:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 19:13, 7 January 2007.

[edit] Saxophone

[edit] Review commentary

Talk messages left at Music. Sandy (Talk) 03:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Saxophone is an older, "brilliant prose" promotion. The lead is short and does not summarize the article. The article is largely uncited, using mixed referenced styles. It has external jumps, which are spam/advertish. External links are marked for cleanup, and some of the See also could be incorporated into the article. There are several one-sentence paragraphs Sandy (Talk) 03:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy. And the prose needs an audit. I started reading it and found—
- "and played with a single-reed mouthpiece like the clarinet."—Should avoid the sense of "played like the clarinet", which it is not.
- "He drew up plans for 14 different types of saxophones, but they were not all realized." How many were?
- "here is good evidence that fitting a clarinet mouthpiece to an ophicleide is the most likely origin"—Where's the reference? The article is seriously under-referenced. Tony 13:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Move to FARC, issued not addressed. Sandy (Talk) 18:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Per above. LuciferMorgan 19:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most of what has been said. FARC definitely. --HisSpaceResearch 04:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose, LEDA, citations, and formatting. Joelito (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove – The lead is too short, mixed citation style and the article is full of ext. spam links, either in the external links section and also in the main article as embedded links. — Indon (reply) — 12:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Remove per Indon. CG 21:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Remove. I cleaned up External link farm, and fixed sections to agree with WP:LAYOUT. Overlinked, undercited, mixed reference styles, inadequate lead, prose problems, external jumps to commercial websites. An embarrassment to FA - no improvement - I added a cleanup tag. Sandy (Talk) 01:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Remove per above. LuciferMorgan 18:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Remove per above.--Yannismarou 19:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove per above. Tony 06:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_article_review_archive_December_2006_7d2f.html"

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/December 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Kept status

[edit] Mozilla Firefox

[edit] Review commentary

[edit] FARC commentary

[edit] Specific unaddressed concerns?

[edit] Panavision

[edit] Review commentary

[edit] FARC commentary

[edit] Superman

[edit] Review commentary

[edit] 2006

[edit] 2007

[edit] FARC commentary

[edit] Palladian architecture

[edit] Review commentary

[edit] FARC commentary

[edit] Punk rock

[edit] Review commentary

[edit] FARC commentary

[edit] Removed status

[edit] Illmatic

[edit] Review commentary

[edit] FARC commentary

[edit] LSD

[edit] Review commentary

[edit] FARC commentary

[edit] History of Central Asia

[edit] Review commentary

[edit] FARC commentary

[edit] WGA screenwriting credit system

[edit] Review commentary

[edit] FARC commentary

[edit] English poetry

[edit] Review commentary

[edit] FARC commentary

[edit] Battle of Leyte Gulf

[edit] Review commentary

[edit] FARC commentary

[edit] Central processing unit

[edit] Review commentary

[edit] FARC commentary

[edit] Regular polytope

[edit] Review commentary

[edit] FARC commentary

[edit] Ryanair

[edit] Review commentary

[edit] FARC commentary

[edit] Cladistics

[edit] Review commentary

[edit] FARC commentary

[edit] Olympic Games

[edit] Review commentary

[edit] FARC commentary

[edit] Tynwald Day

[edit] Review commentary

[edit] FARC commentary

[edit] Diego Velázquez

[edit] Review commentary

[edit] FARC commentary

[edit] Shakers

[edit] Review commentary

[edit] FARC commentary

[edit] Convair B-36

[edit] Review commmentary

[edit] FARC commentary

[edit] Octopus card

[edit] Review commentary

[edit] FARC commentary

[edit] Carlsbad Caverns National Park

[edit] Review commentary

[edit] FARC commentary

[edit] Libertarianism

[edit] Review commentary

[edit] FARC commentary

[edit] Names of God in Judaism

[edit] Review commentary

[edit] FARC commentary