Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/January 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Featured article review | archive

1 Kept status
2 Remove 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 07:23, 8 March 2007.

[edit] Sandy Koufax

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Biography, Southern California, and Baseball. LuciferMorgan 22:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Additional messages at Gorrister and Baseball players. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is not in good shape. It is very long and has a number of statements that lack a source and a number of statements that have not been verified. //Tecmobowl 16:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The length is 41K, which is hardly "very long". If all featured articles were limited by length, we'd have maybe five or six left. But aside from that, Tecmobowl is right that this article doesn't deserve feature status as is. In fact, as far as I can see its status as an FA was a little dubious to begin with. szyslak (t, c) 21:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Size is fine, but it does need citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Size is a complete non-issue and BRMo is adding citations, so I'd either put this on hold or oppose. Quadzilla99 07:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Size here is not a non-issue. >40kb may be OK for an article about "baseball" or a country, or a major world leader, but ... and I say this as a huge Koufax fan ... is too much for a single athlete. this article is long b/c of the interminable play-by-play descriptions that were conveniently lifted from one (or two) sources. BTW, the section on his early life is very poorly arranged, in choppy, mini-paragraphs that are more chatty than biographical.Sfahey 14:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

See Wayne Gretzky, among others Sfahey. Many sports articles are in the 35-40 kb range, Gretzky was 50+ I believe when it passed, showing that most editors that reviewed the article obviously disagreed with you. Your opinion is contrary to that, myself and Sandy feel other wise. Quadzilla99 16:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I was reacting to the "size is a COMPLETE non-issue" comment, which is certainly not true. It IS disproportionally long compared to any standard encyclopedia's relative length for various topics. For example, it is about as long as "Canada", which would likely be >10x its length in a print encyclopedia. It is also twice as long as "Joe DiMaggio" and quadruple gold medal winner "Fanny Blankers-Koen", the first two sports figures I looked to compare it to. I think the reason it became long is that it is chock-full of game play-by-play details from Jane Leavy's book. You are correct in that I was and would still be one of the minority voting against it for FA for these reasons ... but then again I thought 25kb was too long for "Pepsi-can stove"! Sfahey 03:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As I've been adding references, I've also been trying to prune out some of the trivia and unnecessary details. There's really only one game that's described in play-by-play detail--Koufax's 1965 perfect game, which takes up seven paragraphs--and I'm planning to spin that off as a separate sub-article. I think the article will be quite a bit tighter when I'm done, though it will still be a relatively long article. BRMo 05:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Good work. Now I remember that Leavy wove K's bio around that game's details, with each chapter featuring details of it plus flashbacks to his past.Sfahey 04:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment We do not opine whether to keep or remove an article when it is at FAR (Featured article review). Please keep us posted on progress - articles typically remain at FAR for two weeks, and may have a longer review period if work is ongoing. If work stalls, after two weeks, it moves to FARC (Featured article removal candidate), at which time editors enter Keep or Remove. Pls keep us posted on progress as the two-week review period approaches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Instead of just an unsourced tag the article could use specific ^{[citation needed]} tags to help BRMo out, now that it is partially sourced. Quadzilla99 16:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Status report: I've made good progress on adding citations -- the article is now about 75 percent done. I've tagged a few statements that I haven't been able to verify; if someone doesn't supply a citation in a week or so, I plan to drop the statements. I've also addressed the concern about excessive play-by-play descriptions by creating a sub-article for Sandy Koufax's perfect game. I've done some editing to the section on Koufax's early life; I could probably tighten it up some more. (So far, I've been concentrating more on finding citations than on editing the text.) The length of the article has been criticized; spinning off the sub-article has shortened it a bit. However, my experience has been that editors often disagree regarding the optimal length of an article. My own opinion is that the article is neither too long nor too short, so I don't plan to make any major cuts in the article, except to tighten the writing where appropriate. In general, we've made a lot of progress on improving the article; I think it needs about another week's work to finish it. BRMo 03:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Very nice! The unreferenced tag doesn't seem called for; are you leaving it on in hopes it will encourage others to fill in the few missing cites? Please add last access dates to all websources. I'll read the entire article when I have a free moment; I prefer to read a hardprint copy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I still need to add cites to the last section of the article--starting with "Hold out." I was planning to remove the unreferenced tag when those sections are finished (though I agree it could come off sooner). Once I've finished adding the missing cites, I'll add the access dates (unless another editor wants to help out with that task). BRMo 16:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is lack of citations (1c). Marskell 08:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations have now been added to the entire article. I added "fact" tags when I couldn't find a citation; in some cases other editors found a citation, but there are presently three tags remaining. My general practice is to leave them on for one week, then delete the sentence if no citation is found. I still need to add access dates as requested by SandyGeorgia. BRMo 16:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've finished adding the access dates for Web resources and deleted the sentences with "fact" tags after allowing time for editors to find a reference. I think the article now is in pretty good shape. BRMo 04:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Conditional keep — refs look great so far. Only a few more are needed to cover the iffy spots. A copy-edit is also needed; I have give the top quarter of the article a look, but it's going to need another person to make sure nothing huge is missed. — Deckill er 10:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the copy edit of the first part of the article. It would be helpful if you could identify the statements you consider to be "iffy." BRMo 17:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome, and thank you for taking the time to maintain this article so this review results in modernization instead of demotion. If I get a chance tonight, I'll take a look through the article and see some things that I think need refs. Sandy and Marskell are very strong in the ref department; when they get a chance, I'm sure they'll help. — Deckill er 22:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Progress looks very good; a couple of quick questions. Does the baseball project have a suggested layout? It is strange to see Career statistics between refs and External links; I'm wondering if they wouldn't be better placed above See also, and if there is a ref for the Career stats? Also, saw some minor inconsistency in formatting of refs to baseball-reference.com. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've moved career statistics and added a ref as you've suggested. (I haven't worked much on the baseball project, so if another editor knows of a suggested layout, please chime in.) I also noticed the inconsistency in formatting refs to baseball-reference.com -- there's a template that is used in most player articles, so I'm hesitant to drop it, but the template doesn't work for citing some of the other pages from that site. I'd prefer to live with the inconsistency unless you think it needs to be made consistent. BRMo 04:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem; I won't have time to re-read the article, but it looked good last time I checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 6 March 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 14:01, 28 February 2007.

[edit] Philosophy of mind

[edit] Review commentary

Message left at Philosophy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

~~One and two-sentence paras have been added throughout. Reads like a comic book. Needs professional review for 2a and organization.~~ Some content has also been added which I can't verify (given the circusmtamces I can't do much of anything) and much has been removed that IS verifiable, indeed obvious to anyone who actually knows the field. In addition, I never really cared for it in the first place. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 11:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The article feels unbalanced to me. Compared to other areas, the Mind-Body problem is given far too much weight. The epistemology of Other Minds isn't even mentioned, it seems. Other issues that deserve more attention (or at least a mention) include mental causation, action, self-deception, weakness of will, perception, memory, first-person authority and self-knowledge, imagery, emotion, perceptual/conceptual content, and the internalism/externalism debate. There's a lot of decent writing here, but it lacks diversity for such a broad topic. (I'm glad you haven't totally given up on Wikipedia, Mr. Franco. It's nice seeing you here.) KSchutte 05:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoah, ease up now. I did most of this work...and it's infinitely better than what was previously there. But you're absolutely right. The obvious solution, I suppose, would be to break off the mind-body section into a separate article and leave a summary with link. Then, expand or create the sections on the other central areas, at least as I have come to see them lately: intentionality, consiousness (qualia, etc), mental causation, psychosemantics (big area right now)and THEORY of MIND. Of course, I can't do much myself at the moment, as I'm cut off every two or three minutes.

PS Glad to know people like yourself are still around and volunteering, Kevin.!! --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Man, the images are just extraordinary!! No, wait a minute....ALL the images are fantastic. It must be this new 19 inch Asus TCO03 LCD 1240x840 monitor!! These engineers are quite something, really. Magnificent, ladies and gentlemen. Good 'eavens. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 11:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The quality of the writing here on the Mind-Body problem is plenty good, and would be great in an article of its own. I think an article this broad should probably mostly just be a series of succinct summaries of the major problems, with links to the articles on each of those problems. (I wish I had the time and resources to do some substantive writing on here.) --KSchutte 01:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the article when the gold star was added. Is that not feature-worthy? Are there active editors of the article that would object to reverting it? (I haven't looked at the merits of each, I'm just asking—the FA is only 10 months old...) –Outriggr § 01:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I just got a note from Sandy about this FAR, and I thought that I would add my two cents. I tend to agree with Outriggr that the damage that Francesco notes could be by and large repaired by reverting to the promoted version. There might be a little improvement that was lost, but this could be addressed by careful reading. On the other hand, the concerns raised about overall balance are also correct; the article is too mind-body problem heavy. Perhaps we can start with a revert, which might deal with FAR, and then work on improving by reorganizing? Or should that valid concern be enough to keep it from keeping its gold star from ten months ago? Unfortunately, I don't have a ton of time myself to work on this right now, but I will do what I can. Edhubbard 00:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can accept this proposal. In particualar, seeing as no one (myself included for technical reasons) is actually going to DO anything to address the broader concerns about comprehensiveness and so on, but rather just complain about them, I think a revert to FA version would be a reasonable place to start. Telecom has guaranteed (once again!!) that someone will be here to install my aDSL connection by Feb. 6. I can do nothing in the meantime, at any rate. Disappointing though: I though it would have been miraculously transformed into something resembling THE DEFINITIVE ARTICLE on philosophy of mind by this time.

Come one now: millions of people out there and infinite time to work, and yet there are not one or two Jerry Fodors willing to volunteer a bit of time? Anyway, let's be perfectly blunt: if Kschutte, for example, wants to, and is capable of, actually addressing the deficiencies he's pointed out, by himself, in the space of a few weeks of review, then so much the better. If not, then no one else will. May as well revert and wait for me to take a stab at it later. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I live for the day when the wikipedia becomes a more prestigious place to publish than the Journal of Philosophy. :) That said, Nathan Salmon, Galen Strawson, David Chalmers, and Max Velmans have each stopped by for a bit of wikiediting (or, in Chalmers' case, some talk page contributions), so we can be optimistic. As to whether I'm capable of handling the very defencies I observed, I highly doubt it. My mental health is presently imperiled. KSchutte 20:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Touchè (or is it touché?). I'm glad to know that some of these outstanding American philos have actually found the time to look in and contribute, even if only to correct technical blunders or to give advice. "My mental health is presently imperiled"....In my experience, that's usually a (positive) sign that you're either making some genuine progress toward a significant breakthrough in your studies or research or whatever or a (negative) sign that you've just about had it with the nature of existence and the "benign indifference of the universe". Often too, these two signs are manifestations of the same thing. Anyway, no offense was intended by "capable of". I should have written "has the substantial time and resources, patience, willingness to volunteer, etc..". That was all I meant. Right now,I have enough time and energy, but I don't have a decent and stable Internet connection!! The latter problem will be resolved this week, though. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Francesco, are you quoting Camus on a Featured article review? We have policies outlawing that sort of thing. Marskell 14:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand and repent of this unpardonable trangession. It was way over the line: I violated WP:NCAMUS, WP:NEXISTENT and WP:NQUOTEDEPRESSINGAUTHORS, all at the same time. And just think, I was even tempted to quote Malroux or Celine!! 0-;--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are verifiability (1c), and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell 11:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 19:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep, and keep working on it. KSchutte 22:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Conditional Keep — article cound stand for a copy-edit. I see a lot of misplaced formality. For example:

"The answer of the behaviorist is that mental states do not actually exist - they are just descriptions of behavior, and/or dispositions thereto, made by external third parties in order to explain and predict others' behavior."

I also see some questions asked; shouldn't they be rephrased to statements? A few other issues, such as a problem with listing technique, and a few redundnaices (though these may be needed for precision). — Deckill er 04:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...thereto is pretty bad. I'll take a run through it myself. For anything I don't catch, I'll try to find someone with more professional editing experience to take a look.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice work so far; prose is almost passable in my opinion. It's a very solid article all around. — Deckill er 10:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep --Davidlud 06:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was kept 09:32, 23 February 2007.

[edit] Comet Hyakutake

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Flcelloguy, Worldtraveller, Astronomy. Jeffpw 09:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Message also left at WP Astronomical Objects. Mike Peel 10:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

After reading this article, I was surprised to see the little FA star in the corner. Other than a pervading dullness of prose, the main problem is that the article is woefully lacking in inline cites and other references. The more specific scientific details are sourced (though not all of them), but a lot of the historical background, claims about visibility, claims that it was "more impressive" than Hale-Bopp, etc. are without any sources at all. I have noticed recent FA nominees get torn up because they lacked abundant sources, so I feel like an article like this (promoted in March 2005) needs to get put through the wringer again. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 01:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dmz5's assessment on the references. I would expect every paragraph to contain at least one inline reference. The references also need to be cleaned up; some references are included as footnotes, whereas others are included as links in the text. Dr. Submillimeter 12:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the above points, this does not meet featured article criteria in my opinion. The whole article could use a copyedit. Some of the headings (The comet passes the Earth, Perihelion and afterwards) sound strange and are rather unscientific. It also seems very short and brief for a FA. I'm sure there is a lot more info out there that could be found and added to the article with appropriate references. --Nebular110 13:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that Comet Hale-Bopp is also a featured article (promoted in Feb 05) and has fewer references (eight) than Hyakutake (eleven) for a longer article. The reference styly is not consistent throughout the article either. Someone may want to think about a featured article review for Hale-Bopp in order to address similar concerns. --Nebular110 13:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- It would be best to wait until this article is addressed, so as not to overwhelm the involved Projects with two FARs at once. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The article could definitely need some improvement; I'll attempt to look at it soon, but I'm not sure how far I'll get. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I gave up writing articles a while ago because of severe dissatisfaction with the lack of standards in Wikipedia, but on having a look at what was happening I saw this review, and as I wouldn't like to see one of my articles defeatured I may do a bit of work on it. However, I have to say that the comments left here are simply too vague to address in any way, apart from the referencing. As far as that goes, most of the basic facts about the comet can be found in the first reference listed, a review article from the JBAA. I don't see the point in putting a superscript [1] after every sentence that can be verified in that article, and it doesn't seem to me it would add anything that isn't already there. The sentence about comparisons with Hale-Bopp could do with a cite, I know where I got it from and it's a shame I didn't reference it at the time, but it's an issue of Sky & Telescope with a lengthy article about the two comets and I'll track it down.

So, other concerns:

- pervading dullness of prose - examples?
- whole article could use a copyedit - give some examples of what needs copyediting.
- there is a lot more info out there that could be found and added - such as?
- seems very short and brief for a FA - there is a mania for writing 60kb articles that almost no-one is ever going to read all of. I've never believed that length is something to strive for - comprehensiveness is something to strive for, and conciseness at the same time. If an article is concise yet comprehensive then I believe it's an excellent article. If you just want more verbosity I won't give you that, but if you think the article is not comprehensive, and if you can tell me what you think is missing, then maybe I can do something about that.

Basically I would need a lot more of an indication of what anyone thinks is wrong with this article before I can do any work on it. Worldtraveller 22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Some copy edit examples from the intro:

"It was dubbed The Great Comet of 1996, and was one of the closest cometary approaches to the Earth in the previous 200 years, resulting in the comet appearing very bright in the night sky and being seen by a large number of people around the world." "Comet" and "cometary approach" have been accidentally conflated here, and the last clause is wordy. Something like: "It was dubbed The Great Comet of 1996, and its approach was one of the closest in the previous 200 years; the comet appeared very bright in the night sky and was widely seen around the world."
"Most surprising to cometary scientists was the discovery of X-ray emission from the comet, the first time a comet had been found to be emitting X-rays." Redundant. Try: "Most surprising to cometary scientists was the first discovery of X-ray emission from a comet."

Lots of time with this one, and I think it's a fine article as it stands. I would suggest looking for redundant clauses like those above, to begin with. Marskell 16:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Prose is fairly good, but could be better:
...was the discovery of X-ray emission from the comet, the first time a comet had been found to be emitting X-rays. - surely that can phrased more efficiently.
scientists realised that the comet was going to pass very close to the Earth on 25 March, just 0.1 AU away - the order makes the 0.1AU seem related to the 25 March.
As Comet Hale-Bopp was already being discussed as a possible "great comet", it took a while for the astronomical community to realise that Hyakutake too might become spectacular; its close approach to Earth meant it was very likely to become a great comet. - generally messy, repetition of phrases, awkward use of "too"

Could do with a copyedit for the occasional clumsy phrase. Trebor 23:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are sourcing (1c), and prose (1a). Marskell 09:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I'll have a go at this, if no one else does. Marskell 09:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I'll help Marskell for 1c, but leave 1a for the prose expert. — Indon (reply) — 10:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Definite wordiness in going over it further. I'll take a pass at 1a and then someone else can. Can you ref further Indon? Marskell 13:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Done, at best I could find sources. Some sections were written completely from one source that it might not be a good idea to fill them in with the same citation numbers. Now, any other citation requests still needed? — Indon (reply) — 10:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Indon, the first para of "Spacecraft passes through the tail" could use a source. The subsequent studies are sourced, but not the first. The prose has received one going over but needs at least two more. Still some days left. Marskell 16:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Cited. ~~I ran through the article one more time and found other uncited statements and opinions (I put tags for myself there). I'm trying to find the sources.~~ Done, article is now well-cited. — Indon (reply) — 12:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Conditional keep — prose needs another pass by a fresh editor. — Deckill er 19:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

- I've just done a quick run-through, rewording limited parts of the prose. Some of the awkward phrases have been removed or reworded, but it still could do with another look over. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Marskell and Indon, for getting this into better shape. I have been slightly distracted over the last few days and haven't been able to contribute as I'd hoped. However, I'm going to give the article a thorough read through in the next day or so. I hope that will iron out any remaining problems. Worldtraveller 00:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep — prose is passable after runthroughs by four editors. — Deckill er 21:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was kept 13:13, 20 February 2007.

[edit] Anne of Great Britain

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Biography, Lord Emsworth Jeffpw 09:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Additional messages at Royalty and UK notice board. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This article was featured in Sept of 2004, but has very inline citations which are now requested for 1c. More importantly, the citations which are present are inconsistent: there is a References section, two REF-style internal citations, and some that look like MLA-style in SMALL tags. Otherwise, the article still reads well, so these should be easily addressed and more citations added. JRP 02:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What happened to Image:QuAn Arms.png? {Slash -|-Talk} 05:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Added a ton of referencing using sources found through google books. Also, fixed the image. Please let me know on my talk page if A. there are statements that you think need more referencing or that have improper referencing, B. the rationale on the new image is correct- I'm never sure of my rationales. Mocko13 16:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

WOW ! Can other editors pls have a look - the article has been referenced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

A comment: The google book is excellent one to peek what we are looking for, but please don't use their URL as external link. Please ~~use standard {{cite book}} (see examples in WP:CITET) and particularly~~ link the books with ISBN rather than an external link. — Indon (reply) — 18:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Indon, you lost me? Are you saying just to add ISBNs on to the References? (A lot of them are very old books and may not have them?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Ah, I didn't check that, but I spot one book from 2000 and the last book in the References section does not have date. . — Indon (reply) — 21:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Some statements use words like "probably" etc. as though the statement is speculation and not fact - these statements need citations. LuciferMorgan 00:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find sourcing for the statements you tagged, Lucifer, so I dropped most of the paragraph. Mocko13 14:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok that's fine. I've added more ^{[citation needed]} tags for you to get through if you're up for it :) LuciferMorgan 21:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Status? Lots of work done; will we be able to close this without moving to FARC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Still has a few cite tags unfilled. LuciferMorgan 02:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is citation sufficiency and format (1c). Marskell 20:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've cleared the {{fact}} tags that remained. Most I provided references for, but a couple of statements were incorrect, so I corrected them. One seemed unlikely and I couldn't find a ref for it, so I dropped it, and a couple of tags were either supported by citations later in the paragraph or were self citing (Writers such as Daniel Defoe, Alexander Pope and Jonathan Swift flourished during Anne's reign - I assume we can skip listing the output of these three). Yomangani ^talk 02:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep, fulfills WP:WIAFA. — Indon (reply) — 10:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep Nice work. + Ceoil 20:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I added one fact tag for the only uncited paragraph, but aside from that it seems well-referenced, prose is fairly tight. Trebor 23:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Conditional Keep. Looks good; I'll see if I can find any lingering issues. — Deckill er 04:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC) Keep; everything appears passable. — Deckill er 04:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was kept 13:13, 20 February 2007.

[edit] Kakapo

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Eudyptes and Birds. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've spent a fair bit of time trying to rework this article, and it needs more dedicated attention to bring it to current FA standards. First it is not cited in any meaningful way; second it is flabby - there is far too much text given to describing the conservation of the species - it's an interesting story, but this is an encyclopedia article; third, I'm not sure it's up to date in terms of current conservation plans and recent breeding. --Peta 22:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The scientific journal Notornis 53(1) is a Kakapo special issue. The articles are available for free here but I don't know for how long (they wanted to make them pay-per-view starting 2007/01/01, so they could be closed off any time). These articles should enable one to sum up the entire conservation thing nicely and peer-reviewed-ly. Dysmorodrepanis 02:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

At the very least it needs inline reffing - agree the conservation section is very long.Cas Liber 20:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: Have reorganised page so there are more subheadings of other headings rather than just a series of headings, and added a bit on taxonomy. Refs increasing but still many more to go. Cas Liber 14:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are insufficient citations (1c), flabbiness (4), and not up-to-date (1b). Marskell 15:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Some work done, some more to go from the looks of it. Marskell 15:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC) :(I'm a bit of an inclusionist but agree there is a huge conservation segment which should be hived off)Cas Liber 23:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove Certain statements still need citation and fail to observe POV. A quick browse at the "Current status" section tells me this - if I took a more observant look it may reveal further problems. LuciferMorgan 22:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

(Agree about the citation needs, which are considerable. Would you consider highlighting the POV statements? cheers Cas Liber 05:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC))

~~Remove~~ some work done, but not nearly there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hold; need to re-evaluate new work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

~~Remove (sigh)~~ ~~Hold off (momentarily)~~ - I haven't had time to devote to this but have to concede the article probably has too much work needed to fix refs and address content before this FARC runs out of time. I started to tinker with it but have no time to tinker more now Cas Liber 05:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested samples of POV statements

"Though the future looks brighter..." - This statement is arriving at a conclusion. To arrive at one, one would have to formulate a considered opinion - all opinions need citations, thus avoiding original research.

(changed to Though the long term prospects of survival look more secure, which sums up issue succinctly)Cas Liber 04:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"The surviving Kakapo population is intensively managed by the Kakapo Recovery Group" - by using the word 'intensively' one is suggesting their actions have been reviewed by an independent body and deemed 'intensively managed' by that group. Any evidence of such a report?

(agree. removed)Cas Liber 04:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"Many faithfully watch over.." - The word 'faithfully' is POV here, as are adjectives in most instances.

(agree. removed)Cas Liber 04:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"It is hoped.." - By who? Who hopes?

(given the conservation bent of the article I would have thought that was fairly self-explanatory yet I concede it is not the best way to phrase it. Nothing better sprang to mind off-hand as yet)Cas Liber 05:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"These new methods, while increasingly successful, have revealed that the semen from many males contains abnormal sperm or no sperm at all." - Revealed where? Do we have reports that back up this claim? Nature studies?

(One of the many refs missing. I had nothing to do with the initial writing of the article so cannot hlep on that one)Cas Liber 05:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope that the above examples help anyone wishing to improve the article during FARC and afterwards. LuciferMorgan 20:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

(That is a great help. Looking I can see how much the text needs to be tweaked)Cas Liber 05:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment ~~-looking again one of the problems is the size of the conservation segment,however~~ conservation is a large part of the whole Kakapo story (and so the proportion of the article is about right??). Cas Liber 05:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that conservation is a large part of the Kakapo story and the proportion is roughly right. ~~I do think though that the New Zealand Wildlife Service and Kakapo Recovery plan sections can be trimmed, and the Current status and Future sections can be merged and then trimmed too.~~ CheekyMonkey 13:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice work. CheekyMonkey 20:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I have introduced some citations and will trim the Conservation section into necessarily "heroic" story. :-) — Indon (reply) — 14:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Update! - I have made a bulk change into the Conservation status. It has been trimmed into necessary facts and story, plus it is now backed with reliable sources. However, I have a terrible skill in prose (one has labelled me as a non-standard grammatical user), so could somebody please check the prose? — Indon (reply) — 15:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments not a lot of time to go through it today. Please check these headings for WP:MOS use of en- and em-dashes and caps WP:MSH

4.3 1950 — 1989 conservation efforts
4.4 Kakapo Recovery Plan SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Prose? — Indon (reply) — 19:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Update (citations) more inline citations have been provided. Please take a look for whom had voted for remove based on lack of inline citations. Are there still any statements needed for inline citations? — Indon (reply) — 21:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment great work on trimming and referencing the article. It'd be nice to have the map showing where they are put back in the article - I'll ask User:Grutness to update the old map. A section that describes the origin of its name and other cultural refs would be a good addition - but is probably not necessary for a keep. --Peta 23:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep - I feel that the issues have been dealt with: it now has appropriate headings and subheadings; the POV sentences were re-edited; the conservation section was trimmed though remains a large part of the article but given the decades-long fight to preserve it I feel this is appropiately proportional to the issues; it now has inline references; there may not be as many as some other articles but this is a single isolated bird and so there will be lower numbers of resource material compared with broader topics; I have tweaked some of Indon's syntax after he highlighted this. Cas Liber 10:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment The table in "Kakapo recovery plan" needs WP:MOS attention to units of measurement. The entire article should probably be reviewed.[1] I requested a copyedit at WP:LoCE before Cas Liber went through - is it still needed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The table does not contain any measurements, m=males and f=females. I should put this definition, my mistake. Sorry, Sandy. — Indon (reply) — 14:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Was that the last of it then? Keepable? Marskell 10:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Indon requested (above) that others look at his prose; I'm unclear if anyone has done that yet. If his request has been addressed, I'm a Keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup - I went through after that. cheers Cas Liber 20:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The article needs two more rounds of copy-editing by two editors just to make sure. If I have time later today, I'll do one of the rounds. — Deckill er 10:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I copyedited this one per request of Deckiller. I sprinkled some comments in the text, added a couple {{specify}} tags, and one {{fact}} tag. However, on revisiting the article, I notice that the citation I requested may in fact be covered by ref 3 (Powlesland, et. al). If that's the case, feel free to remove the fact tag. BuddingJournalist 04:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'll complete the second round now. — Deckill er 12:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- This isn't my area of expertise, but I found some things that might fail Raul's Razor, and I made some pretty subjective tweaks. Someone familiar with the topic will have to give it a pass before we can close this as a keep. — Deckill er 13:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I read most of this through, and it seems pretty good. The comments in-text need to be dealt with (as I had thought almost the exact same things prior to seeing them), and then I would support keeping it. Trebor 22:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Conditional keep — once someone somewhat familiar with the subject fixes the in-text queries, I'll be a full keep. — Deckill er 12:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

- Yes, we just need somebody with a little familiarity with the page. Marskell 13:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I've just arrived from a short weekend-break. I'll try to look into the sources and respond to the comments above. — Indon (reply) — 12:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

With the final work from Indon, this can go keep. Marskell 13:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was kept 11:10, 15 February 2007.

[edit] Sly & the Family Stone

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left for FuriousFreddy, Music, and Bio. Jeffpw 09:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Criterion 1(c). The article is very poorly referenced, with only six footnotes in the entire article. ShadowHalo 08:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Needs more inline citations. Also, some weasly comments are made upon certain things which need citations also. LuciferMorgan 12:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Note that the article is referenced by the books listed, what this article is actually lacking is the level of inline citation we currently expect. No promises, but if someone can add {{citation needed}} to points that need an inline cite, I can give a shot at finding some. Jkelly 16:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Inline citations can be added if {{citation needed}} templates are added in requested places, as JKelly mentioned. The actual referencing is fine; this article was promoted to feature before the standard of having so many citation notes in each article (encyclopedias traditionally don't use citation notes; they use general references, as was done here). There are only six footnotes, but there are five whole articles, and an entire book in the references section. This essentially will amount to adding page number citations. --FuriousFreddy 17:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, hi... I didn't realise you were about. That certainly makes everything much easier. Jkelly 18:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"The Family Stone's first album, A Whole New Thing, was released in 1967 to critical acclaim but disappointing sales." What critics acclaimed the album, and what were the actual sales. Additionally, why were they deemed disappointing? LuciferMorgan 19:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That sentence can be cited from the book in the references. I will add most of these citations within a few days (when I am at home with the book, and can pull page numbers); the rest, I can start on now. --FuriousFreddy 13:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I think the main problem of the article is lack of citations. There many assertions that without citations look weasel. The prose is not bad in general, although there are some samples of choppy and repetitive prose ("Relationships within the band were deteriorating; there was friction in particular between the Stone brothers and Larry Graham. Epic demanded more product. The Black Panther Party demanded that Sly make his music more militant and more reflective of the black power movement, and also demanded that Sly replace Greg Errico and Jerry Martini with black instrumentalists".)--Yannismarou 21:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through and added the {{fact}} tags (sorry, I confused it for {{citation needed}}). I may have been a little too generous in doing so, so whoever adds the citations should keep that in mind. ShadowHalo 06:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've gone in and added most of the ref tags. Anything still tagged with {{fact}} is from the Oral history book, and I'll add those tags at home. --FuriousFreddy 11:27, 18 January 2007
  - I've added all necessary references. --FuriousFreddy 06:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Comments. Not sure if special characters should be used in section headings? (Post Grammy 2006/2007 ) Some web source refs are missing access dates. The ref format (listing the URL retrieved from rather than linking it via the article title) is strange. Many citations still needed - the first one I saw was Entering drug rehabilitation to fight his ten-year cocaine addiction ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Listing the full URL, without liking it to the article title, is correct APA style referencing. It comes in particularly handy when you have an article that originated in print, but you're using a web copy of it. I will check all web source dates. I have also gone ahead and modified the references to remove the full URL from plain view, as you found it strange. --FuriousFreddy 05:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes can be consolidated for readability with the use of named refs, and see the comment on The Tempations review for an abbreviated book footnote style. A source is needed for the Top 40 singles. There's a very long caption on the image in Discography, which also requires a citation - see Wikipedia:Captions regarding succinctness. There are examples of text which - in the absence of a cite - appear as opinion or original research (It was instead a somber, dark-sounding record, with Sly singing in a low, depressed tone.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Instead of being vague and general, I'm going to need you to be specific (reguarding "There are examples of text which - in the absence of a cite - appear as opinion or original research"). I have a full-time job, and far too much work to finish to even be attempting to fulfill these requests right now. Please place {{cite}} tags in places where you feel citations are needed. And I do not understand how to combine the tags; please explain this technique, or assist me in doing so. --FuriousFreddy 01:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  - I'm sorry, but I can't continue this process, as it is proving detrimental to my work, my real-world responsibilities, and my livelihood. I'm sure any other issues with this article are minor to minuscule, so if someone else wants to help and fix them, they are welcome. I, however, am done. --FuriousFreddy 02:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Sorry to hear that mate, but I commend you on making the decision to put your work, livelihood etc. first. LuciferMorgan 21:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is insufficient citations (1c). Marskell 07:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove Certain statements still need citation. LuciferMorgan 22:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- What specific "certain statements"? I went through this article twice, and cited everything I could think to cite. What is still outstanding? --FuriousFreddy 02:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"By this time, the Sly & the Family Stone fanbase had eroded, and the acts the band had inspired were now eclipsing them as important funk artists."

What proof is there their fanbase eroded? What acts did they allegedly inspire, and what proof is there they were eclipsing them as important funk artists? LuciferMorgan 21:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"Regardless of commercial success, both albums were highly influential across the music industry."

Proof? Who did these albums influence exactly? LuciferMorgan 21:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"Even more pop-friendly than "Dance to the Music" had been, "Everyday People" was a protest against prejudices of all kinds, and popularized the catch phrase "different strokes for different folks"."

Pop-friendly? According to whom? Which music critics reckon this? Also, who reckons "Everyday People" is a protest? - this is lyrical interpretation, which unless comes from a critic or bandmember etc., is original research.

By the way, these are just examples. Best of luck in improving the article. LuciferMorgan 21:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The first line I removed, the second I revised and cited, and the third I cited. You say "these are just examples". So there's more? I can't do anything if I'm not getting specific directions as to what's wrong. I've already gone in and found everything I could find that seemed to need a citation. In short, I'm going to need you to list everything wrong with the article. You, or someone else, can add "citation needed" tags wherever you find a problem.

I feel that this featured article review process is being handled in a very hypocritical way. Time has been alloted to improve the FA aspects of Doctor Who and Doctor Who missing episodes without listing it for featured article review. Meanwhile, I receive no previous notification before a four-week ticking clock starts up (and there couldn't possibly have been a worse four weeks for it to start), when it's I and I alone who will have to deal with finding citations for these articles (not just because I did most of the writing in the first place, but because - let's be honest - most Wikipedians don't write about nor care about topics relating to African American culture). --FuriousFreddy 15:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No hypocrisy: We allow time to anyone who requests it; you specifically indicated above that you weren't going to be working on the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about the fact that it was listed here in the first place, as LuciferMorgan grasps below. --FuriousFreddy 22:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, hold-up: Freddy has worked on the article. Work itself qualifies as a request for more time. So don't worry. The article is well on its way, and we often hit snooze on the ticking clock. Marskell 20:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll add cite needed tags to whatever statements need citation for you, which I hope helps. Also, as Sandy said, you indicated you have no further time to help with the article. As concerns time being allocated to improve Doctor Who and Doctor Who missing episodes, this isn't actually correct - if someone nominates them for FAR, they are subject to the same procedures. They aren't exempt or anything - if you nominated them right here, right now, then here they'd be for example. We cannot control who nominates what for FAR as such, but advise people not to nominate certain articles. LuciferMorgan 22:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That's all I ask. --FuriousFreddy 22:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

At least two of the taged sentences are cited in the sentence following, becuase two or more sentences are used to tell a certain anecdote. For example:

Later that year, the tension between Sly Stone and Larry Graham came to a head. A post-concert brawl broke out between Graham's entourage and Sly's entourage; Bubba Banks and Eddie Chin, having heard that Larry had hired a hit man to kill Sly, assaulted Graham's associates. Graham and his wife climbed out of a hotel window to escape with their lives, and Pat Rizzo gave them a ride to safety.

This story is related, in explicit violent detail, on pages 150 through 155 of the For the Record book, meaning all three sentences are referenced fro mthe same source. However, the second sentence is tagged, while the third concludes the story and was already cited. Nevertheless, I went ahead and cited both anyways. --FuriousFreddy 23:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright sounds great. One thing; notes two and four need specific page numbers. Also, you don't need to quote the whole book name when citing a page. You can write;

Selvin, Joel (1998), p. 20. LuciferMorgan 02:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Freddy, if you'd like, I can do the work of shortening the book refs for you - it will make the rest of your work easier. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That would be much appreciated, as I see I have more cites to add. Thanks. --FuriousFreddy 03:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll get on that after morning coffee. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Done; Freddy, here are the changes for your review. You should be able to follow suit now on adding book sources, using the format set up, giving the new page numbers. I noticed some WP:MOS issues to be on the lookout for: use a consistent date format, don't link solo years, link all full dates, [2] and watch out for the different uses of hyphens, en-dashes, and em-dashes. [3] Let us know if you need further input. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment, I can see that work is happening on cites; there is a few too many fair use images, none of which have the appropriate source and fair use rationale on their images pages.--Peta 00:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the two images I felt were extraneous to the text (a second screencap from the Grammy show, and the photo of Sly holding the Family Stone in his hand, which used to be the "infobox" pic until I found the clear promo photo where everyone is the same size). The other photos are directly related to the text they surround; and the Nirvana (band) article includes a logo image. If there are any photos that you feel are truly extraneous to the text (keeping in mind that you're not going to find a free use image of the original Sly &the Family Stone), please be specific and list them. All rationales have been added, except for the Dance to the Music image, which already had one. --FuriousFreddy 15:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Status? How is work on the referencing proceeding? Can someone pitch in to help with a copyedit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've finished adding all of the citations. What needs to be copyedited? --FuriousFreddy 03:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  - I haven't read the entire article, but I noticed some things in the lead which might indicate it could be helpful to have an independent run-through; if you don't mind dropping him a note Deckiller (talk • contribs) has been helpful lately. In the lead, I noticed, for example:
    - Brothers Sly Stone and singer/guitarist Freddie Stone had combined their bands (Sly & the Stoners and Freddie & the Stone Souls) in 1967. As a result, the two brothers were joined by trumpeter Cynthia Robinson, and drummer Gregg Errico. Saxophonist Jerry Martini and bassist Larry Graham completed the original lineup, and within a year, Sly and Freddie's sister, singer/keyboardist Rose Stone, joined as well. This collective were a major influence on the sound of American pop music in general and soul, R&B, funk, and later hip hop music in particular, recording five Top 10 hits and four groundbreaking albums.
      - The "as a result" doesn't follow logically, nor does "this collective were". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
        
        Corrected.--FuriousFreddy 23:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

mainpage date Feb 18; can we ask Deckiller or someone to run through it, so we can close the FAR ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Pre-review version and work completed during review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I have no objections to register as concerns the article retaining FA status. LuciferMorgan 17:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Conditional keep - I'll finish the runthrough tonight; it looks quite good. Hopefully once I'm done we can archive this FAR. — Deckill er 21:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Before we remove the FAR, I'd like to give it a second pass. A lot of the issues are technical, such as excessive wikilinks and dash problems. — Deckill er 02:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it's pretty good now, at least to the point where we can remove the FAR(C). — Deckill er 10:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was kept 10:20, 13 February 2007.

[edit] Yosemite National Park

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Mav, California, and Protected areas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Lacking many references. (criteria 1c.) --W3stfa11 02:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

~~Mixed reference styles,~~ inadequately cited, ~~listy, See templates incorrectly used, photo galleries dominating text, layout needs work, has taken on an unencyclopedic tour guide tone in some parts.~~ I corrected extensive WP:MSH problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I worked on SG's non-citation points (I think Mav will have to go back and add more references). hike395 10:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

1 bloated photo gallery, now integrated into Commons:Yosemite National Park
Waterfall list split out into its own article: List of Yosemite waterfalls
Visitor info belongs in Wikitravel, temporarily moved to Talk:Yosemite National Park/Visitor Info
moved tourist destination list out into their own article: List of Yosemite destinations

And I fixed the templates. ~~The "Miscellaneous" section is actually trivia, that should be deleted or incorporated into appropriate sections.~~ Referencing work will be needed. ~~I'm wondering if others think Summer and winter activity sections should also be moved to the touristy article?~~ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

A little bit of the summer/winter activity can be incorporated into the Activities section. The rest should be (re)moved. I'll try to help out with citations whenever I can. --W3stfa11 18:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the summer/winter activity section can be turned into prose and rescued. I'll try and attempt that. hike395 21:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll bring out the refs I used to flesh out this article and add cites. --mav 22:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Looks like plenty of other people are already working. To avoid edit conflicts I will work on getting uranium ready for FAC and will come back here once things settle down. So far, great work. --mav

Alternately, you could spend some time on your other FAs that need to be cited, so they don't have to come here. (I've cited all I can in Yosemite.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It does look like we can cite a lot of it from the websources (which are quality sources) already there - sorry for all the edit conflicts, I was trying to get a basic ref structure in place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm noticing that most of the article was taken verbatim from the public domain (National Park Service), which means it must be cited to those websites it was taken from - for others working on the cites, look first there or via google. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I may have gotten most of the content from the National Park Service public domain cited; normally, the lead isn't cited, but since the text came directly from the NPS, I went ahead and cited it. That's probably all I can do for now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that this article is well put together. It seems that, given the cursory glance I made, it is well put together, flows nicely, and has enough sources to get by. → JARED ^(t) 14:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's not an issue of counting sources or "enough to get by": it's a question of whether everything that should be cited, is cited. As an example, last time I looked at it, the lead said 1,189 something, when the refs I found said 1,200 - could be rounding, we need to know. Also, I couldn't verify the percent of wilderness. Those are only two examples from the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Well besides that though, it is put together nicely, and maybe some things need to be touched upon, like the lead and the sources. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 17:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  - I found a couple sources for the 89% wilderness figure. I'm not sure how authorative they are though. Here's one. [4] --W3stfa11 19:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Here's a good one. [5] W3stfa11 19:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    - I'm not clear on how to cite Google books, per a concern raised by Indon on the Anne of Great Britain FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I just added all the cites from the Geology of National Parks book I used as a reference. More cites later from Geology of U.S. Parklands. Please add {{cite}} where appropriate and I will also look up those specific facts. --mav 16:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Done for now. --mav 17:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This is getting close. 89% wilderness needs to be cited (hard to verify), and most of History is uncited. There's a huge amount of work to be done on units of measurment - all need a non-breaking hardspace. [6]. I saw quite a few sentences that start with a number. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have forgot three other references I used: Yosemite National Park: A Natural History Guide to Yosemite and Its Trails by Schaffer, Yosemite: A Visitor's Companion by Wuerthner and Yosemite: Official National Park Service Handbook by the NPS. I'll dig them up and add more cites later; hopefully starting tomorrow and finishing a week from today. Any help with the measurements/numbers will be greatly appreciated. :) --mav 03:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'll add the &nbsp when I have time, unless someone else gets to it first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Problem of size still needs to be resolved - the lead says 1,189 square miles (I can't find a source); body cites more common 1,200 square miles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

More cites added and all Facts either fixed or removed. Please check. --mav 03:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The 1,189 vs. 1,200 square mile stat needs to be verified, cited, and sorted out—we can't be stating two different sizes in the same article without explanation, even if it's only rounding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed in article. --mav 14:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell 11:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Much work done by Sandy, Hike, myself and others to address the concerns put forward (mainly, a lack of inline cites). I beleive this article is now up to current FA standards and vote to KEEP. --mav 14:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

- Mav asked on my talk why this got moved down given much work. The move from FAR to FARC is always "least harm". I check if there is definite consensus to close early and if I don't see it, I move it. (A much greater problem would be closing as a keep and being told later that serious issues remained.) When moving, I don't give the more thorough look at the history etc. as when closing. If everyone involved is "keep" right now, we can close it tonight! Marskell 18:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

- As you were the only two working, away it goes. Marskell 10:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was kept 12:58, 5 February 2007.

[edit] The Quatermass Experiment

[edit] Review commentary

Author Angemering aware. Messages left at UK notice board, Television, and British TV shows. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm nominating this for FAR because the article;

Lacks sufficient inline citations.
Fails to discuss the Quatermass Experiment's impact on the horror genre, making the article not comprehensive.
Has a "Reaction" section which is a little short, also making the article not comprehensive. LuciferMorgan 21:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Tricky one this — it's from back in the day, of course when standards were lower and I'm not sure there are enough published sources around to be able to provide sufficient citations to keep it at the modern FA level. (Although just as a sidenote, I'd question whether it had *any* impact on the horror genre — its influence was more on British television science-fiction, I'd say. British television horror as a genre doesn't really exist).

I speak as the author of the majority of the article, by the way, lest anyone was curious. Angmering 00:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I welcome your comments - when I referred to horror I meant the genre as a whole really, encompassing cinema also. If it had an impact on UK sci-fi TV though, it'd be great if this was expanded upon. LuciferMorgan 02:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll try and beef it up a bit later on this week — I'm quite sure I can't get it to modern FA standards, but it's always good to make articles better for their own sake. :-) Angmering 20:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry so much about time constraints as editors are given extra time to work on things. Even if the article lost the FA badge, it could always be re-nominated if eventually brought back to standard. LuciferMorgan 20:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are insufficient citations (1c), and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell 15:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove per my nomination concerns. LuciferMorgan 22:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Not that I expect it to stay as an FA, but I thought you'd like to know that I have gone through and expanded, referenced and generally tinkered with the article. I've also stripped out all but one of the fair use screen grabs, properly cited and justified the one that remains and added two free images I took myself. It's not great, I know, but it's a hell of a lot better than it was and hopefully won't shame the Featured Article section too much for the week or however long it is it has left on there. Angmering 23:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Angmering, I haven't yet read it, but on quick glance it appears well cited - why are you giving up on it? Referencing is often the hardest part - if there are still other concerns, and you intend to work on them, time can be extended. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not giving up on it, no, and if people think it's still salvageable I'd be happy to try and bring it further up to standard. I just assumed it wouldn't be good enough for that. Angmering 16:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, again with the caveat that I haven't read it yet, the other concerns raised had to do with the horror genre and critical reaction - can you/have you worked on those? I'll be glad to read the article and pitch in on reviewing the refs if you're not going to give up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the influence on the horror genre had more to do with the film version, which has its own article at The Quatermass Xperiment. However, I have expanded the former "Reaction" section into a new "Reception and influence" section, which I think deals with critical reaction to the serial and its influence on later productions to a decent degree. I am more than willing to try and dig out more of this sort of stuff if it still seems lacking. Angmering 17:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The formatting of sources is well put together - no problem there. Sources are diverse and generally reliable - just a few questions:

Normally I'd object to the geocities personal website, but it appears to be a reliable source, and is used to source statements appropriately. While checking the source, I came across this prose: Doctor Who, the most successful of all British science-fiction programmes, was a show that Kneale disliked, also claiming that it had stolen ideas of his. It might be changed to ... a show that Kneale disliked, saying it had stolen his ideas. (Avoid "claim" per WP:WTA).
Concerned about the Doctor Who Restoration Team - who is BBC's Television Archivist, and how does http://www.purpleville.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rtwebsite/quatermass-article.htm meet WP:RS (says it's a group of fans, but is only used to cite three relatively uncontroversial statements)?
I can't determine authorship, reliability on http://www.the-mausoleum-club.org.uk/

Other than those - which aren't used extensively - the article appears very well cited - you might ask LuciferMorgan to have a fresh look, and ping Tony1 (talk • contribs) or Outriggr (talk • contribs) to have a look at the prose, explaining to them the article is at FAR and well-referenced. I think work towards preserving this article's status is warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments — very good of you to take the time to have a good look through it. :-) In reply...

Avoiding the "claim" is a good point — I shall re-phrase the sentence as you suggest.
The Doctor Who Restoration Team are a group of Doctor Who fans who work within the technical side of the television industry, who since the early 1990s have provided extensive restoration to Doctor Who DVD releases for BBC Worldwide and latterly 2 entertain Ltd. They also performed restoration work on the Quatermass Collection DVD release in 2005, hence the link to the page on their website explaining their work on that set. The main page of their website explains a bit more about them (it's frame-based, and as I linked directly to the Quatermass page in the reference there was probably no way for you to navigate around, so apologies for that). Independent verification of the team's activities and status comes from the official BBC Doctor Who website, and a feature in The Guardian. I'm not sure how exactly I'd go about establishing all this on the Quatermass Experiment page, though?

I don't think it's necessary to establish reliability in the article - if you make a case for a source on the article talk page, and it's not used extensively in the article or to source anything very controversial, there should be no problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The Mausoleum Club is a well-regarded British archive television website, but I can see how there might be credibility problems with establishing that for someone from outside the archive television enthusiast community... There's a link to it on this official BBC page for the "TV on Trial" season, if that's any good. The Mausoleum Club article doesn't provide much information I can't source from elsewhere, but the main reason I used it was because I was concerned that — as you will no doubt have noticed — the "Production" section uses predominantly Andrew Pixley's 40,000-word Viewing Notes booklet from the Quatermass Collection DVD release for references. I was concerned that having so many citations to one publication might be frowned upon, so tried to cite the same information from other sources wherever I could.

In that case, you could cite both. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again — LuciferMorgan is on a wikibreak I believe, but I shall leave a message at his talk page asking him to take another look, and contact one of the other chaps you mentioned. Angmering 20:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please keep us posted. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Will do! And I shall place that reliability information about the Restoration Team on the article's talk page. Angmering 21:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think my nomination concerns have been addressed. Very good work, and it's nice to see FAs improved. Congratulations on that. I'd still like FAR regulars to cast their eyes over the article though, and to pay specific attention to prose (not one of my strengths). Currently my remove has been striked, but if other editors find sufficient cause I'll recast the vote based on other reasons. On a side note, I notice you have some other FAs which may find their way to FAR sooner or later. If you genuinely intend to brush these up, can we enter some kinda arrangement where I can point out what I feel is wrong with X article and you can address this, all without the FAR process? Then if the articles wounded up on FAR, they'd be much easier to give a final polish to then. LuciferMorgan 23:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ditto Angmering - would love to see you bring BBC television drama and Quatermass and the Pit to standard, so we can count them as keeps without FAR - let us know if you need help. Unless another editor has a problem with the prose here, I think it's good to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like a few more editors to give the prose a quick look first before closing this one. I'm willing to help as concerns Angmering's efforts to brush up his own FAs as he hopefully knows. Where us FAR people can notice such efforts from others to improve their own FAs, I hope we can do something similar with other editors / Wikiprojects - try to help / talk etc. so that other articles don't reach FAR. As I said, I'm hoping the Doctor Who Wikiproject would be up for this as an example. This'll help concerned Wikipedians / Projects with multiple FAs. LuciferMorgan 03:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you all know that User:Outriggr has very kindly been through and completed a copyedit of the article, making various improvements. Angmering 07:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I looked at one section only and found some redundancy, wordiness, and choppy prose - it could use another runthrough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll try and have another run through it myself later on. Angmering 14:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a? You can probably do a lot of the redundancy reducing (for example, those "very"s I removed sounded fancrufty). Printing out the article and seeing it on paper can be helpful for the final runthrough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hold. This still has time in FARC, so no need to get too worried. Angmering has asked me for a copyedit; I'll do my best over the next 48. Marskell 19:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Marskell. I have had a go myself this evening at doing another sweep, but hopefully a fresh pair of eyes and more experienced copyeditor such as yourself will be able to do much better. Angmering 19:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through about half of this and I'm finding prose concerns to be minor. If others are happy with the referencing I think it is definitely in keep territory. Marskell 18:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Nice work, long haul ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment I can't find any valid concerns for removal. I wouldn't object to this article retaining status. LuciferMorgan 21:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was kept 12:15, 5 February 2007.

[edit] Roe v. Wade

Messages left at Noah Peters, Abortion, U.S. Supreme Court cases. Severa 00:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Additional message at Law. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This article, in my opinion, no longer meets the criteria of a Featured Article. The 22:43, 22 January 2007 version has changed substantially from the 06:57, 8 February 2005 versison (around the time when the article was reviewed).

Many of these changes, I believe, are off-topic and deviate the focus of the article from the Roe case itself to ethical questions more relevant at Abortion debate. Some edits verge on personal commentary (POV):

(In "Controversy over Roe" section. Off-topic, editorialistic, unsourced, and somewhat weaselly).
"In addition to the two groups mentioned by Justice Breyer, it appears from polls that there are also millions of Americans who take an intermediate position.'"

(In "Public opinion" section. Off-topic, speculatory, and editorialistic).
"In reply, 49% of respondents indicated favor while 47% indicated opposition. The Harris organization has misreported the results of this poll, for example by reporting that "49 percent now support Roe vs. Wade." In fact, the poll question only dealt with first trimester abortions, and it is known that the legality of later abortions is more controversial. Pro-life groups assert that the media has often misreported polls on the issue of abortion."

I believe that a review is in order. Also, yes, it January 22 where I am. -Severa (!!!) 00:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Severa that the two sentences she cites could have been phrased more neutrally. Therefore, I have done so. With these two improvements, the article seems to meet the criteria of a Featured Article. I agree it has changed substantially from the 06:57, 8 February 2005 version, and these changes have markedly improved the article, in my view.Ferrylodge 00:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is lacking in citations. It has 26 citations, but several individual paragraphs and entire sections have no references at all, thus failing 1(c). In fact, large sections, given over to quotes, do not have a citation for the quote. It also contains many one-sentence paragraphs, thus making for choppy prose. In section Jane Roe switches sides, there is a parenthetical suggestion to see another article, without parentheses, but with an external jump. I do think this article needs to be cleaned up to meet the current FA criteria. Jeffpw 12:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I've just beefed up the footnotes a bit; there are now 31 instead of 26. Also, I've made the text less choppy, by ensuring that each paragraph has at least two sentences. There are no more external jumps, except from the footnotes. Incidentally, there were zero footnotes in the 06:57, 8 February 2005 version (around the time when the article was reviewed). Ferrylodge 22:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment. ~~Section headings don't conform to WP:MOS, WP:MSH, See also contains terms which should be linked in the text,~~ footnotes aren't correctly formatted with a consistent bibliographic style, including publisher and last access date on websites. The article is undercited - as an example, see the "Justiciability" section. The article relies very heavily on direct quotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, SandyGeorgia. I'm learning quite a bit here. As you suggested, I have fixed the headings, and I also deleted the "See also" section because all of the listed items had already been linked in the text. Additionally, I retrieved all of the stuff in the footnotes, and noted the retrieval date for retrieved articles. Also, there's now a cite in the Justiciability section. I have shortened several of the quotes, and reduced the number of blockquotes. And, I followed your suggestion to insert the name of the publisher into the book citations in the footnotes.Ferrylodge 06:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad to know there is an involved editor willing to correct the deficiencies, Ferrylodge. The references still need some work in terms of a consistent bibliographic style (particularly the websources, which should also include publisher). Knowing that someone is working on the article, we can go through and give you a list of items that need addressing - some of us don't put the time into going through an article in greater detail until we know someone is willing to work on it :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, fire away. I don't know exactly what it means for an article to be "featured", but I figured it couldn't hurt to keep this article in featured status. Please show some mercy, and don't have me do more than necessary to keep it featured. :-) Ferrylodge 15:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It's on my list (just returning from travel - still catching up). I'll leave a note to other reveiwers to have a look as well. In the meantime, you might want to browse WP:WIAFA, and some of the candidates at WP:FAC. You might also move ahead on checking for citations: be wary of counting citations or broad statements about the number of citations per paragraph or section - look for specific facts that require citation. That may be zero, one or dozens per paragraph - direct quotes and anything controversial or likely to be challenged should be cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The footnotes are still not correctly formatted, and all websources don't have a last access date. For editors not familiar with a specific citation style, it can be helpful to use the cite templates to achieve a consistent and complete formatting style. References should be alphabetical - not clear on primary vs. secondary there. There are weasle words (Anthony M. Kennedy, was seen as a potential anti-Roe vote - seen by whom? Needs a cite), and the article still needs to be thoroughly cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I am glad to try to address all of those concerns within the next few days. However, no time today. What is the time frame for this evaluation?Ferrylodge 16:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The typical time under review is two weeks, and then another two weeks in the FARC period (even if the article moves to FARC, when work is ongoing, reviewers typically hold off on Keep or Remove opinions). If work is ongoing and progress is evident, we usually extend review time, so just keep us updated on your progress, give us feedback, and let us know if you need more time or want us to have another look at your progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep you posted.Ferrylodge 19:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've added a bunch more footnotes, more retrieval dates in the footnotes, alphabetized references (getting rid of the division between "primary" vs. "secondary"), and getting rid of weasel words. Plus some clarification here and there. Regarding format of footnotes, I've tried to make it a consistent format. Guidelines say to follow the system used for an article's existing citations, so that's what I tried to do. Please feel free to comment some more, but keep in mind that I'm not aiming for perfection here, though I wish I had the time to do so.Ferrylodge 04:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright tags on two images might fail 3. Fair use images states that "Publicity photos," like Image:Sarah_weddington.jpg, are acceptable for use in "identification and critical commentary"; and that "Film and television screen shots," like Image:McCorvey2.jpg, are acceptable for use in "critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television." Do these uses of these images in the article go beyond the uses intended by WP:Fair use? -Severa (!!!) 17:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Severa, I would have no problem at all if we delete the images of Weddington and McCorvey. The images of Blackmun and White should stay, though, because they are public domain. Would you like to wipe out Weddington and McCorvey, or shall I?Ferrylodge 20:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and deleted the copyrighted images of McCorvey and Weddington, just to be safe. The other two photos are public domain.Ferrylodge 22:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Well it needs citations, especially the "Controversy" section. LuciferMorgan 14:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. A bunch of new cites are now in the Controversy section, and elsewhere.Ferrylodge 04:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, here's a new problem. WP:WIAFA says articles should conform to all relevant Project standards. I noticed two external jumps in the lead, using a standardized template - I went over to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases to see if they are encouraging external jumps in the text, prepared to disagree (it's a pet peeve). In fact, the Project guidelines do (correctly) specify that external jumps to the case law belong in External links. The other problem is that, while I was there, I noticed that the article layout doesn't agree with their standard. Can you have a look at that, and also remove the external jumps per their guidelines? You already have the cases correctly referenced, so the external jumps aren't needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I just eliminated the external jumps. Regarding the overall layout, please note that Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases says that certain layouts are "suggested". Roe is an unusual case with unusual ramifications, so I think it's appropriate to be a bit unique here, and depart somewhat from the suggestions. In fact, down at the bottom of the guidelines, three examples of particularly well-written case articles are given, and this article is one of those three listed examples. In a parenthetical, it is stated that: "though none follow a suggested outline particularly well, all are featured articles."[7] Whether that is a criticism or just a statement of fact, I don't know. Anyway, if we can continue with the present format, I'd appreciate it, because it does seem to cover all the bases in a way that meshes with the actual facts involving this particular case.Ferrylodge 16:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

ah, Ok, thanks for investigating - sounds good. Another question - they ask that the case law be included in External links, but normally something that is already given in refs need not also be included in External links - not sure how to resolve that - maybe you'd be interested in following up with them? Since it's ambiguous, I'm not going to object on this issue, but we might get it cleared up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I investigated your question a little bit. According to case citation guidelines, a citation to the United States Reports looks like this:

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1952).
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

So, when you read a Wikipedia article about a case, such as Arizona v. Evans, you'll often find such citations right in the middle of the text, including the external link. However, Wikipedia editors have noted the following: "Court citations are not always recognized by laypeople as providing source information (though this is obviated by the usual practice of external links to the full text)." So, many case article have not only a cite and external link in the text, but also list one or more cases in the external links. The Wikipedia guidelines about case citations say: "If you are looking for the actual text of an opinion, it is usually linked in the external links at the bottom of the article on that case."

The way all of this has been handled in the Roe article is to mention a case in the text with an internal link and/or a footnote that includes an external link. Also, the main case (i.e. Roe v. Wade) is listed in the external links. I am satisfied with this approach; I think the article flows better with the case cites (e.g. 143 U.S. 246) in the footnotes rather than cluttering up the text. And, for people who have come to expect a link to the full text in the "external links", the Roe article provides that too. I'd be glad to change any of this, but the way it is now seems okay too.Ferrylodge 19:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for investigating: if those are the guidelines, it seems fine. My main concern is that we not have external jumps in the text. I left a note for the nominator (Severa) to check back in with any other concerns here, but his/her talk page indicates s/he has the flu. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I'm now through making edits for the time being, unless you suggest more.Ferrylodge 23:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Severa declined (on my talkpage) to review the FAR. In checking the references, I saw a personal AOL homepage website which should be replaced with a reliable source:

Roe v. Wade, 314 F. Supp. 1217 (1970). Abortion Law Homepage. Retrieved 2007-01-26 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The district court case is available at answers.com, so I've linked to that instead. FWIW, I've tried to be objective and not insert any POV. (It would have been a much more colorful article if my POV were allowed.)Ferrylodge 03:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Careful with answers.com - it contains Wiki mirrors - not a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I left some additional invites to try and stir up some interest, for SlimVirgin, Oskar Sigvardsson, and Sfahey who were involved in the initial review, and also Postdlf and Eastlaw who have edited many case articles including this one. Do you have conserns that are still outstanding, SandyGeorgia? Ferrylodge 05:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't thoroughly read the article to make sure everything that needs to be referenced is referenced - I'd rather wait until people familiar with the law and the issues have been through. So far, I've focused on making sure your references are correctly formatted, reliable sources, and the article follows MOS guidelines. I really don't look forward to reading an abortion article, so I've been putting it off :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite understandable.Ferrylodge 17:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I started to read the article, and didn't get past the first few paragraphs. The prose is a wreck, and I found unreferenced info right out of the starting gate. Perhaps people who follow the case aren't aware that people who didn't/don't have never heard that Roe was allegedly raped. The article is going to need a sustained effort at further referencing, as well as a copy edit. If someone is going to do all that, we'll have to add fact tags. If someone is going to take it on, pls keep the FAR posted; then I'll give further examples, but I seem to be the only editor reviewing this article. I also found wikilinking problems in the lead - why was state linked, and federal not? Wikilinking will need attention. I also found weasly, "opinion" statements which call for citation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, if you're willing to keep pointing out what needs work, I'm willing to fix it. I've already fixed what you've pointed out so far. I'm in process of adding some more footnotes. I guess this is what happens when a bunch of people collaborate on an article.Ferrylodge 02:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

All right, I'll keep trudging through it - glad you're working on it - sorry for sounding irritated, but it's always frustrating when I'm the only reviewer working on a given article. Would sure appreciate more eyes on these FARs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Another look:

Ref 3 appears to be a google cache - I believe those are not enduring? Needs a real source, and to be correctly formatted.
Still have problems with Answers.com as a source - it's a mirror, not reliable.
Please wikilink full dates in refs.
Ref 9 - e.g. see Ronald Reagan - isn't correctly formatted. See WP:CITE for examples, or use cite templates.
The formatting on the refs is bouncing all over the place - using cite templates might help impose some order. Last name first is helpful.
Prose problems still evident - examples:

Why are these two clauses joined with an "and": Roe is one of the most controversial and politically significant cases in U.S. Supreme Court history, and its lesser-known companion case was decided at the same time in 1973: Doe v. Bolton.
Whether a state can choose to deem the act of terminating ... surely that can be said in a much more straightforward way ?? The decision prompted national debate that continues to this day over whether a state can choose to deem the act of terminating a pregnancy

The lead is sounding weasly: Some critics of Roe also believe ...
Are law cases supposed to be italicized per WP:MOS - I'm not sure, pls check.
History of case is written in legalese - and - the people themselves arrived? Why do we care? Both "Jane Roe" and defendant Wade arrived at the Supreme Court on appeal, where the case was argued by Weddington and Texas Assistant Attorney General Jay Floyd on December 13, 1971.
Skipping down a few sections to see how citationn is coming along:

(This seems to introduce some POV, and is incorrectly punctuated) - A plurality of Reagan-Bush appointees, O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter, reaffirmed that the Constitution protects a right of abortion.
(The opinions were joined by people? What does "as well as by each other mean?) Rehnquist and Scalia filed dissenting opinions which were joined by Justices White and Thomas, as well as by each other.

Decipher and cite this:

During the 1990s, attempts were made at the state level to ban certain late-term abortions, which were struck down, again by a 5-4 vote, in Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), with Justice Kennedy, co-author of the Casey decision, among the dissenters. Here is what Justice Kennedy wrote about those second trimester abortions that the states were not seeking to prohibit, in the Stenberg case: "The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn from limb from limb. The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off." This statement raises questions about Justice Kennedy's continued support for Casey and Roe.

Besides the prose and citation problems, "Here is what" is not formal encyclopedic tone. "Raises questions" is uncited, sounds like original research or opinion.

Many, many problems here - without serious attention to prose, citing, and references, this is on the express train to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll get on it soon. I've made so many fix-ups to this article unilaterally that I've been hesitant to do more, for fear of seeming like a dictator. However, your comments SandyGeorgia really help justify more fixups. Good work. (Though I admit that one or two of the problems you cite may have been caused by my own edits, alas.) Ferrylodge 19:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC.)

Sorry 'bout that; I often intentionally do not look at the edit history so my comments will be general and hopefully not aimed at any one person :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Status Report

Okay, thanks again for the additional comments. I feel much better making so many fix-ups with someone else agreeing about them.

In Ref 3, I have replaced the google cache with a real source (pdf). I have eliminated the Answers.com source, and replaced it with a Wikimedia source. I have wikilinked the full dates in refs, and put last name first in the refs.

Wiki is not a reliable source - if something is sourced there, use the soruce directly in this article. 15:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed prose problems such as breaking this into two sentences: "Roe is one of the most controversial and politically significant cases in U.S. Supreme Court history, and its lesser-known companion case was decided at the same time in 1973: Doe v. Bolton." Also fixed the awkward phrase "Whether a state can choose to deem the act of terminating." Also eliminated weaselly sounding "Some critics of Roe also believe..."

Yes, all cases must be italicized per WP:MOS.

Thanks for letting me know that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten the "History of case" section to tone down the legalese (I'm not the one who wrote it in the first place!).

In the section on Planned Parenthood v. Casey, I've corrected punctuation and tried to eliminate any POV-sounding stuff. Yes, lawyers say that one judge "joined" another's opinion, but I've changed it to "signed" which non-lawyers might understand better. Also fixed awkward phrasing about who signed what.

In the section on Stenberg, I've hopefully deciphered it. Added quote and cite from Justice Ginsburg. Eliminated unencyclopedic tone, and appearance of original research/opinion.

I'm willing to work on this some more, with further guidance. I don't want to be editing this so heavily all by myself, without guidance. What does the "C" in "FARC" stand for, by the way? UPDATE: Never mind, I see it stands for "candidates".Ferrylodge 05:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have the same concern you have - currently, only you and I are reviewing the article - not good. I am pretty frustrated that no one else is helping out, as this topic is not in my area of interest, and not something I'm particularly familiar with. FAR = Featured article review; FARC = Featured article removal candidate. Articles move from review to removal candidates if improvements aren't made. We need more reviewers, particularly when we have an editor willing to do the work and looking for feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There are currently four possible sources for the Roe v. Wade District Court case (Roe v. Wade, 314 F. Supp. 1217 (1970)). Are any of the following four possible sources acceptable, or should I just omit a link entirely, and cite without a link?

1) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Roe.pdf

2) http://www.answers.com/topic/roe-v-wade-3#Roe_vol1_315-323

3) http://hometown.aol.com/abtrbng/roedist.htm

4) http://www.andrewhyman.com/roe.html

Ferrylodge 16:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to provide an online source for a legal document which should be available somewhere somehow in a library. Cite the document as one would cite a hardprint, legal document, and then provide (at the end of the cite) a courtesy link to wikimedia. How does a person locate this document in a library, for example? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Hopefully this cite is okay now. A person would use the case cite to find the case in a library. In any law library, there's a set of books titled "Federal Supplement", and that's what the case cite refers to ("F. Supp."). The footnote now says:

Roe v. Wade, 314 F. Supp. 1217 (1970), http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Roe.pdf (courtesy link). Retrieved 2007-02-01.

Ferrylodge 19:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Not my area, but I believe that works - what is important is that the person who cited the article verified the *actual* text, rather than relying on a non-reliable source (courtesy link). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Break

Comment. After feeling suitably chastised by Sandy, I had a look over the article and made minor changes (mostly to style/grammar, feel free to revert if I've made it worse). A few of the things I wasn't sure about (I have no expertise on this topic):
Not many state laws had been overturned by the Griswold case in 1965, whereas abortion was widely proscribed by state laws in the early 1970s. - I'm not following this. Had anything changed between 1965 and early 1970s? If not, the "whereas" is very confusing.
Valid state interests, however, must be weighed against the constitutionally protected rights of individuals in order to determine whether a law is a constitutional exercise of power - this feels a bit too assertive to me; it's written as a fact, and so has a different tone to the surrounding text. Could it be changed to something like "The court weight valid state..."?
The Court believed itself competent only to resolve the question of when a right to abortion begins. - is "competent" the right word to use? It may well be, I just feel it isn't right in line with the quotation.
Also, many Americans believe that, although some abortions should be allowed, Roe went too far. - I think this needs a cite to a survey of some sort. Although a relevant Wikipedia article is linked, it can't count as a reference, and this is a statement that could be challenged.

From reading the first half, it seems that this article is in pretty good shape, as good as a lot of the articles that come to FAC and pass. The prose is a little heavy-going, but that seems inevitable in a legal article. This can probably be saved. Trebor 19:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the good comments, Trebor. I have just edited the article to address almost all of the points you raise, and I hope those edits will be satisfactory. I have not yet had a chance to address your last comment (regarding what "many Americans believe"), but will try to do so later today. My plan is to copy some of the footnotes from the relevant linked Wikipedia article.Ferrylodge 20:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Reading through the controversy section, it could do with being trimmed and focused a bit. Certain sentences and paragraphs are pretty unrelated to Roe, and just give background on the pro-life debate. It's not bad, just a little rambling in places. Also:

The assertion that the Supreme Court was making a legislative decision is often repeated by opponents of the Court's decision. The "viability" criterion, which Justice Blackmun acknowledged was arbitrary, is still in effect, although the point of viability has receded toward conception as medical science has found ways to help premature babies survive. - I think the first sentence needs to be cited, and perhaps the second. Trebor 22:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the helping hand, Trebor :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've done some more edits, footnoting the statement about what "many Americans believe", also footnoting that opponents say Roe was legislative, and also footnoting that viability has receded since 1973. And, I've trimmed and focussed the Controversy section a bit, so that it focuses more on Roe than on the general abortion issue. More comments are welcome, if you like. Certainly, this review has improved the article considerably, compared to its condition when the review began. Thanks Trebor and Sandy.Ferrylodge 00:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As of now, I'm through making edits for the time being, unless you suggest more.Ferrylodge 02:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As another example of prose and referencing problems, looking at the final section, which is one paragraph:

In 2003, Congress passed a Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which is currently in litigation. The Supreme Court heard arguments in November 2006 on the issue, and a decision in Gonzales v. Carhart is expected in 2007. Despite the Court's previous ruling in Stenberg v. Carhart that banning partial birth abortion is unconstitutional because such a ban would not allow for the health of the mother, the Court is again deciding whether to allow this ban because Congress researched the issue and passed a law reflecting its conclusion that this type of abortion is never necessary for the health of the mother. While the Court can trump Congressional laws if they are unconstitutional, the Court typically defers to Congress's findings of fact. Whether the Court decides for itself if Congress was clearly wrong, defers to the judgement call of Congress if Congress was not clearly wrong but the issue is reasonably disputable, or simply decides to follow Congress is yet to be seen. It is also possible that the Court will take this opportunity to revisit its holding in Roe. The case may illuminate how the newly appointed Justices, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, reason about this and similar issues.

"currently" needs definition, or it will become outdated - this can be solved by joing the first and second sentences with a semi-colon. "On the issue"? Is there a case name? If the case name is Gonzalez v. Carhart, then re-write the entire thing to say so. The next sentence, beginning with "despite" is a snake - see Tony1a examples above. "Because Congress researched the issue and passed a law reflecting its conclusion that this type of abortion ... " SHEESH - before I get halfway through, I'm lost, and I've never been told what the law is or does. ... because Congress passed (name the law or whatever), allowing partial birth abortion. Why is the sentence beginning with "While" here? I don't see what it's adding to the article. The sentence beginning with Whether is not encyclopedic - it's speculation, not needed. Ditto for "IT is also possible". Ditt ofr "The case may ... " This is an encyclopedia, not a pro- or anti-anything article. Just the facts. This section is almost completely redundant. Someone still needs to take a major red pen to this article. IF it can be argued that any of this content stays, then it all needs to be referenced, or else it's original research and opinion. The redundancy throughout the article is a killer - I suggest printing out the article, looking at it on paper, and thinking about encyclopedic, factual content, succintly stated, opinions referenced and attributed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that that last paragraph could use a major rewrite, and I'm glad you agree. I'll get on it soon. By the way, I had nothing to do with writing it or revising it (except that I wrote the sentence "It is also possible that the Court will take this opportunity to revisit its holding in Roe" which I admit does sound a bit speculative although the fact is that the case does present that option). Anyway, I'll take a crack at revising the final paragraph. I already did a comprehensive prose edit of the Controversy section, but have not done so for the whole article. I am hesitant to try overhauling the whole article, because I really haven't gotten a sense whether you think the changes I've made thus far during this review have been okay as far as they went. If not, then someone else should comprehensively edit "throughout the article." I feel most comfortable having you point out specific sections and specific problems. Anyway, I'll get started on the last section this evening.Ferrylodge 03:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I know it's not your writing, and I hate editing this article :-) I've gone now through the bottom half of the article; here are my changes. I'm finding a lack of attention to wikilinking, unattributed opinion, some subtle POV, and much redundancy - these edits should give you an example of what to look for throughout. Keep up the good work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy, I appreciate that you dove into this article even though it's not exactly an article about the Sound of Music. I'll dive back in as well.Ferrylodge 03:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are a series of statements that simply must be rewritten:

Others have said that, ...
Also, many Americans believe that, ...
Many conservatives and other supporters of federalism ...
Some liberals have felt ...
several states enacted or attempted ...
Some academics ...
Many Americans vigorously support ...

Some of these statements are somewhat cited, but the statements are still weasly - rewording to avoid the vagueness will help.

Fueled by the intensity of feelings in both its supporters and critics, the controversy over Roe shows no sign of abating. Details about how millions of Americans view this issue can be found in polling data about abortion.
- "No signs of abating"? This sort of commentary isn't an encyclopedic restating of the case - it's advocacy - reword it to just the facts. "Details about ..." is unencyclopedic prose - find a more seamless way to work the poll dat into the article text.

Keep going! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused about citation needs here - I don't want to slap on a bunch of cite tags when presumably a lot of the uncited direct quotes come from the opinions written by the Justices - but how do I know that? Do I have to read each case? <grrrr ... > Just not sure if more cites are needed on direct quotes, or if it's clear to others they come from the case, and which case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That makes two of us who are confused. :) If this were a law review article, then we would be footnoting every reference to a case, and describing the relevant page number of the case in each respective footnote (or including footnotes that say "Id."). However, I don't think that's as necessary here.Ferrylodge 05:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm through for the day. I think all of Sandy's specific points have now been addressed. I should be able to get a job at Britannica after this. :-) Ferrylodge 07:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are all of my most recent edits, subsequent to Sandy's most recent edits. I am through editing, unless and until there are more comments or guidance here at the review page. Are we getting close to where we need to go?Ferrylodge 23:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't comment particularly on comprehensiveness or balance, which is why an editor more knowledgeable in legal matters would be useful. But I don't think we're miles off. Few more comments:

The accessdates are inconsistent: sometimes "retrieved" is capitalised, and sometimes they aren't there at all.
Most prominent among pro-choice groups is the National Abortion Rights Action League. Most prominent among pro-life groups is the National Right to Life Committee. - combine the sentences and save some words, it seems odd to phrase successive sentences in almost identical ways (I had to double read it to check they weren't the same).
Is there any expansion on public opinion? I'd be particularly interested in reactions immediately after the decision, and variation between then and now.

Keep up the good work :) Trebor 23:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the comments, Trebor. I have now addressed those three points. Regarding public opinion, I have expanded that section, and inserted a new footnote that links to a graph showing the changing support for Roe since 1973.Ferrylodge 00:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding comprehensiveness and balance, I'm an attorney knowledgeable in legal matters. However, I have a bias against Roe.

I've tried to be completely neutral in this article. My personal opinion is laid out in an op/ed I wrote a few years ago (here). Regarding comprehensiveness, the present article does not discuss what a post-Roe legal regime might be like, but that would involve speculation, not to mention an almost limitless range of possibilities (including those mentioned in my op/ed).

I guess you'll have to decide whether we need an editor knowledgeable in legal matters, but who perhaps has a different personal viewpoint than mine. Anyway, I think the article is in good shape (but then again, I naively thought so up at the top of this page!).Ferrylodge 02:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh okay, I'm reassured by that (and would be worried if you were an attorney not knowledgeable in legal matters ;) ). Don't have time to check the changes now but will have a look later. Trebor 09:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if more attorneys were knowledgeable in legal matters, there wouldn't be any Roe v. Wade decision. :) Anyway, I just noticed that we're at 47 footnotes now. At the beginning of the year, there were only seven (7). Not that a lot of footnotes always make an article better, of course, but they certainly do make an article look more intimidating. :) Ferrylodge 10:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the Public Opinion section still needs work. That graph would be nice to include in the article, but I'm not sure about copyrights. I'd prefer the section to be more chronological and descriptive (of course, if sources allow). Something like, "Straight after the poll people felt like this, over the years this has changed, a recent poll said this". Hope you understand what I mean. Trebor 15:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, that's the same section I just happened to check - it is replete with weasle words, original research and unsourced opinion. "and it is known that ..." " the results of the poll are revealing, because the question has been asked consistently ever since Roe was decided. Judging by the poll results, ..." The article still has an advocacy rather than encyclopedic tone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at another random section:

Rendundancies stil: ~~Many l~~ Liberal legal scholars have ...
refs in the wrong place: In a 1973 article in the Yale Law Journal,[20] Professor ... (put the ref here at the end of the direct quotes)
(snake for chopping): Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and other liberals such as legal affairs editor Jeffrey Rosen and Michael Kinsley, have also criticized the court's ruling in Roe v. Wade, for terminating a nascent democratic movement to liberalize abortion law which was a movement they contend might have built a more durable consensus in support of abortion rights. (also, reference for what "they contend"?)
Ref in wrong place, are editorials the best source for this section? Washington Post editorial writer Benjamin Wittes has written that Roe "is a lousy opinion that disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply",[26] and his colleague Richard Cohen [27] has expressed a similar view.
redundant prose: Edward Lazarus, a former Blackmun clerk who "loved Roe’s author like a grandfather" ~~has stated as follows:~~ (said):

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to address these additional points. But, I'm a little hazy about what Trebor is referring to, about "copyrights" (which is kind of ironic since I'm an intellectual property attorney (patents, trademarks, and copyrights)). What's the copyright problem with the public opinion section? UPDATE: Oh, never mind, I get it. You're talking about the Harris poll graph. I should have figured that out. Ferrylodge 20:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Next break

I keep coming back, hoping we can consider this one done; every time I look at a sample section, there are still basic prose problems and easy to spot redundancies like these. Very controversial = controversial. about various aspects of this landmark ruling = about this landmark ruling. I'm going to list this article at WP:LoCE to see if we can convince a copyeditor to take a red pen to it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added a table in the public opinion section. As for redundancy, I'm a lawyer after all. :) But I have been trying to be encyclopedic (and unweaselly!). Ferrylodge 21:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I left some inline comments - in the article, so a search on <! to find inlines that need to be addressed. I have no idea what the numbers in that table are - plus and minus relative to what? We'll get you yet to write like an encyclopedia instead of a lawyer :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Trebor asked for a table. But there are problems. First, there's the copyright issue, because we can't just duplicate the graph at the Harris poll website. Second, I wouldn't even want to duplicate that graph, because the poll question was all messed up. Third, Harris seems to the the only pollster that is showing poll results ever since Roe was written in 1973.

In the table I made, consider the year 1976. It says +7% support. This is because the Harris Poll graph shows that support for Roe climbed from 52% to 59% between 1973 and 1976. Also, the table show -14% opposition in 1976. This is because the Harris poll graph shows that opposition to Roe fell from 42% to 28% between 1973 and 1976.Ferrylodge 22:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Did I want a table? Anyway, mine were just ideas for the section. I thought it would be nice to include something about the immediate public response, not just the current opinion. It doesn't have to track every year. Trebor 22:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You wanted the Harris graph, but a table's the next best thing, no? Anyway, I've just edited the table so maybe it's clearer now. What do you think?Ferrylodge 22:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Now it's clear. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's good now. Trebor 23:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I dug in and did some editing myself, Trebor and FerryLodge have made great progress, this article is in much better shape than when featured, it's referenced, the prose is tuned up, I can't detect any more POV, close without FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

(Note on closing - the nominator left Wikipedia for health reasons.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy and Trebor. :)Ferrylodge 23:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. After brilliant work from Sandy and Ferrylodge, this has got to the point where I can't see how to improve it. Unless someone new finds some major problems, close without FARC. Trebor 23:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was kept 06:14, 29 January 2007.

[edit] Monty Hall problem

Messages left at Antaeus Feldspar, Rick Block, and Mathematics. Gzkn 11:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

~~Has one inline citation.~~ Mixed referencing style. Contains a trivia section disguised as Anecdotes. External links need pruning. Venn diagram images need captions. Weasel statements (for example: "It has been speculated that one reason the Monty Hall problem is so counterintuitive is that we expect deceit in situations like this.") Use of contractions, which should be avoided, and which leads to informality. Gzkn 10:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

On inline citations: First of all, this is not true. The following extracts from the text are all inline citations; they merely don't happen to be footnotes.

Craig F. Whitaker of Columbia, Maryland in a letter to Marilyn vos Savant's September 9, 1990, column in Parade Magazine (as quoted by Bohl, Liberatore, and Nydick). [BLN is duly explicated in the References]
In 1975, Steve Selvin wrote a pair of letters to the American Statistician (February and April issues) regarding the Monty Hall problem.
As Monty Hall wrote to Selvin:

And if you ever get on my show, the rules hold fast for you — no trading boxes after the selection.
—From the Let's Make a Deal website

In the May-June, 1989 issue of Bridge Today magazine, Phillip Martin wrote an article entitled "The Monty Hall Trap."
including a front page story in the New York Times (July 21, 1991)

I doubt I've listed all of them. Please read the article; don't just count footnotes. The genuine question is: is there any claim which is challenged, or likely to be challenged and which is not clearly sourced?

As for the bit about contractions: That section of MOS is an invitation to bad writing, and should be removed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right...I was on the lookout for Harvard referencing/footnotes instead. In any case the inconsistent referencing (mix of external jumps, in-text references, and footnotes) still needs to be cleaned up. Gzkn 00:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- In other words, this has now become a complaint that the solitary footnote has not been worked into the text, like the others. Please look at it. The content of the footnote is a long and cumbersome reference, which would be clumsy in text. This is what footnotes are for - to move references like that out of running text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I'm just saying the referencing should be consistent. If that would be clumsy in text, how are the other in text references not clumsy? The column of the footnote is already listed in the references. Why duplicate it? Gzkn 05:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Because they do fit reasonably smoothly in text, and this won't. I came back here after looking at it. As for the referencing needing to be "consistent", for heaven's name, why? as long as it is clear and presentable? Wikipedia is inconsistent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  - "Because they do fit reasonably smoothly in text, and this won't" I would argue that stuff like A widely known statement of the problem is from Craig F. Whitaker of Columbia, Maryland in a letter to Marilyn vos Savant's September 9, 1990 column in Parade Magazine (as quoted by Bohl, Liberatore, and Nydick (1995)). (in the lead no less!) rebuts that argument. Gzkn 01:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

- By "external jumps", do you mean "external links"? This would be a valid objection if the external link read [1] as many do; but it reads Let's make a Deal. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty more external jumps than the Let's make a Deal one. And yes, there is even one that reads [1]: "The first appearance of the same general class of problem was probably the one presented in Joseph Bertrand's Calcul des probabilités (1889), known as Bertrand's Box Paradox [1]." And that link is now broken, so there's no source to back up the claim presented. Gzkn 05:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- That, at last, is a real problem, and I will see what I can do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the example held up of "weasel statements", this appears to be supported by the Mueser and Granberg paper, which lists the perception of Monty as a "knowledgeable adversary", and any information given by Monty as information that he may be providing in an effort to deceive, as one of the "cues" that shape individuals' analyses of the problem and frequently lead them to incorrect assessments. This appears to be borne out in practice, as Cecil Adams discusses his initial analysis of the problem in terms of Monty trying to "bluff the contestants, then counterbluff them". In short, it's not well-cited and not specific enough but calling it a "weasel statement" appears uncalled for. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just going by WP:WEASEL (see the Examples section)...please don't take it personally. "It has been speculated..." is a common beginning to a weasel statement. Again this could be corrected by just citing a source. Gzkn 00:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it could definitely be vastly improved by citing the source and phrasing with more specificity (I made an attempt at doing this, actually, but found my editing skills not up to it while in the midst of a minor headache). I just think that "weasel statement" is a pretty strong term, and should really be reserved for those statements which could not be substantiated if they were phrased with more specificity. Which are only a subset of "statements that could really benefit from more specificity." -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Venn diagrams" are perfectly clear; they are explained by the paragraphs in which they sit. Making these into normal captions, with boxes, would make them worse. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think they might be a bit cryptic without a caption. I wish you wouldn't be so hostile though ("more careless objections")...no need for that. Gzkn 05:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I have been over-touchy. But I've just been through a long session with people who do simply count footnotes as their judgment on an article at Good Article Review. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No, they are not perfectly clear; if you find them perfectly clear, I suggest a fresh set of eyes needs to copyedit the entire article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I still find them clear; and I do have a fresh set of eyes. I do not remember editing this article at all before this discussion; and I certainly have nothing to do with these diagrams. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a caption would make them clearer...for instance, the appropriate caption of the first picture would be the second sentence of the attached paragraph. I don't think that repeating this information would be very valuable. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

May I speak bluntly? I view this review with hostility and irritation, as the issues raised are either wrong or trivial. There is exactly one (1) use of the fancy new php footnote mechanism, introduced on 2006-11-27 by someone (Antaeus Feldspar) who obviously wasn't trying to be consistent with the perfectly valid style of referencing already used in the article. It is this new reference style that is the mistake, along with what I consider a review nomination based on not seeing a vast list of such "approved" references. Now we see an attempt to back away from the nomination reason, but the history is clear. This is a thinly disguised attack by the discredited inline citation squad. Nor is there a single other issue raised on this page that rises to the level of requiring a Good Article Review. Use the article talk page. End this absurdity now. --KSmrq^T 06:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow...I've never heard of this "inline citation squad" you speak of...I find it interesting that you hold me in so much contempt. Do I know you? I don't believe I've ever interacted with you before. "Thinly disguised attack"? Good Lord. What's with all this hostility? How is this helpful at all? Gzkn 06:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- You have trampled on a very sore corn among many editors, I'm afraid. See the talk page to WP:WIAGA for some of the history. But I must go. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict; mishandled by system, resulting in accidental removal): At any rate: the article has four different referencing styles, a problem which needs to be addressed, as well as the problem with trivia/anecdote and an External link farm. In terms of referencing, there is one cite.php footnote, some imbedded URL citations, some Harvard style inline refs, and numerous external jumps which should be either wikified or converted to refs. Any style is OK (once the external jumps are eliminated), but the article needs to pick one and stick with it. I'm not really keen on going through the article and looking at what still needs to be cited until the main editors decide which style they are going to use, and convert the imbedded links and external jumps so we can see where it stands. Last time I helped convert a math article, my work was reverted, so the rest of us can't help unless the editors decide which way they want to go. Is anyone going to work on it; if so, when do you expect to complete the first pass, so we can take a look at whether citation is lacking? There's no point in editors here trying to help - as we did at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Regular polytope - if the bottom line is that no work is going to be done on the article anyway (as has occurred so far at Regular polytope). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

What do I expect?

Reviewers who have actually read the article with attention; counting footnotes is not enough. (If the present reviewers meet this, so much the better.)
Comments about citations which recognize that different forms of citations are useful for different purposes, even within the same article.
Complaints about lack of inline citation which cite instances of points which are both genuinely uncited and which are challenged or likely to be challenged. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll be happy to read the article and provide a detailed list - as I did on Regular polytope - once the hostility subsides and you all decide if anyone is going to actually work on the article. In the meantime, four different referencing styles, the External link farm, the trivia, and jumps to external websites should be addressed: it's not our concern which referencing style you use, or how many citations you count - this is not GAC. It is our concern that the article is consistently referenced, and that text that needs to be cited, is cited. Please contain your hostility towards Gzkn, who made a good faith nomination of an article that merits review, and leave your GA baggage where you found it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Gzkn began with a complaint which is, as he admits, factually false. That it was about inline citations raised more hackles; the stereotype of reviewers who insist on footnotes at every semicolon is less unfounded than it should be. This produced a certain level of hostility right off. Most of the rest of his complaints are either trivial, or blemishes which he perceives and others do not.

Heated rhetoric like "factually false" isn't necessary; the article needed review. Rather than dragging GAC baggage over here, let's focus on the work at hand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sandy's complaints about Regular polytope are largely about a handful of speculative sentences, linking sourced archaeological finds. I spent a few minutes adjusting them, as she could have done herself; but I can see why she was ignored.

Incorrect on several counts. Most of the deficiencies there have not been addressed, you made a very minor edit to an article with a long list of problems, I hope regular polytope is not an example of what the Math Project considers compelling and brilliant, and I did start the work myself, but was reverted. That's no problem (often FAs with so many issues have been abandoned, so we try to help out, but I'm happy to leave the work to others), but the editors who reverted should complete the work - there is a long list of work remaining on the article, including a thorough copyedit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a wider issue here, which should be addressed at WT:WIAFA: are citations a toolkit, or a shibboleth? If they are a toolkit, multiple forms of citation may be expected in a single article, as they are at Pericles; different tools serve different purposes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Pericles does not cite different things in completely different ways, but the same things in two different ways. First, the entire reference is cited in the References section (i.e., # Kagan, Donald (1996). “Athenian Strategy in the Peloponnesian War”, The Making of Strategy: Rules, States and Wars by Williamson Murray, Alvin Bernstein, MacGregor Knox. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-56627-4.). The tiny part of this reference is then shoved between two ref tags and inserted next to the fact being cited (i.e., D. Kagan, Athenian Strategy in the Peloponnesial War, 54). The notes section, as you may or may not have noticed, is for footnotes, which are in turn given inline citations (i.e., "Pericles' date of birth is uncertain; he could not have been born later than 492-1 and been of age to present the Persae in 472. He is not recorded as having taken part in the Persian Wars of 480-479; some historians argue from this that he was unlikely to have been born before 498, but this argument ex silentio has also been dismissed.[142] [18]"). It's true that some sources contain external links and some do not, but that's generally because those sources are primary sources and are available on Wikisource, which has formatted things like this such that one can link to individual lines, saving people the time it takes to page down, risking paging down over it out of sheer impatience/boredom. It is cited using {{Ref_label}} because sticking footnotes in a section intended for references looks really stupid.--Rmky87 05:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be an issue for WP:V; the issues with the math articles currently at FAR include but go beyond citation. This is not GAC, FAs are held to higher standard and more stringent, comprehensive review than the subjective GA process, and we don't just count citations on FAs. Once you all have decided if you want to work on the article, I will thoroughly review it and provide a list if needed - but not eager to do that work if no one plans to address the problems, as has occurred at regular polytope. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

- For the record, "uniformity" of citation appears nowhere in WP:WIAFA - or, as far as I can tell, anywhere else. Let us cut directly to what WP:CITE actually requires: "the most important thing is to provide all the information one would need to identify and find the source"; it would not be useful to invent requirements. Regular polytope could use a note to the effect that Coxeter's book contains all the non-controversial facts listed and not otherwise cited; but I see no corresponding difficulty here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Many of the external jumps are valuable links and probably shouldn't be removed, so it would be wise to be careful about this. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing external jumps doesn't necessarily imply removing the content. There are several ways to deal with external jumps.

Sometimes they're really intended as references, and can be converted to text with the external website as the citation.
Sometimes they are better listed as External links
It is never good prose to say, "For more information, see [1]"; that fails 1a. And, if it's just "for more information" that argues that the external jump belongs in External links. If the content is important to the article's comprehensiveness, that argues against 1b.
Sometimes they indicate an article failing 1b, comprehensiveness. If an article links out to important information, it's not comprehensive - the subject of the external site could become a Wiki article, with a wikilink to the current article, or the text can be written in the current article, with the website used as a ref.

External jumps often indicate a lack of comprehensiveness or a failure to cite sources correctly. They often also get into the territory of WP:NOT; Wiki is not a webpage or a blog, with multiple links to external sites. FAs should write their own content to the extent possible. Once you all are finished massaging the article prose, its mixed referencing styles, and the external jumps, we can re-evaluate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"For more information, see [1]" fails 1a? I don't quite see why so. What phrasing would be better? I agree that an external jump might indicate a lack of comprehensiveness; that concern has to be weighed in each individual case (inlcuding here). But certainly an article can be comprehensive in the sense demanded by the FA criteria without providing all extant information on a subject. Finally, there is an argument that external links that elaborate on a specific segment of the article should be moved to the general EL section. IMO this does nothing but decrease the usefulness of the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Add 1a to the list of deficiencies, which like regular polytope, may be more significant than the other problems with 1b, and 1c. I had a glance at several sections to check the prose; it's not even necessary for Tony to have a look. The article needs a serious prose check and thorough copy edit for things like basic grammar, tone, and typos. If some of the math editors could move the article further along on the basics, a more thorough list and analysis might then be helpful. I am curious that so many editors are defending these articles without seeming to have read them (fallout from the GAC baggage?), and I wonder if the Math Project has a good copyeditor on board? While I understand some of the math editors feel poked by GAC (I don't really understand why anyone even covets a subjective rating based on one editor's review anyway), FAs are held to higher standards, and there is work to be done on these articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- It could use a copy-edit. I've seen recent FA's that were far worse, but I will do one. I shall not, however, be converting it into fake Edwardian; this is an encyclopedia, not an exercise in anachronism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Copy-edited about the first half; I do not claim to have caught everything even there. I found nothing positively ungrammatical; I hope this was not a reference to the split infinitives, which I retained: moving either always in the lead would produce the sort of journalese which Fowler condemns. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment. The "History of the problem" section has an incomplete sentence. The "Combining doors" section should have "rather than" rather than "instead of", and I can't tell what "it" refers to. Actually, I'm not sure what this paragraph adds to the article, so maybe it could just be cut. The article seems ~~a bit~~ repetitive in other aspects and ~~maybe~~ could be shortened, but I don't really understand the complaints about the referencing. Gimmetrow 02:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- The article is repetitive, and has grown considerably since promotion. For reference, it was promoted July 7, 2005; the last version before promotion may be found here. Most of the "Variants" sections are new. The "Increasing the number of doors" section has prose issues now, but was only one paragraph in the original promoted version. Gimmetrow 03:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I am of the opinion that the article could be cut in half, and its quality would dramatically improve. I am aware that not everyone shares this opinion. But in its current state, I find it overwhelming, directionless, and confusing. - Abscissa 02:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Abscissa has a point. The article contains several explanations of the same result, and many of them could be struck. I suspect, however, that one will make sense to one reader, and another to another reader, so I'm not sure which ones, if any, to remove. This should be taken to the article talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of random problems

~~Still contractions sprinkled around.~~
- As is modern standard idiom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed. --PresN 15:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
pronoun referring to the player changes randomly between "he" and "they" and "s/he"
- Fixed. The gender is now never specified. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Bold is used liberally for emphasis instead of italics
- Fixed. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
~~These terms need wikilinks for those unfamiliar with mathematics: algorithm, decision tree~~
~~"The Monty Hall problem is a puzzle involving probability loosely based on the American game show Let's Make a Deal." involving probability loosely is quite awkward; ambiguous "loosely"~~ comma duly inserted in first line. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
"Mueser and Granberg improved the phrasing;" Who? First time encountering these two names in the text...needs explication.
- Clearly a reference. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Well, it's clear to me as a regular Wikipedia editor that I should look down in the references section to find out who they are. Casual readers, though, will have no idea. Expanding a bit (University of Missouri-Columbia professors...) would be helpful. Gzkn 01:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
"The problem would be different if the game host were permitted to make the offer to switch more often (or only) depending on knowledge of the player's original choice or if the host does not know what is behind each door." Awkward and confusing
- Changed to "more often (or only) if the player original chooses the car". -- Rick Block (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
"To drive the point home, one only has to imagine..." "To drive the point home" is hardly encyclopedic prose.
- Fixed. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
"The player can then more easily appreciate the randomness of his first choice and the large amount of information he has gained since he made that choice and then see the wisdom in switching." winding snake
- Deleted. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
"...if we increase the number of doors, why does this explanation assume the host would open 98 doors to make the problem similar to the original?" Why is first person being used in an encyclopedia?
- Fixed. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
"It is correct to assume the host would open 98 doors in this alternate game; because in the 3 door game the player has only one switching option — and the player in the 100 door game must also be presented with a single switching option." Not exactly the correct use of the semicolon and mdash.
- Reworded. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
~~Something needs to be done about the "Venn diagram" images. It's not clear upfront which image corresponds to which paragraph. Either refer to the image in text or use captions.~~ Referenced in text. I hope it works for all computers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- And now the Venn diagrams are centered, with text above clearly indicating diagram below. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
"There is a simple way for people to convince themselves that a switching strategy really does win two out of three times on the average, and that is to simulate the game with playing cards, playing Monty's role." Compelling prose?
- Reworded. -- Rick Block (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
"...he discards, should bring the point home" Compelling prose?
- Reworded. -- Rick Block (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
"Consider various possible host behaviors, in which his decision to switch may be based upon the accuracy of the contestant's initial guess:" Confusing way to have readers look at the table to the right. Just explicitly say so, instead of having a colon.
- Fixed. -- Rick Block (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
"With several minutes remaining in the game, the game host chose two players for the "Big Deal". Behind one of three doors was the grand prize. Each player was allowed to choose a door (not the same one)." Why the past tense all of a sudden? "remaining in the game"-->What game? What is the "Big Deal"?
- Reworded. -- Rick Block (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
"In this scenario, a variant of Selvin's problem can be stated." Who? First encounter needs explication.
- Deleted. -- Rick Block (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
"The game host eliminates a player with a goat behind his door..." ambiguous "his"
- Reworded. -- Rick Block (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
"How likely is that? 1/3." Compelling prose?
- Reworded. -- Rick Block (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
"The two player game, from the final player's point of view, resembles like the single player game:"
- Reworded. -- Rick Block (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
"Actually, the two player game is exactly the same as the one player game, except in reverse."
- Reworded. -- Rick Block (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
n doors section is full of second person. Not exactly encyclopedic.
- Fixed. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
"which begins with 26 boxes (typically — it depends on the version of the show)" Compelling prose?
- Changed to "which begins with a number of boxes (typically 26)". -- Rick Block (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
"the player's keeper is equally likely to be the winner" Player's keeper??
- Reworded entire paragraph. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
"Another explanation is available at http://www.acbl-district13.org/artic003.htm". Why are we resorting to blog style here?
- Deleted this sentence. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
"A similar problem appeared in Joseph Bertrand's Calcul des probabilités (1889), known as Bertrand's Box Paradox, which is the . In this you have three boxes, each with two drawers on opposite sides. Each drawer contains a coin; one has a gold coin on both sides, one a silver coin on both sides, and the third gold on one side and silver on the other. You open a drawer and find a gold coin; what is the chance of the other side being silver?" Something went wrong here. And why is second person being used now?
~~"you can't have picked the silver/silver box" Second person/contraction...compelling prose?~~
- ~~Compared to "the player cannot have chosen the silver/silver box"? Definitely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)~~
- ~~Both now moot; Bertand's box paradox is a separate article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)~~
~~"It went on to give examples..." compelling prose?~~
- ~~Changed to "Martin then gives examples ..." -- Rick Block (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)~~
~~"Over 40 papers have been published about this problem in academic journals and the popular press." Citation? Where is this statistic from? Gzkn 02:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)~~
- ~~It is from the Mueser and Granberg paper; I've added the citation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)~~
~~I have three remarks for Gzkn:~~
1. ~~If you are unfamiliar with the inline citation war, I apologize for casting you as a participant.~~
3. ~~I still feel that all the issues I have seen here belong on the article talk page, and do not rise to the level of a review.~~
4. Thank you very much for your detailed critique of the writing. This level of attention and awareness is uncommon. Usually when I have that much to improve I find it easier to just edit the article! (Or, complain briefly and leave it.) Therefore, I will try to reward your attention with some of my own, as edits.
Many readers have strong, and often wrong, responses to this puzzle. I'm not sure why; this is not, say, "abortion". As you may be aware, whenever this happens the editing gets more challenging — both in fending off misguided alterations and in clearly and effectively addressing a diverse audience. For ordinary mathematics, we work hard to write prose that is clear, correct, and compelling; for extraordinary topics like this, we work twice as hard. And while I feel that most mathematicians write poor English, I also feel that most English majors write even worse mathematics.

Mathematics is inherently so formal that it drives many readers away; therefore good mathematics writers present the formal content in a more informal style. This is the opposite of the humanities, where personal opinions are often clothed in formal attire to lend them greater credibility. Guess which I prefer. --KSmrq^T 07:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Curiously silent

I apologize for not having participated in the discussion so far - I've been abroad on business for the past week. I'll read through all of the above and comment within the next few days (I am rather jet lagged at the moment). -- Rick Block (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Since nominating this article for FA, I and others have watched the page to keep it mathematically correct. Many of the criticisms are more or less well founded, although as user:KSmrq notes above there is a difficult balance in mathematics articles in general, and this article in particular, between formal correctness and general understandability. I will spend some time over the next few days addressing the #List of random problems above. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe everything in the list has been taken care of. Good work! I still believe that the "In popular culture" is basically trivia that either can be worked into the text (the Erdos anecdote --> History) or is unnecessary and can be deleted (the NUMBERS episode). Are all the links in the External links section necessary? Some of the descriptions could probably be reworded too ("A Simulator that you can run in your web browser"). SandyGeorgia explained my view on the external jumps/referencing much more eloquently than I could have. Gzkn 01:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from SandyGeorgia

Note Please don't strike commentary from other reviewers: Gzkn provided his list (in addition to the commentary above it), but other editors are striking the items as if completed to Gzkn's satisfaction. Please request the original reviewer to strike if/when satisfied the concern has been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

~~OK. I believe I've unstruck all those that I struck, and I'll request Gzkn to rereview. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)~~

Glad to see you so hard at work on it: please let us know when you've had time to get through Gzkn's list, as I'm still concerned about the way external jumps are employed, and how they contribute to 1a, 1b problems - I haven't read the entire article yet, and I haven't wanted to drop my list on you until I know you've had a chance to go through the article and finish your cleanup. Also wondering why I see Venn diagram in the TOC, but no Venn diagrams in the article? Also, I believe WP:MOS (or somewhere else) specifically deals with not using contractions - is that being addressed ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, everything Gzkn has brought up has been addressed. I don't understand the external jump issue - can you explain? The diagrams in the Venn diagram section show the universe of doors, divided into chosen and not chosen sets, with the probability of each door indicated. These aren't quite traditional circular Venn diagrams, but they do show the probability relationship between the doors in the sets of "chosen" and "not chosen". -- Rick Block (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

~~Forgot to mention - I don't think there are any more contractions. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)~~

~~OK, if you're caught up with Gzkn, I'll give you a quick list of my concerns (I don't usually use Harvard inlines, so some of my suggestions may need to be adjusted to the correct formatting).~~

I'd like to see some adjustment to the lead if possible; the spoiler in the midst of it is distracting, and citations aren't usually provided in the lead (with some exceptions). Would it be possible to summarize the article, per WP:LEAD, without using the direct quotes, the citations, and the spoiler? The lead should be a stand-alone summary of the entire article, without getting into too much detail in any one area. There should be no text in the lead which isn't expanded in the article. Rather than summarizing the article, the lead seems to be introducing the problem (with text that is not included elsewhere in the article).
Also, in some places I encounter too much text about the references which interferes with reading the article - example - this (followed by the quote) seems to be overburdening the lead with referenced detail - can the references and quotes be moved to the body, using the lead to summarize the article without getting into this level of detail?
- A widely known statement of the problem is from Craig F. Whitaker of Columbia, Maryland in a letter to Marilyn vos Savant's September 9, 1990 column in Parade Magazine (as quoted by Bohl, Liberatore, and Nydick (1995)).
Whether this segment goes in the body or the lead, the prose seems to be more about the reference than about the problem. Does the reader really need to know the exact date, location, and author of the letter, for example, or can that be found in the Reference section for the reader who is interested in following up? Is the date, location, and author of the letter central enough to the article to 1) be included in the text at all, and 2) be included in the lead? Can you try something which introduces the quote, then simply provides an inline ref to the source, without the distraction of the extra detail? The specifics on the source are already given in the References section, so it seems this could be reduced to one set of parentheses, pointing the reader to the ref.
- This now reads "A widely known statement of the problem appeared in a letter to Marilyn vos Savant's Ask Marilyn column in Parade Magazine (Bohl et al. 1995)." Good enough? -- Rick Block (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
~~Can the section heading, "The problem, with all constraints explicit" be shortened to just "The problem"?~~
- ~~Done. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)~~
~~Prose - there is some prose redundancy which seems to make it harder for the non-mathmetician to read rather than easier -some examples:~~
- ~~The version of the problem popularized by Parade ~~unfortunately~~ leaves room for ~~possible~~ misunderstandings ...~~
- ~~The reasoning of the solution is, at length:~~ The chance of winning the car is doubled when the player switches from the original door to another door ~~rather than sticking with the original choice~~.
- ~~The reason for this is that~~ To win the car by sticking with the original choice, the player must choose ...
- ~~At the point w~~When the player is asked whether to switch, ...
- By referring to "the problem as stated above", another chance to lose the mathmatically-challenged reader is introduced - maybe which statement can be somehow be clarified:
  - In the problem as stated above, it is because the host must reveal a goat and must make the offer to switch that the player has a ⅔ chance of winning by switching.
- The most common objection to the solution is that~~, for various reasons,~~ the past can be ignored when assessing the probability; thus ignoring the first choice of door, and the host's choice of which door to open.
  - These are all done. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Those are just some samples from the top of the article of how prose might be tightened up to reduce redundancy and improve clarity - I didn't continue, but I doubt that the current prose is going to get past Tony: he is very good at re-working technical prose, and I'd consider begging him to help improve the clarity in some of these areas, considering there is still ample time left on review.
- I've asked Tony1 for help. So far he's a done very light copyedit. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Skipping now to the issues of the External jumps:
- These kinds of external jumps raise several problems (see WP:NOT, WP:EL):
  - However, if the show host has not randomized the position of the prize in a fully quantum mechanical way, the player can do even better, and can sometimes even win the prize with certainty. There is an article explaining it and an applet demonstrating the effects.
- If we have to jump to an external website to demonstate something, that argues against comprehensiveness (1b) of this article. External links almost never have a place in the text of the article (I've seen valid exceptions, but not to deviate from the topic - usually Geography articles that need to link to maps or daily weather - things we can't wikify). And, this kind of prose is just not encyclopedic: you wouldn't see it in Britannica, for example (argues against 1a). Consider the reader reading this in hard print - does it make sense? Is it comprehensive? There are several general ways to resolve external jumps:
  - Write the Wiki article about the content of the External site, and link to the Wiki article.
  - Explain the content of the site, and reference it inline to the external site.
  - Or, if for coyright reasons, we really absolutely cannot write it or demonstrate it ourselves - via Wikified content or referenced content - then at least we should do an excellent job of prosifying the External jump. "There is an article" isn't excellent prose.
- Sending our readers to an alternate site for an explanation - I can't see anything in the referenced site that we shouldn't be able to write ourselves, sourcing it to the original author. I don't see a rationale for the external jump; this argues against both 1a and 1b.
- This external jump can easily be converted to an inline reference to the external website, which can be listed under References - the External jump is actually a reference - we shouldn't be sending Wiki readers outside of Wiki, unless absolutely necessary. External jumps almost always belong in External links or References (in this case, Refs):
  - It's now a reference. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  - And if you ever get on my show, the rules hold fast for you — no trading boxes after the selection.
    —From the Let's Make a Deal website
    - Also now a reference. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Same situation here - what we have in this case is an entire sentence that is distracting from the text, and is actually an external jump which should be an inline reference:
  - In the May–June, 1989 issue of Bridge Today magazine, Phillip Martin wrote an article entitled "The Monty Hall Trap." The article presented Selvin's problem, with the correct solution, as an example of how one can fall into the trap of treating non-random information as if it were random.
- Could become:
  - An example of how one can fall into ... is ... end of sentence(Martin, Phillip).
- Then include Martin in the References section. By writing about the reference, the text becomes overburdened - the text need not be about the Reference - it can simply be inlined as a reference, avoiding sending Wiki readers jumping about the internet to external sites - we should internalize content as much as possible.
  - Also now a reference. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Here is another example of an External jump that can be eliminated by prosifying the text, referencing it inline, and including the external jump in References:
  - The syndicated NPR program, Car Talk, featured this as one of their weekly "Puzzlers," and the answer they featured was quite clearly explained as the correct one. Transcript here. Also available in their book, Haircut in Horse Town (Magliozzi & Magliozzi, 1998).
    - The syndicated NPR program, Car Talk featured the Monty Hall problem as a weekly "Puzzler", giving the correct answer (inline ref here pointing at the transcript and the book, which are included in References).
      - Now a reference. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
In some places, the article refers to Parade Magazine; others, vos Savant - by sticking to consistent references, the article will be easier for the non-mathmatical reader.
- I think this is consistent now (refers to Parade). -- Rick Block (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Eliminate parentheticals wherever possible - they are distracting and at times indicative of inattention to prose:
- Consider various possible host behaviors, in which his decision to switch may be based upon the accuracy of the contestant's initial guess. (See table.)
  - The table shows various possible host behaviors, in which the decision to switch ...
    - All parentheticals are now gone, except in the Bayes Theorem section which is being actively edited. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't speak Harvard inline, but this doesn't seem consistent:
- The Parade column and its response received considerable attention in the press, including a front page story in the New York Times (July 21, 1991) in which Monty Hall himself was interviewed.
If the reader wants to find the ref, what do they look for alphabetically in the References section? I think it's under Tierney, John (1991), so shouldn't that be the inline? Again, the text is more about the reference, rather than text with a reference that doesn't interfere with the flow of the text.
- Now a reference. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a quick start - I still haven't thoroughly read the entire article, so these are just some directions of work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Had a quick look, saw much improvement, but due to travel, request the review stay open until I can re-read the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Except for the comment about the lead, I believe all the specific concerns you've raised have been addressed. I've started a discussion about the lead on the article's talk page. Please join the discussion there. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second look from SG

Read the article last night; the improvements are significant, many of my concerns have been addressed, and I'd like to see us get this closed without moving to FARC. The prose flows better with the removal of the external jumps and extensive commentary about the references (as opposed to using the references), and prose redundancies have been reduced. I see a few minor issues remaining, but am still very concerned about the WP:LEAD.

Math notation problem: in the Bayes' theorem section, the math notation wraps off of my screen (I checked 3 different screens), and on printout, the longer formulations and text following formulas are chopped off. Is there a way to decrease the size on the math formulas?
- The longest one is now fixed, are the others problematic as well? -- Rick Block (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  - The text under "subject to where the car is, i.e. conditioned on a proposition . Specifically, it is" is now wrapping correctly. There's still a problem with the formulas under "The denominator can be evaluated by expanding it using the definitions ..." and under "This can be proven using Bayes' theorem and the previous results:" (On this computer - I can check laptop, larger screen, and a printout later.) Is it possible to cut the formulas at a plus sign and manually wrap them to the next line? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Yes. Done. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
~~Bertrand, Joseph (1889). Calcul des probabilites is listed in References - what is this, where do we find it? Book, journal, paper? More biblio info is needed.~~
- I think this can be removed entirely. As far as I'm aware, it was there entirely because of the mention of Bertrand's Box Paradox, which was stated in an earlier version of the article to be the earliest known version of a Monty-Hall-like problem. However, upon closer examination, Bertrand's Box Paradox turned out not to really be a Monty-Hall-like problem, despite some external similarities (such as the "intuitive" answer being 1/2 and the actual answer being 2/3.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I still see one place where a reference needn't be taking up "prose" space: in the Sequential doors section, rather than stating who proved what when as a separate sentence, we can remove that from the prose, and use it as a ref (also removing the colon and better prosifying the conclusion):
- ~~The best strategy is to stick with the first choice all the way through but then switch at the very end. With this strategy, the probability of winning is (n−1)/n (Bapeswara Rao and Rao, 1992).~~
- Done. --Rick Block (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

~~Bridge principle section: a one sentence section ?? Also, wording is weasly. This section needs to be somehow better incorporated into the whole.~~
- Section deleted (there's a mention of related bridge problems in the History section). -- Rick Block (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:MSH specifically addresses the word "The" in section headings: "The", "a" and "an" should be omitted from the beginning of heading titles. Thus "Mammals", not "The mammals".
- Headings have been reworded so none start with "The". -- Rick Block (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

In the section labeled, "The general case", the first paragraph sounds weasly. "One common criticism" is unfortunate wording, as it invites a citation; criticism usually requires an "according to whom". The second paragraph begins with the words, "In general", which also sounds weasly, and the generality isn't clarified. There's also still some redundancy there - the entire section could be cleared up with tighter attention to the prose - also, the second paragraph is not at all clear.
- One common criticism of the Monty Hall problem is that the host's behavior is not fully specified, such as the version published in Parade in 1990. In that instance, it was not specifically stated that the host would always open another door, or always offer a choice to switch, or even that the host must open a door containing a goat. The criticism is that without specifying these rules, the player does not have enough information to conclude switching is the best option.
- In general, the best course of action depends on the behavior of the host and switching may not be successful two-thirds of the time. The table shows possible host behaviors and the impact on the success of switching.
~~A suggestion (perhaps not the best suggestion - just an idea):~~
- In the version of the Monty Hall problem published in Parade in 1990, the host's behavior is not fully specified; in that instance, it was not specifically stated that the host would always open another door, or always offer a choice to switch, or even that the host must open a door containing a goat. Without specifying these rules, the player does not have enough information to conclude switching is the best option. The best course of action depends on the behavior of the host; if the host's behavior varies from the version on the Monte Hall show, switching may not be successful two-thirds of the time. The table shows possible host behaviors and the impact on the success of switching.
- Reworded. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Now, to the bigger problem of the lead. If you go to the first section (The problem), you see that the problem is not introduced in the text, rather the lead. The text of the article dives in to the middle of the problem. The problem should not be introduced in the lead - it should be included in the text, with the lead summarizing the entire article. A summary need not include the solution or the spoiler; I believe if you'll restructure the first part of the article - so that the problem is introduced in the text - then a more general, summarizing lead can be written, without the necessity of getting into problem/solution detail in the lead. For an article this size, a shorter lead would be acceptable, discussing the problem in general terms.
- Change proposed at talk:Monty Hall problem. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

And, finally, to the touchier subject of citations :-) I understand and have read numerous times the objections against citing math/science articles, and the comparisons made to medical articles such as the ones I usually edit. I've seen the argument that standard mathmatical knowledge/info need not be cited, as it can be found in any textbook, and I agree that the math here is fairly standard to a math major. On the other hand, I can also give dozens of examples of statements in Tourette syndrome that are common medical knowledge to a neurologist and that can be cited to dozens of different textbooks or journal articles: so, I pick one. A reputable one. Doesn't matter which one, as long as I know it's an acknowledged, reputable source, to assure Wiki readers I'm not just making it up. The fact that it is common knowledge, available in any textbook, doesn't mean I can't/shouldn't cite it. I may accept the common knowledge math here, but not everyone is a student of math. I can see that each step in the math formulations need not be cited, but I can equally see that there are numerous references and external links (already provided) which could be used to cite sections of the article, so that an interested party can refer to a source if they want to follow up or verify. I don't see a reason not to put a general reference for each different mathmatical formulation - for example, any textbook or website where a reader can go to follow up on the Bayes' theorem formulation. We simply can't present an entire formulation without somehow demonstrating that it's not original research. Or, where can a reader find the Decision tree formulation (pls, no Ronald A. Howard - <yawner>). These can be any textbook, or any number of the external links, references given at the bottom of the article. It should be possible - with such common knowledge and such an oft-discussed problem - to give one general ref for each math formulation/section.
- Added a reference for the Bayes Theorem formulation (Gill 2002).The Glopk 07:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I am very close to Keep on this article, and hope the lead can be reworked, some general cites can be given for each formulation, and we can get this closed without FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from ChuckHG

As a mathematician who has used the Monty Hall Problem in his probability classes, I offer these comments:

The paragraph The problem would be different... does not belong in the Solution section. It has nothing to do with the solution presented and should either be deleted or moved elsewhere, perhaps to The general case section.

Changed to "The solution would be different". This section is presenting the solution to what is generally meant by the "Monty Hall problem". Qualifying that other solutions are possible given other host behaviors seems fair to me. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a somewhat laissez-faire use and interchangeability of the words probability, chance, and odds. In particular, probability and odds have a specific and different mathematical meaning/defintion; for example, a 2/3 probablility is 2:1 odds, and a 1/3 probability is 1:2 odds. Chance is generally a loosely defined concept, probably most often taken to mean the same as probability (as in 1 out of 3 chance of winning).

Where it meant probability I've replaced "odds" with "probability". -- Rick Block (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
That the popular Parade statement of the problem is itself subject to misunderstanding through unstated assumptions (and is a significant contributing factor in the widespread disbelief in its solution) is omitted from the lead, in spite of the fact that a major part of the article is given over to addressing these issues. -- Chuck 17:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added a sentence about this to the lead. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Status: Anyone think we can close this? I've asked the nominator to look again. Marskell 21:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No. I have a LONG list of outstanding concerns above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Gzkn's page indicates he's on a Wikibreak for personal reasons :-( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns of Gzkn

Good work. I'm fairly confident we can avoid FARC once Sandy's and my concerns are addressed. Here are things I feel still need work:

I'm not too wild about the tone of the recent expansion of the "Bayes' theorem" section (informal "we" used throughout). If the other explanatory sections can do without the first person plural, this one can too. Also, some of the longer math notation scrolls off the screen for any monitor resolution smaller than 1024x768.

I, too, have reservations about the Bayes theorem section. There is a similar, less well written but mathematically more cogent, treatment of the Monty Hall problem on the Bayes's theorem (sic) page. Chuck 15:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to disagree with the above statement. That treatment is very verbose, and while I can see its usefulness in showing the role that different choices of priors play in the inference, it's really too contrived to count as a proof of the Monty Hall winning solution - unless we regard a "proof by making up lots of examples" as acceptable. In the ususal statement of the Monty Hall problem the solver has no freedom of choice of either priors or conditionals.

I agree that the informal "we" can be removed, but - given the limitations on math notation in Wikipedia, am a bit at loss on how to address the criticism on the length of the equations. The longest equations (the expansion of the normalization constant at the denominator of the Bayes expression) are aligned so that their three terms maintain the same position and meaning throughout. I think it makes it much easier to understand.The Glopk 18:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The approach I'm exploring is using a table for the definition of the conditional probability of the Hij proposition using one table line per case and plain text for the description (rather than a "math" case expression and "math" generated text). This looks similar but doesn't end up forcing horizontal scrolling - although it doesn't preserve the meaning inside the "math" expression. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've eliminated the informal "we" from this description and am working on reducing the length ot the math notations. I'm not sure what the sense of Chuck's comment is - are you suggesting adding the bit about varying the probabilities of the door the host picks, as in Bayes's theorem? -- Rick Block (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we can address Chuck's concern by adding at the end of the section a sentence or two to explain in qualitative terms the outcome of that Bayesian machinery. For example, something like: "Notice how the host's actions have no bearing on the probability of the door first picked by the user since its posterior probability remains equal to its prior value of 1/3. The effect of the host's opening of Door 3, on the other hand, is clearly shown by the last two equations: it is to cause the probability of that door to collapse from its prior value of 1/3 to 0, thus doubling the probability of the only remaining door.". Would that be acceptable? The Glopk 20:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There's still the "In popular culture" which smacks to me of trivia. Is it truly necessary? Can the notable ones can be integrated into the History section? Gzkn 01:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- The pop culture references are now a paragraph in the History section. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Status

There are good faith efforts underway to address the concerns that have been raised (including the most recent batch from SandyGeorgia posted at 19:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC) and Gzkn's immediately above). I suggest either the FAR be extended or the concerns be taken to the article's talk page and the FAR closed. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if there are still concerns we can't do option b and just close. Let's leave it here two or three more days and then move it to FARC to keep the page moving; it can always be closed if there are rapid keeps from the people involved. Marskell 14:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Close without FARC - my concerns have been satisfied. (Gzkn is on a wikibreak, unfortunately, but by my read, his concerns have been met as well.) The lead is much cleaner (short, but adequate), referencing has been attended to, and prose has been tightened up; I still get a wrap of the math formulas on one screen, but that could be my problem. Hopefully the Math Project will find a way over time to reduce the size on math notation. Nice work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was kept 19:49, 25 January 2007.

[edit] Gerald Ford

Messages left at Jtmichcock, Michigan, Congress, bio (bio template page is not being updated), Politics, U.S. Presidents, and U.S. Politicians. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This featured article has undergone numerous daily editing since President Gerald Ford's death. Entire sections have been created, revised, and reworded. Many citations have been added, along with new links and pictures. I'm requesting this article be reviewed to see if it still maintains featured article status after such an important current event as Ford's demise. I believe the article should remain featured, but my opinion is of course not enough. I care about this article, so I wish to hear what my fellow Wikipedians think. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review 01:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sumoeagle179 (talk • contribs) and I ran through the article structure and references on December 31, and left them in good shape, but I see there have been almost 500 edits since then. It shouldn't be too hard to whip this back into shape after its time on the main page, but it will need someone's sustained attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'd like to see inline citations, but the most noticeable weakness in the article is the "Longevity" section - reads very trivial and listy. LuciferMorgan 08:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Question? Are we reviewing this article too soon after its time on the main page? The main page is very hard on articles, and we usually allow time for edits to settle down. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
This review should be postponed for at least a month; it's been through a lot of editing. Ral315 (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I think de-featuring this article at the moment would be improper. Surely the death of someone so significant would lead to considerable changes in the article, but allow editors some time to absorb all the new edits. I second User:Ral315's suggestion that this be postponed a month to allow the article to achieve a sense of stability again, and then an honest assessment of it's FA merits can be made. Thethinredline 13:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've raised the question on the talk page here; I'm not certain if we've established a minimum lag between time on talk page and review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- If you look at the current editing, its already slowed down considerbly. I thought now was a good time. Most of the new edits, in my estimation, have been absorbed fairly well. The only sections in question are the Longevity section, which was there when the article achieved FA, and the new Death section. Concerning the death section, the question on what to delete and add to the seperated funeral and death article needs to be addressed. I see no reason why this article shouldn't maintain its featured status, or why we need to wait. Funerals start and end abruptly, as seen in the editing. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review 16:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  - FAR talk page consensus is to go ahead with the review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Status: Does this actually need to go through FARC or are people happy? Marskell 20:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

References are in very good shape, article structure is good, and Sumoeagle179 is watching the article - it should not need to go to FARC. However, prose size is at 45KB, which is approaching too long - if something can be moved to a daughter article, I support closing without FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Message left on article talk page regarding size. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep FA, no FARC I feel this has been saved. Vote for no daughter articles too.Sumoeagle179 23:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I knocked off one of those K myself and I feel this has been saved too. Wait for any last comment from nominator. Marskell 15:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the process, and agree the article should remain FA. Thanks for everyone's input. Veracious Rey t • c • r 19:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was kept 15:08, 25 January 2007.

[edit] Common scold

Messages left at Ihcoyc and UK notice board. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This article definitely needs FARC. I suspect it was promoted before FA guidelines were really established. No references (1c) is only its most obvious fault. Wwwhhh 09:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Of course it needs FARC. It's ridiculous to have this as a Featured Article. It does not abide by Criteria 1a (well written), 1c (factually accurate-verifiability), 2a (proper lead). Also 1b (comprehensive) can be doubted. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Article fails 1. c. mainly, and 2. a. also (haven't looked at the article long enough to assess how well written it is, and as regards being uncomprehensive, I'm unfamiliar with the subject matter). LuciferMorgan 21:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - By the standards of two years ago, this was a well referenced article. It still is, in my opinion: the sources are named, quoted, and given in text, rather than being assigned to footnotes. There are a few in-text external links that could be converted into a separate reference section if need be. As to its comprehensiveness, it attempts to answer the questions raised on the talk page. On the other hand, much of the original tone has been edited out of the article's prose in the name of NPOV. - Smerdis of Tlön 07:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I've done a little work on it. It still needs some work on the lead and referencing for historical cases, but I agree with Smerdis of Tlön that we don't need footnotes when the sources are fully-referenced as part of the body of the article (and in some cases have their own articles). Yomangani^talk 10:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've hopefully fixed the outstanding issues as well now (had more time than I thought). Yomangani ^talk 11:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Status: Are people happy with Yomangani's changes? Is the nominator still around with a comment to provide? Marskell 07:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Satisfied with Yomangani's work, but all websources need full info (e.g.; last retrieval date). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Minor blip - fixed now. Yomangani ^talk 22:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Status: I've asked the nominator if s/he has any more comments. Marskell 21:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

While I still don't think this is FA quality (if it were nominated today, it would have a tough time getting through), I don't mind if if it is kept or removed. Wwwhhh 02:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Closing: While this may not seem to have the meat of an ordinary FA, no criteria issues remain outstanding in the above comments. LEAD is improved, refs sufficient and properly formatted, no comprehensiveness issues were specifically raised, and length alone is not a criterion. We even a new pic. So a keep. Marskell 15:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was kept 09:53, 23 January 2007.

[edit] Barack Obama

I don't know how to correct this problem myself so I am posting it here in the hopes that someone else can fix it. When I searched for "Barack Obama" on the main page, it brought me to the "Antichrist" page - aparently someone's idea of a joke. I couldn't actually get to the page until I searched for him in French and redirected the page to the English site.

Messages left at HailFire, Politics and government, and Hawaii. Gzkn 00:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Additional messages at Politics, Congress, and Meelar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I am recommending this article for Featured Article review because I feel that:

This is not a well-written article per criteria 1(a). The prose it neither compelling nor brilliant. In fact, it's far from it. It's incredibly dry and dull. The writers pair up dry and dull short sentences in an uneven fasion with sentences sporting convoluted structures that in many instances are potentially confusing to readers with a low grasp of English because of the addition of tangental information (esp. through excess prepositional clauses).
The lead is terrible, does not completely summarize the article, and doesn't conform to WP:LEAD per criterion 2(a).
Way too many sections and paragraphs with only one or two sentences...bad form, and also a sign that this article does not comply with 1(b). Can't comprehensively treat a subject with one or two lines.
Criterion 1(e) no longer is the case. This article is no longer stable, and is subject to POV edit wars, most likely due to the rise in Obama's prospects for the White House. I think that the article being locked temporarily remedies this, but, is antithetical to the Wikipedia spirit.

The only thing this article has going for it, in my opinion, is that it is well-referenced.

Also, I have not been able to locate a log for this article's FA candidacy in order to compare the current version with the version that was raised to FA status and to see what issues were raised then (if there isn't much difference). Would someone please direct me (and future reviewers) to a log of this article's previous FAC discussion?

For the above reasons which render this article to its current, pitiful state, I oppose this article's continued inclusion among the Featured Articles, and unless these issues are remedied, I will support its removal from FA status.—ExplorerCDT 18:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the FAC, listed correctly on the article talk page. I looked into this article a few months ago, requesting that it be cited (which it was), and it was in very good shape. When the article passed FA, it wasn't cited - it has since been cited, so the older version wouldn't be entirely relevant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching the article for almost a year now, I suppose, though mainly to keep POV and vandalism out. User:HailFire has done a tremendous amount of work on the article to get it referenced, among other things. My main concern at this time, however, is that the article has not been particularly stable lately, and I suspect it will get even more volatile in the next few months and years (regardless of whether Obama runs in '08 or not, but obviously moreso if he does). I would be on the fence for now if it were listed at FARC; I'd really like to see if it becomes more or less unstable soon. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the majority of the problems arise from "recentism" (except the lead, which does need expanding). It's obviously well-cited, and a lot of editors have been doing great work keeping the vandals/POV pushers at bay. However, at the moment, it's kind of a hodgepodge of facts...I'd definitely be willing to roll up my sleeves and help rework it. There's no reason why a run for the presidency would make it unstable though. We just have to be on guard for more "recentism", as I would imagine random folks will want to keep adding the latest minute detail they caught on CNN or read online. Gzkn 00:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think any well-referenced article is worth saving, and would hesitate to de-feature an article only on (temporary) stability issues, since there are other ways of dealing with that. If you're willing to work on it, I think it's worth it. The lead definitely needs improvement, but referencing is generally good - I can spruce up the ref formatting once you're done. (Sheesh, the things we do in the name of NPOV bipartisanship.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The referencing is the only reason the article is worth saving. I wish I could help more, but I need to be inspired by the subject, and Obama doesn't really move me to work on the article extensively. I'll do what I can though in terms of copyediting. —ExplorerCDT 01:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)OK. Just a note that User:HailFire, one of the major contributors to the article, is on a Wikibreak (userpage doesn't seem to indicate when s/he will return...hopefully it's short!), so we'll be working down a man/woman. I'll get started on the lead. Gzkn 01:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ignore any ref problems, and I'll spruce them up when you're farther along. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm almost halfway through checking refs, and this is sick - not a single marginal source yet, very reliable sources, very good referencing. This is better referencing than 75% of what comes through WP:FAC these days. I'm mostly adding last access dates, wikifying the dates, and checking the sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

RE:refs: Yeah, Obama article watchers are pretty quick to remove unsourced and dubious info. I've expanded the lead; how does it look now? Gzkn 03:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Everything I've seen in the article looks to be in better shape than most of what comes through (and passes) FAC these days. I should enlist HailFire to help review refs. Let's get Tony to look at the prose. I'm done with the refs - I found a few very minor date errors, and added last access dates on web soruces and some obscure news sources, and corrected a couple of wayward titles - I wish most FACs would have referencing in such good shape - one dead link, all reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I've read the first third: it's well written indeed, except ... why not merge some of the stubby paragraphs? Tony 04:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep -I'm going to start working on that. Reworked early life and career a bit. Tvoz | talk 22:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Status? I'm going to be traveling and might not get back to this article, so unless someone comes up with a new problem, I'm OK with closing this without FARC - I don't see anything that warrants defeaturing or further review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

-- a note on his memoirs in which he admits smoking marijuana is very important especially if he has goals of being President of the United states of America see: http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/01/obama.html UNSIGNED comment entered by 71.242.7.217

Did you read the article before posting your observation? The marijuana reference has been there for a long time. Also, if you have comments about the content of the article, they more properly belong in Barack Obama - this is a more technical discussion of the piece in terms of its FA ststus. And please sign your comments with ~~~~ Thank you. Tvoz | talk 01:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel that my objections have been remedied or assuaged, and thus withdraw them and I especially like how the one/two sentence subsections have been reworked in the "Senate Career" section. Bravo. I think we can close off this FAR as a success. Thank you to you all...you have done work that has done Wikipedia proud. —ExplorerCDT 01:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

WEll, the lead could be improved upon certainly, but I have no other problems with the article, so I'd vote to keep it featured. I assum this is not a vote though.--Wizardman 17:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I move for closure of the FAR, citing this reference version. The article lives and breathes, but it has a community of tireless people behind it who are dedicated to keeping it FA quality and have repeatedly proven so over the last hours, days, and weeks. Do I hear a second? --HailFire 00:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Second. —ExplorerCDT 09:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
No FARC was ever opened on this article, so there's no reason to close, really. This FAR will be archived with time, I believe, and the article seems to have passed FAR with commendations. Well done, all involved. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was kept 20:55, 17 January 2007.

[edit] Exploding whale

Messages left at Ta bu shi da yu, Cetaceans and Internet culture. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Featured Article criterium this doesn't fill, but it seems far shorter than the other FAs. Maybe this in an unpopular choice, as it seems that exploding whale is one of the Wikipedians favourite articles. But still, maybe from the time this was granted FA status to the present day, things have changed. --Montchav 17:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's your FA criterim: Number 4: "It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". IMHO, this is too short. --Montchav 17:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish. It's quite long enough, and more than comprehensive. --Ta bu shi da yu 16:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There is plenty wrong with this article, but the argument above isn't it. Where is the unnecessary detail? Too short is not an objection: uncomprehensive is. But the article has other problems, anyway - focus on those, and whether it is comprehensive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - don't see a problem with the length (too long if anything). Prose is lumpy, structure is poor (listy sections and strange divisions), citations missing for some statements. Yomangani^talk 17:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Agree that the pop culture needs to be turned into prose; not sure whqt the problem is with structure. As for lumpy prose, what bits are the problem? --Ta bu shi da yu 16:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think it fails comprehensiveness in terms of updating the article to reflect other incidents (check out the refs - there are many), and discuss other "exploding animals" (see the Category). And, all of the bottom sections should be reworked into the article - they contain worthy content. Yomangani, I'm thinking you can work wonders on this one - kinda like an elephant :-) I think the info is there to bring it up to FA standards with a rework. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Would a discussion of other exploding animals be particularly germane to the topic? Christopher Parham (talk) 08:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    - I was just thinking of providing additional context; that is, most other accounts of "exploding" animals are apparently myth - that could be covered as a contrast. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    - No, I strongly disagree. This article is about exploding whales', not exploding animals. No more than a passing mention is necessary. As for other incidents of exploding whaes, which ones are you referring to? --Ta bu shi da yu 16:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
      - If the research material is there, I don't think a sentence saying that most other "exploding animals" incidents are myth would be out of place. Now that I've gone through, cleaned up, and alphabeticized all the refs, I think the only one now missing in the story is something mentioned in the Scotland reference. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        Great job Sandy! Which Scotland reference are you referring to though? Whqt sort of thing should we say about other exploding animals, and where should we put it? --Ta bu shi da yu 22:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        This one [8] - not sure if it's in there yet, don't think so, or if there is followup on this story. As to the other animals, I'd have to read all the articles and see if they have reliable sources. If so, I guess another paragraph at the top of incidents, for context. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        Exploding animal does have some refs and context that might be summarized into one paragraph somewhere? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        I've added a sentence. --Ta bu shi da yu 22:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment "Other incidents" and "In fiction" needs conversion from its listy format into prose. LuciferMorgan 21:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
A number of necessary improvements have been made:
- Delisted pop culture section
- Renamed pop culture section to focus on fiction (bear in mind most of the article is about pop culture!)
- fixed prose of other incidents and organised paragraphs to be each about Sth Africa and Iceland
- added a section lead to "Incidents", also no idea who called it "incidences", don't think that is quite right!
- removed one uncited fact, wikilinked to show Drawn together
Hope that does the trick! --Ta bu shi da yu 17:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment I worked on making the reference style more consistent - besides a light copy edit, not sure what else can be done here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Status? I'm happy closing it without FARC - it's not a stellar FA, but with the rewrite, it seems to meet criteria, so I don't see cause for taking it to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Closure: "Too short" is not, as noted, a remove criterion. This seems within criterian otherwise, so I'll close. Marskell 20:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove status

The article was removed 11:12, 3 March 2007.

[edit] Cat

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Wikispork, Mammals, Tree of Life, and Cats. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead section is far too short, should be 3-4 paragraphs for an article this large and is only 1.
Headings are poorly setup, with a comparatively large and overly general "Characteristics" section. Also the section "Survival in the wild" seems like it's mostly a repeat of the section "Feral cats".
Article currently has 10 ^{[citation needed]} tags (I added one of them), and the references section is a bit sloppy, with most of the links not having a retrieved date.
Article is significantly beyond every recommendation for article length, see Wikipedia:Article_size#Readability_issues.
Many other minor issues, such as two sections with only a link to the main article and no summary. Too much bold and italics when not needed. Also quotation marks that are used for dramatic effect and not to quote.

Article's original nomination: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cat, and it's first FAR: Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Cat, also a link to the version that was FARed in case anyone was curious (like a cat): [9] Vicarious 04:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Article could be better off with more citations, and a consistent one with info such as retrieval date etc. LuciferMorgan 02:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Lead is insufficent, messy 'see also' section, stubby one and two sentence paragraphs, and way way too many extraneous images. Don't like the bulleted list in "Declawing". The prose and structure are an issue, for example there is no real thread to the "Hunting and diet" section, it's largely a series of unconnected facts. Could be broken down into sub section synthesising related characteristics. And why is "Ears" out on its own? However there is material here for a very strong article, I enjoyed reading it, and its very interesting in places; have two myself, and often wonder why they do what they do ;)+ Ceoil 21:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I plan to clean up this article, I have to wait until my new user status is up though. Latulla 03:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria conerns are LEAD (2a), length and focus (4), references (1c), and TOC (2c). Marskell 10:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove. Per 2a, 4, 1c, & 2c. Very little progress since nom. + Ceoil 19:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove echoing Ceoil's justification. Although if cuteness of the cats in the images was the deciding factor, I'd be voting the other way. - Mocko13 03:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove per Ceoil's criteria concerns. LuciferMorgan 01:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove per above. — Deckill er 04:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove per above. Some nice gems sprinkled in the text, such as "It is common lore that cats have nine lives. It is a tribute to their perceived durability, their occasional apparent lack of instinct for self-preservation, and their seeming ability to survive falls that would be fatal to other animals." And "Some also discourage the use of laser pointers for pet play, however, because of the potential damage to sensitive eyes and/or the possible loss of satisfaction associated with the successful capture of an actual prey object, play or real." On an unrelated note, the recent history suggests the article could benefit from semiprotection... Gzkn 08:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 11:12, 3 March 2007.

[edit] Margin of error

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at WikiProject Mathematics. Kaldari 06:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Messages left at Fadethree, Michael Hardy. Jeffpw 07:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Only 1 reference and no inline citations. Use and abuse section seems excessively listy. Kaldari 06:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The arguments section needs to be prosified and needs more than the one inline citation currently present. Parts of this section, including those discussing polling in general, are better suited for other articles and could simply be deleted. Most of the rest of the article is pretty basic statistics and doesn't in my view require inline citations, though the article should list a couple of standard textbooks in the references section. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I have reorganized the structure for better flow, moving external links to Newsweek source as inline citations, added a very standard statistics book, and a bit of technical clean-up. If I find some sources/books, then I will add them, but I'm not an American so I don't know much about the US election section. I think this article was featured when footnote citations were not yet discovered, but the content is really good. — Indon (reply) — 10:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Both "Calculations and caveats" and "Use and abuse" are argumentative. Opinions need to be sourced or left out. And even if we do source opinions that the press regularly misuse the margin of error, they must be included along with reliable sources on journalistic standards — manuals of style, mass comm textbooks, trade magazines, whatever — that explain how the margin of error is used and why. Currently all the article says is "I searched Google news and I don't like what I found." Melchoir 23:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment I've edited "Use and abuse" to "Use and misuse." I don't find "caveats" argumentative. I took out some of the opinion-ish tone that has arisen in certain sections. And I agree about the "I searched Google news" comment and edited that. I have added a reference, but I am comfortable with shorter reference lists when dealing with elementary statistics articles where the proofs are easily laid out on the page itself. I also trimmed the list and tightened some language to make it less list-y. This review process is useful. The article has exploded since I last visited. Fadethree 07:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but far more needs to be done. Yes, "Caveats" is argumentative, particularly the last paragraph. The one new citation is an opinion piece on a single incident, and it doesn't contain the quotation to which it is attached. This article currently contains two "frequently misused", an "often interpreted", a "sometimes used", a "continues to be inappropriately applied", a "many pollsters", a "most pollsters". These synthetic descriptions cannot be advanced without reliable secondary sources. "The margin of error grew out of a well-intentioned need to compare the accuracy of different polls." Does that come from a study on the early history of polling, or is it speculation? There are three places where "margin" is placed in quotation marks and it is emphasized that the margin of error isn't a margin. Leaving aside the question of whether that's even a meaningful statement, who cares? Seriously, who exactly thinks that's important, and why aren't they identified in the article? Who thinks that "statistical tie" and "statistical dead heat" are inappropriate? Melchoir 06:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Gotcha. Those are helpful comments. I've done some work to rephrase and clarify things. I hope the article is now a little more convincing to you. Let me know what you think. Fadethree 06:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment Sorry for the late comment - I only just noticed this was being reviewed. I still have serious concerns about this article, as raised on the talk page back in May 2006. The article is not entirely accurate or comprehensive. For instance, margins of error depend strongly on the sample design used. At present this is only mentioned in one bullet point, and is ignored in most of the calculations shown. This means they are probably incorrect, since the Newsweek data was weighted. In any case, our underlying assumptions should at least be made clear throughout. The press release about the poll is not very clear, but reading between the lines, I think that they have allowed for the sample design, and our implication that Newsweek's 4% margin of error uses a 99% confidence level is incorrect. If I'm right, this would have flow-on effects throughout our discussion of the poll.

I'm also concerned that we never explicitly present a margin of error for Kerry's lead over Bush, which seems a natural approach for this example. The whole section on the_probability_of_leading seems a bit off topic at best. Maybe it could be moved to another article, although it seems to verge on original research. We are also not consistent in referring to the maximum margin of error, where that is meant. Some mention of software for complex survey designs is probably necessary. And I don't agree that references can be dispensed with here - it's not that elementary a topic, unless we simplify it to the point where the Newsweek poll would be beyond the scope of the article.

In my view, the article should not remain a featured article unless these sorts of issues are addressed. Avenue 14:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue of complex sampling procedures is certainly important, but I think that going into it in the detail which you seem to favor would make the article even more weighty than it already is while not providing the reader much additional value for the interpretation of the margin of error. No matter what the sampling plan, the target for reporting is the radius of the 99% (or 95%) confidence interval for a proportion of .5. You keep saying that the margin of error is different, but it's the calculations that are different, the interpretation (as flawed and unhelpful as I think it is) remains the same. I don't see a problem leaving the calculations assuming random sampling in the article, and leaving you to make the valuable comments as you have already about complex sampling designs and how they would change the calculations.

Let me be clear that, as I understand it, we are not talking about confidence intervals around proportions here. We are talking about the margin of error as reported by polls in their footnotes or closing paragraphs, which is a very particular confidence interval of limited usefulness.

I agree that the tables presented for the probability of leading are excessive, and I'd be in favor of removing them, but I think the probability of leading is an incredibly important concept that belongs in an article about the margin of error for polling. After all, the probability of leading is exactly the inference that most political polls are trying to make. You even suggest as much where you raise the idea of a "margin of error for Kerry's lead over Bush." The probability of leading addresses this idea in a much more straightforward fashion than reporting the confidence interval for the difference in proportions.

Until you are sure that the Newsweek poll used a complex sampling design, I'm in favor of assuming that they did not. At best, they did use a simple calculation, and nothing needs to be changed. At worst, the calculation will be not be the one they used but still serve the purpose of illustration, and the interpretation will be unchanged.

I appreciate your comments. You raise some very important points. Fadethree 20:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I might see where we are passing each other here. Your May 2, 2006 edit introduces the idea of a maximum margin of error. This leads me to believe that you are equating "margin of error" with "confidence interval," which we had discussions about in earlier versions of the article before it was featured. We ended up deciding that we were going to leave "confidence interval" to the "confidence interval" entry, and let margin of error refer to the specific use of the term in polling, where it is reported, for example, that the margin of error for such and such a poll is 4%. This is aimed to attract readers who read that and say to themselves, well, what does 4% mean? I think you would answer that question, well, that's the maximum margin of error, and then you'd go on to explain that margin of error is a confidence interval around a proportion, etc. If you accept that the article is about the maximum margin of error (which most polls just call, the margin of error), does that change your impressions about its accuracy?

I should note that I am not in favor of the term, maximum margin of error, and I have never heard it before. The reason I think it is misleading is because I could arbitrarily tweak the margin of error by changing the confidence limits, and even then the margin of error isn't a margin at all; it's not like the probability outside the margin is zero. I'd be in favor of rewording that note or deleting it altogether. Does that make sense?

Let me add, too, that I understand that different disciplines use different terms in different ways. Let's see if we can understand how we're using different words to say the same concepts or the same words to express different concepts. Fadethree 20:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your position - it explains a lot. I agree we are using "margin of error" to mean different things, and I do equate the "margin of error" for a particular result with the "half-width of the confidence interval". This is not just me; for instance, the American Statistical Association's pamphlet What is a Margin of Error? defines the margin of error by saying "To be precise, the laws of probability make it possible for us to calculate intervals of the form

estimate +/- margin of error.

Such intervals are sometimes called 95 percent confidence intervals and would be expected to contain the true value of the target quantity (in the absence of nonsampling errors) at least 95 percent of the time." I agree that the term "maximum margin of error" is not as commonly used as "margin of error", but it is not my invention either. It has been used in the mainstream press - e.g. in reporting on this USA TODAY Gallup poll - and by many other authors. A Google search for "maximum margin of error" gives plenty of examples.

On a minor point, it is not sensible to talk about the margin of error of a whole poll, even using your maximum margin of error definition, unless no analysis of subpopulations is undertaken. For example, the press release for the Newsweek poll quotes twelve different "margins of error", for subpopulations such as registered voters, men, women, Republicans, Democrats, and debate viewers. This seems to negate much of the apparent simplicity of your definition.

More generally, I believe that giving people a practical explanation of the drawbacks of the margin of error is important, much more so than deriving the formula for the maximum margin of error for a proportion under a simple random sample (for example). So we should expand our coverage of non-sampling errors. And at least where I live, the sample design is still ignored in poll reporting often enough that I think we should set a good example. This is why I am uncomfortable with presenting calculations that assume a simple random sample in the context of our example poll, which they don't apply to. (Our apparent confusion here over the confidence level in the Newsweek poll is an illustration of how this can lead people astray.) I also think we should be careful not to limit the focus of our article to polls. Sure, they're high profile, and this means they can provide an easily understood example of the concept, but there are many other sample surveys out there that are at least as important.

I agree the probability of leading is useful in understanding the Newsweek poll results. Can you give a reference to someone discussing this concept? This would help assuage my concerns about it being original research. -- Avenue 23:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your comment about the Newsweek poll sample design. I can't how they could have avoided using a complex sample design (assuming they select households randomly first, then people, as is typical); either they interviewed interviewed all eligible people in the contacted households, in which case it is a cluster sample, or they interviewed a subsample of the eligible people (e.g. just one person per household), in which case there would be varying sample selection probabilities. Either way it's a complex design, and the standard formula for unweighted simple random samples wouldn't hold. In any case, they do say the sample is weighted, so that rules out the naive formula on its own. -- Avenue 00:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. I don't have too much time to respond to your points just just now, so let me just ask everyone's opinion about moving this article to FARC. Neither you nor I came saw this review until recently, and I think the day and a half of review has already proven helpful. I'd like to keep this in FAR for now and give us the chance to resolve these issues over the weekend. I know I'm being US-centric in saying this, but I'd really like to keep this article's profile high as the presidential race and its accompanying misinterpretations of polling data has already begun. Of course, it may be possible to get the same work done in FARC.

The key issues I think we're going back and forth about are scope and focus. I originally added content to this article because I was frustrated with misinterpretations of the single margin of error that newspaper articles report as a footnote in their coverage. I basically wanted to write about how it can be interpreted (not necessarily how it's calculated) and how it was a mostly unhelpful statistic that is prone to misinterpretations. The margin of error that you seem to be discussing is, I think, equally well addressed by the notion of a confidence interval for a proportion. In fact, it's synonymous.

One of the ways that we can address this is to run some kind of disambiguation page. For a time, there was, in fact, a note saying that this article discussed a margin of error for polling. Could we spin off another article or develop the confidence interval page further to address your concerns? If so, how should we relabel this article to keep its narrow scope clear while we restructure links to other articles? Fadethree 05:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment fails 1a, prose problems - some examples only from the final part of the article:

("The rest of this section"?) The rest of this section shows how the Newsweek percentage might be calculated.
an assumption that if anyone does not choose Kerry they will choose Bush, and vice versa, i.e. they are perfectly negatively correlated

perhaps something like, assumption that a voter must choose Kerry or Bush; the two possibilities are perfectly negatively correlated if, for the purpose of illustration, the possibility of a voter choosing another candidate is ignored.

It's unnecessary to have convoluted English grammar making the math appear more difficult: This assumption may not be tenable given that a voter could be undecided or vote for Nader, but the results will still be illustrative.

see above

Redundant prose:

~~It is evident that t~~The confidence level has a significant impact on the probability of leading.
~~Note that t~~The 100% entries in the table are actually slightly less. Here is the same table for the 99% confidence level:
This can be ~~easily~~ accomplished by taking a glass of seawater and then chemically analyzing the proportion of salt in that sample.

This can be accomplished by chemically analyzing the proportion of salt in a sample of seawater.

Why tentatively? This can tentatively be called the Probability of Leading.
"very approximately equal"? The margin of error applicable directly to the "lead" is very approximately equal
"note that" occurs throughout the article - it's redundant, not necessary, and we shouldn't tell our readers what to note.

These are samples only. Again, we find the math is made to appear inaccessible to the average reader not because of the math, but because of the English. Serious copyedit attention is needed by a fresh set of eyes - I suggest the Math Project attempt to get some good copyeditors involved.
Referencing has something goofed up - books listed as Further reading are included in footnotes - if they are used as References, they should be listed as such. Why is the Bush-Kerry MSN article given in External links - is it used as a Reference? If not, what is its relevance?

Move to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to address these issues, mostly by trimming things out. Let me know what you think. Fadethree 21:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed the Further reading to agree with WP:LAYOUT and added an ISBN on the reference book. I read one section as an example - I found missing wikilinking (sample size - important to the topic), and made prose changes to further reduce redundancy. That's one section only; then I went back to glance at the lead, since I noticed that the first section introduces confidence intervals without defining them. I found that the WP:LEAD gets into too much detail about confidence intervals, which should be handled and defined in the first section - the lead should be a stand-alone summary of the entire article, not the place for defining concepts. I'll keep going after you've done more work. Is there a reference chapter for the entire section "More advanced calculations behind the margin of error"? The tipoff to the possibility of original research is the sentence, "This is perhaps optimistic, but if care is taken it can be at least approximated in reality". Section headings violate WP:MSH; I'll add that these kinds of basic issues (e.g.; following WP:MOS) reflect my ongoing frustration with the Math WikiProject. I do wish the Project would make a concerted effort to make sure their Featured Articles conform with basic guidelines like WP:MOS, and get a good copyeditor on board to review all of their FAs, as many of them coming through FAR suffer from prose problems that seem to be getting through FAC. Perhaps reviewers are intimidated by the math, which is made harder to understand because of prose redundancies which make the math look more convoluted than necessary (sorry, that was a general rant, not aimed at you or this article in particular :-). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've made edits to the lead, though I'm happy with your suggestion to move some of its content to a later section. One of the reasons that confidence interval comes up so early is to distinguish the margin of error as a special case of the confidence interval. For those who are used to thinking of them as synonymous, that's something that they'd be confused about quickly. I've taken out the advanced calculations; they were correct but may belong to another article. I really appreciate your comments. There is no excuse for bad prose, but I think a small part of it arises from honest differences in disciplinary norms. As you know, math articles occasionally use passive voice and first-person viewpoints. Oh, and they're often badly written. It's a little bit of assuming that the readers are as fluent in jargon as we are, and it's a little bit of laziness and deliberate obfuscation. I'm do my best to keep things clear. Fadethree 07:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment I've done a fair amount of editing. Avenue, I've tried to delineate the boundaries and state the assumptions of the article as clearly as possible up front. Let me know how you like this framing. Sandy, I've knocked around almost all the prose that you found cluttered. Please let me know if anything else is clear. I'd appreciate anyone's help with the references; I'm not as familiar as I'd like to be about reference conventions. Fadethree 21:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- If you stick something in for references and let me know, I can help clean them up to correct formatting style - just get something in there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Thanks for your help, Sandy. I'll see if I can get more references in where appropriate. Fadethree 06:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, Fadethree. I think getting the boundaries and assumptions sorted out up front will help us progress the substantive issues. I agree that the article shouldn't go into too much technical depth, although we may have different ideas about what bits should qualify. I liked the way you clearly distinguished between the two meanings of margin of error, but I felt the way they were described was misleading. I've tried to improve it, and tidy up the rest of the lead section (especially the paragraph on confidence levels, which seemed to ramble). It would also be good to shorten the caption for the graph, and preferably make it a bit narrower, but apart from that, the lead is looking much better.
- I think the rest of the article still has a way to go to meet FAC 1a and 1c though. A few examples:

The fact that the (maximum) margin of error is the radius of a specific confidence interval is not really that important, but it seems to be stressed throughout.
It's confusing to assume a 99% confidence level in the example when most other polls[10] use 95%, and this one probably does too.
Bayesian assumptions and interpretations are only hinted at, not described or linked to, and I don't believe they apply directly to the calculations shown in our article anyway. These formulae give confidence intervals, not credible intervals.
The sentence "When the sample is not random, the margin of error must be estimated through more advanced calculations." sounds like we might be suggesting the sorts of things argued against by the AAPOR. A random sample is not the same as a simple random sample.

And that's just from a quick look through the first quarter of the article. -- Avenue 14:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Avenue. I like your edits. Some replies:

The reason I stressed that the margin of error is synonymous with the radius of a confidence interval is because anyone who knows what a confidence interval is but not a margin of error will come closer to understanding it. I think that showing that two things that may be presumed different are in fact the same is a useful endeavor. I'm not strongly against deemphasizing this point, but I thought I'd make a case for its inclusion.
I'll take a look at redoing the figure for a 95% confidence interval. That seems to be the biggest timesuck to switching.
The Bayesian issue is actually quite subtle, and, as you probably know, there's a long history of Bayesian vs. frequentist interpretation of intervals. The fact is that we have taken a Bayesian interpretation of confidence intervals in this article, and that is what I wanted to acknowledge in case there were any hard core frequentists lying around. The frequentist interpretation of confidence intervals is not that the probability of the "true" value being somewhere in a range is 95% (the true value doesn't have a distribution; it's known) but that the confidence intervals of multiple different samples will contain the true value 95% of the time. This interpretation is awkward, which is why I chose to fall back on Bayesian assumptions. Since so many people take a Bayesian interpretation of confidence intervals, and I don't think this is the place to go into it in too much depth, maybe we can just delete the qualification or refer people to the CI article.
Can we change "random" to "simple random sample" to address your last point?
Thanks again. I'll try and find that old figure. Fadethree 17:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the baseline example and figure from 99% to 95%. Fadethree 20:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), and list sections (2). Marskell 05:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Plenty of work done here; just keeping it on schedule. Marskell 05:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment nice work so far, Fadethree - from a quick glance, the prose is much tighter and cleaner. I haven't had time for a complete read, but can someone please review the section headings per WP:MSH - they seem very repetitive. Also, a page number (or range) is needed on note 6, Sudman and Bradburn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- I tried to eliminate the redundancy in section headings while eliminating the "listiness" previously noted. I added page numbers for the Sudman and Bradburn reference. Editing references to conform to style is always appreciated. Let me know what you think. Fadethree 23:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I think the listiness has been fixed and the referencing has definitely been improved. Kaldari 06:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment Sorry, I've been away and I do try to be more helpful in these things… I agree that the article has improved but I still have some accuracy/POV issues. Maybe I'll just take them up at the talk page when I get the time. Melchoir 22:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Melchoir, are you still planning to work on this? I was waiting for your edits before re-reading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, let's try this. I'll boldly take out the statements that I don't think can be defended. We'll see whether it causes controversy. Melchoir 07:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Thanks for your edits, Melchoir. I'll reword a couple of the removed sentences so that they can be defended, add them back, and provide a defense. But not till this weekend, if that's okay. Fadethree 08:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't notice that you removed large parts of the "incorrect interpretations" section. To clarify, do you think that everything that you removed is indefensible, or just that there are statements that are not defended?

I know this is a platitude, but a statistic is just a number until it is interpreted. There are defensible and indefensible interpretations of a statistic. I think it is worthwhile to delineate the domain of reasonable interpretation. I have and hopefully can further reduce the argumentative tone of the article, but if your objection is that the domain of interpretations is not interesting, I'm not sure there's much I can do but respectfully disagree. In fact, I think the common misinterpretations of this statistic are exactly what make this an interesting topic and an interesting article

I think that everything that you removed should be improved, and I will work to do that. But I hope you agree that a description can be communicated both by saying what something is and by saying what something is not. Fadethree 09:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be scientific about it, all I can really say is that the statements were currently undefended. But I can offer my reasoning line by line:

Kerry and Bush are "statistically tied" or are in a "statistical dead heat". The fact of two percentages being within a margin of error of each other is elsewhere offered as the definition, or the criterion for usage, of these phrases. Logically it is absurd to then claim they are also incorrect.
The difference between Kerry and Bush percentages is only notable if it is greater than 3%. This is not an objective statement that can be correct or incorrect. Strictly interpreted, I wouldn't agree with it. But it's an abbreviation of a correct statement: the difference between the percentages implies that the lead is reflected by the poll, with an insignificant possibility of error that scales with the confidence level used to calclate the margin or error, if it is greater than a statistic that is of the same order of magnitude as the reported margin of error.
Any change in the percentages is trivial unless the change is greater than 3%. Again, it depends on what you consider trivial. Again, if you expand out the statement, it becomes correct: the likelihood that the change in percentages is of a different order of magnitude than the reported change, or in the wrong direction, is insignificant (and scaling with the confidence level used to calclate the margin or error) if the change is greater than a statistic that is of the same order of magnitude as the margin of error.
Because Nader got 2% and the margin of error is 3%, he could potentially have 0%. This is surely a fallacy but a trivial one. I considered keeping it, but then we'd be left with a list of one uninteresting item. And there are nearby, correct statements: Nader could potentially have a percentage that is so much lower than 3% that for it would be more accurate to think of it as 0%. It could even be that Nader has no supporters besides the ones who responded to the poll, however unlikely that would be.
The margin of error is the same for every percentage, i.e. 47% ± 3%, 45% ± 3%, 2% ± 3%. Since the margin of error is defined as a poll-level statistic, it is the same for every percentage. I guess from the numbers that it was meant that the radius of the confidence interval is the same for every percentage. That would be a true fallacy, but it is less interesting than the associated true statements that the confidence interval scales linearly with the margin of error; it can be calculated knowing only the margin of error; and the constant of proportionality is sufficiently close to 1 for a wide range of percentages and purposes. The incorrectness of the fallacy could be brought to light by emphasizing the true statements instead.

Of course, besides the factual issues, there were also the usual problems that the claims were original research, it had not been verified that the statements were sufficiently common to justify comment in the first place, and the implication that they represent a systematic problem was POV. Melchoir 16:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to say remove, at least for the current version. Melchoir's deletions have greatly improved the article, as has all the work put in since this review started, but there's still a lot more that needs fixing. I've reworked some of the easier bits, but there's plenty more that is currently just plain wrong.

One of the more fundamental issues is the reliance on Bayesian interpretations of frequentist calculations. I don't see myself as a hardcore frequentist, but I suspect this can't be justified for surveys in general. I think we should either go the frequentist route throughout, or warn people that we're fudging things by interpreting frequentist calculations in a Bayesian fashion, and that there may be some traps hidden there for the unwary. The Bayesian interpretation is much more natural, which makes the article easier to write and understand, but we shouldn't gloss over the distinction completely, or the potential dangers of ignoring it.

More concretely, I'm still noticing new errors in the text every time I read through it, so there's still a lot of tidying up to do. For instance, by saying finite population corrections would be irrelevant for a survey in a school, while presenting a poll with 1000 respondents, we imply that schools have at least 10,000 students. We should also provide better citations for the theory; no offence to the folks at Research Solutions, but I think even they'd agree that they are not an authority on this subject.

It would be nice to take the example a bit further before we introduce any formulae, because some readers will not get past them. I'd also like to avoid the assumption of perfect negative correlation in the section on comparing percentages; it might not be too bad in this example, but it comes across as sloppy and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. It would be good to eliminate the uncertainty around the Newsweek margin of error calculations as well. -- Avenue 13:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I don't think there's anything further I can do. I will say that I am a bit baffled by your philosophy, Avenue, which seems to be that every assumption that statisticians casually make in practice should be defended with down to the axioms. Statisticians are not obsessive mathematicians, we make assumptions based on convenience and based on the fact that the difference doesn't matter until the third decimal point. Your continuing assertion that things are "incorrect" is of course true but trite, my mantra is the same as that of many statisticians, "all models are wrong, some models are useful." If you are going to continue nitpicking all statistics articles to a standard of mathematical certainty, they will not only be complicated but boring and, worse, inconsequential for all practical purposes. Still, I'm happy with the results of the review, though I'm sad to see the article leave FA. Fadethree 19:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I should have said that I agree with you that some coverage of common misconceptions and misinterpretations would be useful, even though I'm happy that what was there before was deleted. I do feel that a certain degree of "nitpicking" is appropriate for featured articles, but I wouldn't characterise my comments and edits as insisting on anything like mathematical rigour. Regarding the dual frequentist/Bayesian interpretation, while I agree that this sort of joint approach is becoming common in statistics generally, I don't believe it's as straightforward in this context as you seem to think. For instance, a recent paper by two prominent Bayesian statisticians highlighted finite population sampling as an area where there is "a fundamental philosophical and practical conflict" (p. 35) between the Bayesian and frequentist approaches, which hasn't yet been surmounted. Glossing over this completely in this article seems like a bad idea to me. -- Avenue 01:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment — there is still a very solid chance this article will keep featured status. It only needs additional reinforcement from references, and maybe a small copy-edit to weed out any lingering major issues. Implementing Avenue's suggestions will help, as well. — Deckill er 12:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What's up here folks? I hate dropping the ball so close to the goal line. Marskell 07:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's passable; the issues can be resolved outside of FAR(C). — Deckill er 13:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't believe it's FA quality yet, although I think we're more than halfway there. Lately I've focussed on tidying up the prose, but there are still a number of substantive issues to address. -- Avenue 16:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Some attention to flow might help; the definition is halfway into the page. Once sections are ordered more logically, a review of wikilinking may be in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree some reorganisation would be useful. There are also a couple of topics mentioned in the lead section that haven't yet been expanded on in the text (non-sampling errors, effect of sample design). Along with the Bayesian/frequentist issue, these are the main things I think keep this article from reaching featured quality at present. There's also some more tidying up to do, and it would be nice to add more graphics and references, but that's not as crucial. -- Avenue 15:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Remove. After a good start at improvements at the beginning of the review, work on this article seems to have stalled. The review is running overtime, and issues have not been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 14:01, 28 February 2007.

[edit] Ridge Route

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Lucky 6.9 (e-mail), California, U.S. Roads, National Register of Historic Places, and Southern California. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I count two citations, one external jump, and a scattered handful of references at the very bottom of the page (1c). Prose is also not terribly brillant, including this direction given to me: "...if you step out of your vehicle for exploration within the forest boundaries." Hbdragon88 01:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

For sure, this article needs inline citations or it should not be FA status. I know nothing about it but maybe those who did the body of work on it can assist.A mcmurray 02:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Mostly uncited, entire Driving section speaks to the reader directly. Remove. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 01:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Move to FARC, not a single edit since nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Move to FARC, multiple problems and nothing happening. Trebor 22:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are references (1c), and prose (1a). Marskell 09:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

So wait... what the heck needs to be done? I believe the editors who originally worked on this article left, and I'm not exactly sure what to do, having never nom'ed a FA... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, just looking it over:

Few inline citations
Speaking directly to the reader (driving directions)
Contradiction between "Navigating on the Ridge Route demands safe driving habits. Potholes, loose sand, debris, remnants of mudslides and rockslides and many of the aforementioned 697 curves await today's traveler. " and "As of August 2005, the 1915 Ridge Route is officially closed for public access, "You can not drive in, hike in, motorcycle in etc. on the damaged road. Angeles Forest closed the road because pipeline companies are operating heavy equipment on the road to repair their lines damaged during...[the] record rain fall [experienced in Southern California in winter 2005]." Can you drive on it, or not?--HowardSF-U-T-C- 13:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove — a lot of work needs to be done, and few people have the time or interest in working on it. — Deckill er 02:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove per nom. Hbdragon88 02:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated this for WP:USRD/AID. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove per Deckiller and Hbdragon88. LuciferMorgan 20:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

We have chosen to improve it as part of the WikiProject U.S. Roads/Article Improvement Drive. Please give us a few weeks to do so. I have requested the book that is cited through interlibrary loan but it has not arrived yet. --NE2 06:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- A few weeks might be too long to keep this on the page; perhaps it can be re-nominated for featured status when you're done. — Deckill er 13:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Is that because of bureaucratic reasons or because there's a good reason not to keep something here for a few weeks? --NE2 14:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    - We have to try and keep entries moving, because we have a limited group of people outside of the indiviudal article editors who can work on the articles, and there are so many to process. So it's a mix of both reasons. — Deckill er 11:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
      - Offer respite. If you have too many processes then I suggest prioritizing instead of assuming that "Remove" is the default option. The point of FAR is primarily to get articles improved, not to satisfy the schedule of the reviewers. If someone offers to work on the article, it's the FAR-process that should be blown off temporarily, not those offering to work on the article. / Peter ^Isotalo 10:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove, needs a lot of work, if it hasn't already been pointed out there are also image issues. --Peta 23:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Those can be fixed. If this is removed I may just send the book back when it arrives, since I assume it's harder to get something through FAC than to keep it there. --NE2 04:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Don't let this article's status prevent you from improving it. Yes, FAs are great stuff, but all articles need work regardless of their article status. Please don't return it - keep it and improve the article... Hbdragon88 00:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    - Actually, FAR may be harder on articles than FAC at the moment. And yes, the FA status isn't the be all and end all of a page's worth; improvement is always welcome.
    - We can leave this open, but "a few weeks" is a little vague. Some work needs to happen in the meantime. You might start with the image tags. Marskell 10:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
      - I tagged them as lacking source; what more is to be done? --NE2 10:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
        
        Well, sources should actually be found for them or they should be removed. The LEAD is underweight, and it needs more sourcing. Marskell 18:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 14:34, 26 February 2007.

[edit] The Temptations

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at TUF-KAT, R&B and Soul Music, Bio and Musicians. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Informative article, but woefully lacking in refs, there are only 9 and their format is severely lacking. Left notice at Wikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul Music. Rlevse 20:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Besides the above concerns, weasly words are also rampant. LuciferMorgan 22:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The referencing (that is, the verifiability) is fine. When the article was first promoted, inline citations for every sentence were not required (in actual encyclopedias, these are not used. General references are). This article is based upon a sturdy and lengthy reference from one of the subjects in question, which I happen to own and have right by my desk. I can and will add a citation to the exact page of Otis Williams' Temptations autobiography for each place where it is deemed necessary. Just add {{fact}} tags, and I will take care of the rest. And there is no need to leave messages at R&B and Soul Music, since that project has been more or less inactive for years. --FuriousFreddy 07:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- The referencing is not fine. Several older FAs have been FARC'd for not meeting modern standards. Footnotes come after punctuation with no space. The refs' format need work, see Gerald Ford for samples. Entire sections do not have a ref. A good rule of thumb is any paragraph over 1-2 sentences should have a ref. And as LuciferMorgan points out, the weasel words need cleaned up.Rlevse 11:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  - As I said, just add {{fact}} tags, and I will take care of the rest. And, like I said, the verifiability is fine; the article just lacks the (usually unhelpful and non-professional) glut of citations commonly expected out of Wiki articles nowadays. All of the citations are going to be from the references already listed. Please give examples of "weasel words" in the article. --FuriousFreddy 21:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments. Here is a list of weasle words to watch out for. Also, the section headings don't conform with WP:MSH, WP:MOS, particularly the use of "the" and capitalization. I corrected the footnotes per WP:FN, so take care with footnote placement as you continue to cite the article. It would be helpful if you would cite as much as possible, and then request reviewers have another look for anything missing. There are external jumps in the text which could be converted to references. Whether you agree or not, by today's standards this article is way under referenced. For example, History subsections 1-9 are totally devoid of refs.Rlevse 22:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
This :
- Williams, Otis and Romanowski, Patricia (1988, updated 2002). Temptations. Pg. 170 - 171
- Williams, Otis and Romanowski, Patricia (1988, updated 2002). Temptations. Pg. 172
- Williams, Otis and Romanowski, Patricia (1988, updated 2002). Temptations. Pg. 249, 259
- Williams, Otis and Romanowski, Patricia (1988, updated 2002). Temptations. Pg. 177
- Williams, Otis and Romanowski, Patricia (1988, updated 2002). Temptations. Pg. 183
can be abbreviated to:
- Williams and Romanowski (1988), pp. 170-171.
- Williams and Romanowski (1988), p. 172.
- Williams and Romanowski (1988), pp. 249, 259.
- Williams and Romanowski (1988), p. 177.
- Williams and Romanowski (1988), p. 183.

- Sections 1 through 9 are devoid of refs because I just started adding them, and I work during the week. I will finish the rest. --FuriousFreddy 19:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

CommentsTwo refs still have the URL displayed and this is not wiki style. The URL should be embedded underneath the title so you see and read the title but when you click it goes to the url. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. If you use the cite templates it does all the work for you, you just fill in the blanks. A 59K article should have way more than 19 refs. Reused refs should appear on same line, not as two separate footnotes, see WP:CITE. External jumps need to be removed from the Notes section.Rlevse 22:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- When I first wrote this article, there was no "Wiki style" for citations, so I used APA style. I will go back and reformat everything. There are currently no reused refs (when citing print work, you are required to list the exact pages used). --FuriousFreddy 19:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  - There remains no "wiki style" for citations. APA is 100% fine. Nor is it the case that reused refs need to appear on the same line; while this is permitted by the cite.php technology, there is no requirement to use that format -- indeed, quite a good case could be made for avoiding it, since when you print a version of an article that uses multiple refs, the citations are not comprehensible. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    - I've never encountered that problem; can you explain? Perhaps it's printer-dependent? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- ~~I have decided I will not be continuing this process. Please de-list this article from featured status. --FuriousFreddy 01:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)~~
  - At great expense to my available time, I will try to do my best to add citation tags to this article. If someone could please first tag the article with "citation needed" templates, that would be greatly appreciated, as I apparently no longer have an innate understand of just how many in-line citations are now wanted in these articles. --FuriousFreddy 01:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    - Glad you're back - would you like for me to shorten those book references for you, as in the example above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
      - Would you like me to add these templates Freddy? If someone objects per 1c after my cite requests have been filled per 1c, then the person is mad - I get on Wikipedians nerves when it comes to cites. :) LuciferMorgan 09:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
        
        Any help would be much appreciated, thank you. --FuriousFreddy 03:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- THere are also numerable instances of the same wiki article being linked more than once, you only need to link the fist instance. As for what to cite, you should have an inline cite per every section at an absolute minimum, preferably every paragraph. You can reuse cites if need be.Rlevse 11:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is insufficient references (1c).

Comment: This was left a couple of days extra in review because there was work going on. Keeping it moving now. Marskell 09:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There's still work going on. I'm sorry, but my job comes before this. --FuriousFreddy 04:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment I've placed a few cite tags on statements I feel need citation, and will place more once they've been filled. LuciferMorgan 12:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment; looks like a lot of potential for keep here. — Deckill er 04:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment Agreed Tyler, with a bit of ref work and prose work. Largely hangs on Freddy really, but it sounds as though he's busy. Shame really. LuciferMorgan 12:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Once Freddy gets a chance to work on it, it should proceed fairly smoothly thanks to the lessons learned with Sly and the Family Stone. — Deckill er 12:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
CommentImprovement has occurred, but there are still several sections about many paras without refs, so I put cite needed tags in.Rlevse 12:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove per 1c (unfortunately). LuciferMorgan 23:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove per 1c; unfortunately, work will be unable to be accomplished in time. — Deckill er 14:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment If anyone is planning to finish this, pls let us know if a time extension is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

- Freddy has disappeared? :( Marskell 18:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 16:35, 25 February 2007.

[edit] Fanny Blankers-Koen

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Jeronimo, Bio, and Sports Olympics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This article has been featured since september 2004, and is long overdue for a FAR. More specificly, here are my concerns:

definitely needs in-line citations
several of the wikilinks could be considered to be ridiculous (now, not in 2004); e.g. 800 m
- Not for nothing, but m is certainly not a ridiculous thing to link. Don't forget that most Americans are unaccustomed to using the metric system and don't know right off the bat what that "m" stands for. I went through the article and found only a few things to de-link, all of them dates. Andrew Levine 17:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
the text refers to never explained events (e.g. she moved back to her previous hometown Hoofddorp, but it had never been stated she had actually lived in Hoofddorp before)
There are no real POV issues, but a more neutral rewriting ("her last moment of glory") could do no harm.

Er rab ee 20:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Needs citations definitely (1. c.). More specifically, the article has a lot of adjectives in its statements which add a certain slant on events. Such terms as "highly dubious", "possibly", "relatively objective" I wouldn't say observe NPOV, so I would say there are POV issues in the article. If anyone decides to work on this article, please feel free to message me and I will point out more specific statements in the article that need addressing. LuciferMorgan 03:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Move to FARC, one edit since nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment I've just had a quick look through and found a few articles to reference from, and added some citations accordingly. It needs many more, of course, and the prose definitely needs quite a bit of work, but I'm sure someone who actually knows something about athletics — I know nothing about the subject — could really turn this into a top article. As a subject she certainly seems to deserve it. Angmering 00:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), and missing info (1b). Marskell 09:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Some work done, some work to come hopefully. Marskell 09:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove per 1c and due to POV statements. LuciferMorgan 12:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added some more refs - this seems entirely fine to me [at least as regards POV]. Where is the POV? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are some statements that need attention:

the first relatively objective biography of Blankers-Koen was published (not sure what the "relatively" refers to or according to whom, perhaps could be re-worded)
Dutch and international media always portrayed her as the perfect mother ...
The exact results of the test remain unclear, and although Dillema looked a bit like a man, most do not doubt she is a woman. Most of the other women on the team at the time suspect it was an attempt by Jan and Fanny Blankers to eliminate a possible opponent, although this has never been confirmed.
she would later claim she thought there had been a false start
his attitude towards female athletes changed after he fell in love with Koen
Dutch media automatically assumed her career would be over.

Also, now that it's further along on citations, needs a ce ~~and em-dash attention.~~ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

POV statements still need work though, and possible citation. LuciferMorgan 11:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have access to the non-online references (two books in Dutch and a journal article) but I am sure they will help if someone can locate them. I think it would be useful if you could add {{fact}} and {{fixpov}} statements to the parts you think are problematic. (I still can't see the POV, but perhaps my antennae are not sufficiently finely tuned.) -- ALoan (Talk) 13:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My only concerns are listed above; I hesitate to add fact tags, but will do so in a few days if no one can find sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have other 1. c. concerns as well as Sandy's; give me a ping on my talk page if you're interested. LuciferMorgan 09:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I am not in a position to do anything about them, but it would be helpful, I think, to tag the article so someone else can see them and deal with them, if they have the sources (whether the FARC goes through or not). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. Fanny still has a few weeks here, so I'll tag those, and go ~~poke~~ dig around Wiki in search of some Dutch editors; there must be a category or something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove I put out multiple queries several weeks ago, someone should have been able to finish the article; nothing happening. Article has important uncited information, and isn't particularly compelling or brilliant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 22:38, 22 February 2007.

[edit] Battle of the Somme

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Johnleemk, MilHist, UK notice board, France, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm nominating this article due to;

Insufficient inline citations (1. c.).
Weasly statements made in the article.

LuciferMorgan 23:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a notification on the article talk page itself?
Claims of a citation problem would be more helpfully done with {{cn}} tags.
The real problem with the article is that it doesn't weasel where there is reason to do so. For example, I fixed one footnote which repeated one polemic in Wikipedia's voice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment With no explanation, Jooler (talk • contribs) removed the POV tag from the article, and removed the FAR tag from the talk page. I re-instated the FAR tag, (again) updated the featured link on the talk page, but did not reinstate the POV tag on the article, although it is discussed on the talk page. POV should be added to the list of concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- I got confused by edits by 68.4.61.113 - which looked like WP:POINT or just plain silly to me. Especially - [11] - I guess he meant Anglo-centric. I don't really think his comment is valid though nand the issue has beed adressed several times from what I've read. Jooler 00:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment In the past I've been accused of WP:POINT when adding citation tags, so don't really do so nowadays.LuciferMorgan 00:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Status? As we approach two weeks, how's it coming? Can we avoid FARC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Sandy's question Most of the editing revolved around the way dates are stylised throughout the article - eg. "17 July" to "17th of July". There's a whole load of direct quotations without appropriate citation. Also, there's a lot of critical commentary in the article upon the effects and success of different aspects of the battle - this is particularly prevalent in the "Conclusion" and "Casualties" sections. I would say this article is heading for FARC. LuciferMorgan 01:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, most of the editing revolved around manual of style, spelling, grammar, formatting, sourcing and quotes etc - not just fixing the dates. All these things usually get ignored, as far as I can see. The article is probably in better condition now than it had been when it passed the nomination for Featured Article status. Hopefully someone knowledgeable enough about the subject matter can come along and insert some citations though, and make the alleged "POV statements" more balanced, if they exist. --Mal 20:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), and POV statements (1d). Marskell 20:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks great at surface and should remain a FA.--Pupster21 17:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove per 1c and 1d. LuciferMorgan 20:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove as per above Wandalstouring 13:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove as per 1c. Boabbriggs 15:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 13:13, 20 February 2007.

[edit] Carl Sagan

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Eloquence, Biography, Skepticism. Jeffpw 09:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Message left at Astronomy. Dr. Submillimeter 09:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Additional messages at intelligent design, Novels, Pseudoscience, and Physics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

2004 promotion. Issues,

References: few inline cites, several of which are not from reliable sources, otherwise the article is basically unreferenced
Images: Many fair use images, none of which have the required fair use rationales besides they aren't all being used in a way that would make them fair
Prose and comprehensiveness: For someone who has been the subject of at least 3 book length biographies (according to the article) the article is really pretty sketchy, the text skips around focusing on controversial points rather than providing a good biographical summary; structurally it is mostly single sentences; awards and medals is just a list.
External links: a mess.

--Peta 00:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment needs more inline citations. Agree that some of the prose is choppy and that fair use images need to be reduced and to have accurate rationales. I dealt with the external links section. It would be a shame to demote this, but it could do with some work. - Francis Tyers · 00:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment References need cleaning up to a consistent and complete bibliographic format. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Lead could do with expanding. Very choppy prose, particularly with the paragraphing. Trebor 23:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Move to FARC, external links pruned, no other progress during review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns few inline citations (1c), images (3), prose (1a), and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell 09:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove - no substantive changes since the last time I looked.--Peta 00:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 12:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove per above, nothing happening. Trebor 12:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove per above. + Ceoil 19:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove per above; I really wish editors would express interest so they could work as a team with the FAR panel. — Deckill er 04:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove - Francis Tyers · 17:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 09:37, 19 February 2007.

[edit] Flag of South Africa

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Heraldry and vexillology, PZFUN Jeffpw 22:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Additional messages at Africa notice board and South Africa. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is pretty well written, but lacks any inline citations. The "proper display" section is overloaded with subsections, and some of the images may not truly be free. McMillin24 _contribs^talk 22:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the Everest photo, since it is not free and lacks a source. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I made the flags smaller, trying to get rid of that little open space in the paragraph that seems unseemly. It didn't work, however. Anyway to fix that?--Thomas.macmillan 18:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Move to FARC, issues unaddressed during review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are lack of citations (1c), images (3), subsections (2). Marskell 12:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What images is it lacking and what should be dealt with the sub sections? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove Fails 1c. LuciferMorgan 23:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove per Lucifer. Trebor 22:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove; fails 1c and maybe 1a; little attempt has been made. — Deckill er 04:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 09:37, 19 February 2007.

[edit] Baseball

Note on closing - this is a re-promoted WP:FFA.

[edit] Review commentary

Message left at PSzalapski, Neutrality, Project Baseball Jeffpw 21:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Additional message at Baseball players. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't fully meet the FA criterias in:

2.c. and 4. Overwhelming table of contents with too much unnecessary details.

Even, at some degree 1.a. It's not so well written and is little bit hard to understand.

1.e. It has too many vandalism reverts. --Hey911 20:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - This looks like a "Brilliant Prose" promotion from 2004. While there are 14 reference books listed, there are only three inline citations. I understand this is a broad topic, but the "See Also" section has more than 30 links. This article will need a lot of help, if it is to keep its Featured status. ~~I tried to find the main contributer in the history, to notify him/her, but am having trouble doing that, as the article has been so extensively edited~~. Jeffpw 21:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The level of vandalism is not an actionable objection, see WP:WIAFA. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Needs inline citations. LuciferMorgan 21:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment on the vandalism reverts, they are usually always reverted straight after they happen. Baseball is on a lot of users watchlists which helps prevent it staying vandalised for a long period of time. --Borgarde 01:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Gripe This article is a great example of one of Wikipedia's shortcomings. This article was great back when it was first a featured article. Now it is FUBAR due to a lot of irresponsible edits. I don't think I will participate much in the review. --Locarno 16:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments Prose size is 60KB, overall size is 156 KB - at least a third of the article needs to go (via WP:SS) before cleaning up the rest. Referencing is a mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments This is the longest article I have ever seen.--Superplaya 00:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment I've been looking at other sports intro articles, and the length is pretty standard, so I'm not as worried about that. However, there is plenty of content here that is expendable. In particular, the strategy sections need to be chopped to the bare minimum and moved to their own article. "Baseball's unique style" is a POV mess. And then there's the complete lack of sources. Djrobgordon 07:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- 60 KB of prose is not a standard and not common for an FA. Pls see WP:LENGTH SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Where do I add my google map? http://www.fantasy-baseball.info/Maps/Ballparks.html

Comment. As above, there is real trouble with the length and referencing. It needs serious trimming to make it more concise. Trebor 23:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Move to FARC, issues unaddressed during review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove It's way too long with useless things. Parts of it is not well written and it is not the same as other featured articles. Some parts of it is also just bogus and isn't true!Superplaya 04:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are TOC (2c), unnecessary detail (4), and writing quality (1a). Marskell 12:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove Fails 1c. LuciferMorgan 23:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove It's way too long with useless things. Parts of it is not well written and it is not the same as other featured articles. Some parts of it is also just bogus and isn't true!Superplaya 04:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Superplaya, if you feel that some of it is untrue, then fix it. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 13:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove per issues raised above, primarily 1c. Trebor 22:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove per above and some 1a issues. — Deckill er 04:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 09:37, 19 February 2007.

[edit] Marilyn Manson (band)

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Rock music, Biography, Keepsleeping (the last after having to wade through a redirect to Goatse.cx). Jeffpw 21:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated this article is it needs inline citations, especially concerning Manson's influences on each album etc. LuciferMorgan 20:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments Problematic references: Reported on November 7, 1997 is not a reference, and Usenet is not a reliable source. Last access dates are missing, all biblio info is not provided for all sources, links are not expanded, references need attention throughout. Extensive copyedit issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment The November 7 reference is definitely not a reliable source, as it's just an archived fan discussion. There were formally published reports into the Senator hearings, so these could be used. To be honest I think there's too much work that needs doing for it to escape FARC. If anyone wants to work on it though I'll chip in - I own Manson's autobiography so could find specific page numbers, and a book concerning Manson's influences which could help as concerns the comments made about each album. LuciferMorgan 03:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Curiously the heading on the archived FAC nom was pointing to Marilyn Manson the singer, rather than the band. There is obvously a citation issue, in paticular in the "Composition and songwriting" section, which makes a series of bold unsupported statments, eg "sharp, and occasionally inventive wordplay" (the insertion of 'occasionally' here is nicely wry). That said, most are (imo) correct, and there are a tonne of web sources out there if someone was willing to put in the work. There are some structural issues, the "Celebritarian rising" section is comprised mainly of one and two sentence paragraphs. Holding the samples in a dedicated section undermines the stated fair use rationall that the article "specifically discusses the song from which this sample was taken". The prose aren't bad, I think the article could be saved with a little effort. + Ceoil 20:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Issues in prose from the start:
"Marilyn Manson is a shock rock band based in Los Angeles, California, in the United States.Frequently termed "shock rock", the group's sound... - shock rock twice in two sentences (and both wikilinked).
The name of each band member was originally created - "originally" is redundant.
He has been careless enough to behave in such a fashion that his wife (see Dita Von Teese) has divorced him - careless enough, really? Trebor 23:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, 'careless' is indeed a very stange way of putting it. From what I know, probably 'stoned' would be a better word. But I take your point, tidying up needed here on prose. + Ceoil 23:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I suspect it was added somewhat tongue-in-cheek; it made me smile when I first saw it. Trebor 23:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Manson himself is a very amusing and dry character; I'd have no problem retaining this kind of subtle humour. + Ceoil 00:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally prefer sticking to whatever facts are available. Also, I don't see what relevance Manson's divorce has in the article - this article is on the band Marilyn Manson. The person Marilyn Manson, aka. Brian Warner, has an article of his own. LuciferMorgan 20:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Move to FARC, issues unaddressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b), and citations (1c). Marskell 12:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove Fails 1c. LuciferMorgan 23:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove 1c + Ceoil 20:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove, fails 1c, 1a. Trebor 22:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove per 1c and 1a. — Deckill er 04:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 09:37, 19 February 2007.

[edit] Oakland Cemetery

[edit] Review commentary

Article nominator was also its creator. Jeffpw 10:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Additional messages left at Geography. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Lacks references, based mostly on oral history and tradition from groundskeepers. -- mattb @ 2007-01-19T17:57Z

Comment In addition, the existing sources aren't used for inline citations so individual statements cannot be verified. Jay32183 01:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, I'm probably deceiving you all! :) -- mattb @ 2007-01-21T03:50Z

Comment external jumps and 1a problems - sample sentence: The Confederate section of Oakland is home to an estimated 6,900 burials, of which about 3,000 are unknown. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- The term "unknown burial" is common in the cemetery world, even if the grammar doesn't seem to jive. Anyway, it hardly matters. -- mattb @ 2007-02-02T04:06Z

I've done what I can in terms of WP:MOS, WP:EL, etc., but the entire section "Notable burials" does not conform to WP:MOS on n and m-dashes. The article is uncited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The MOS has changed significantly since I wrote that article. I scanned over the dashes section and I don't see how the section doesn't comply. The MOS recommends using en dashes for date ranges, which that section does. As for the citation situation, Franklin Miller Garrett's book is a great general reference, and I obviously don't intend to clutter up the article with a hundred inline citations. Besides, even if I did add a plethora of inline citations to page numbers in Garrett's book, few people could verify them, and even fewer would. You won't find a better source of information on the internet regarding Oakland Cemetery than this article (as I alluded to, the article was written from the oral history I received from generations of groundskeepers). -- mattb @ 2007-02-03T04:35Z

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), and MOS concerns (2). Marskell 05:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove per criterion 1c. LuciferMorgan 21:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove per Lucifer. Trebor 22:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove per above. — Deckill er 04:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove concerns have not been address. Jay32183 18:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 11:59, 17 February 2007.

[edit] British East India Company

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Singapore, India, Chancemill, Henry Flower, Jengod. Jeffpw 09:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is very lacking, and when it is cited, has a mixture of citation styles. A large portion is uncited, while others have been called "POV" and some cited for not viewing it from a world standpoint. Dark jedi requiem 05:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments - what a mess! Full of POV, neutrality, disputed, etc. tags by an anon editor: [12], but no messages left in the talk page. I removed the "In Popular Culture" section, because it is totally unsourced and not directly related with the subject (PS2 games, etc.). I moved also 2 flags into Flags section. As a glance,

The lead is too short to summarize the article,
Footholds in India section is disputed. Somebody with Indian background should take a look to give balance views.
Opium trade section is also tagged with neutrality and accuracy. Now this is for somebody with China history.
Stubby and listy "Ships" section and poor "East India Company Records" section. These two sections were added after the article was featured.
Too many see also items. Should be merged into the main text.
Lack of inline citations, there are some citations needed tags and I found some statements/facts are unsourced. Yes, there are some ext. links in the main article, but some ext. links have been there since the article was featured: [13], how come?

I'll try to help, but can't promise of getting sources. — Indon (reply) — 17:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are POV (1d), insufficient citations (1c), stub sections and LEAD (2). Marskell 07:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove Insufficient citations. LuciferMorgan 22:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove, article hasn't progressed since FAR nomination. --Peta 00:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove, I would say that a lot of works should be done for this article to gain FA status. A major concern is its neutrality, so it will need a total rehaul of the sourcing and rewriting. Bringing it back to FAC would be a good idea. — Indon (reply) — 08:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove per above — little work done, and it requires a lot of work. — Deckill er 02:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 18:24, 14 February 2007.

[edit] Igor Stravinsky

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Composers, Russia, Lupin, and Stephen Burnett. Jeffpw 11:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Additional messages at Marlowe and Bio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm nominating this for FAR due to;

Insufficient inline citations. LuciferMorgan 16:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Also the language is problematic in too many places. Eusebeus 11:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

- 2a: Funny to go straight into the specific matter of his early fame through the three ballets before providing an overview of this greatest of the 20th-century composers. The five paragraphs in the lead would be better in reverse order. Is "symphony" a form, like "fugue"? Verdi was one of the three major composers who influenced him? Seems unlikely. The serial procedures in the 1950s were an aberration, yet they're treated as rather more central than that. His stylistic evolution needs to be summarised succinctly in technical terms in the lead; "clarity of utterance" will not do. I'd hardly give oxygen to his prose ("He was a writer").
1c: Seriously under-referenced. Factual vagueness ("He switched to composition later.") Misleading statements—"The next phase of Stravinsky's compositional style,.. is marked by two works: Pulcinella 1920 and the Octet (1923)". Well no, these were the first works of a long stretch of neoclassicism.

1a: The prose could do with a massage—"Classic music". Tony 11:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment The above is a more thorough examination, and one which I agree with upon closer inspection of the article. LuciferMorgan 12:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree regarding the order of introduction; to go from the specific to the general feels as if it's the wrong way round. I'm currently working on the biography section, which was something of a muddle, and is still quite thin on the years he spent in the US, in comparison to the first half of his career. The biggest problem to my mind though is section 3, which seems in urgent need of a rewrite. For example, "L'Oiseau de feu, is notable for its unusual introduction (triplets in the low basses) and sweeping orchestration" doesn't really tell you a lot; it focuses on a detail which is probably one of the less remarkable features of the work, while the fact that the score calls for large percussion section including glock, xylophone and celesta, and requires three harps and a piano seems worth mentioning. As for "Petrushka ... is ... the first of Stravinsky's ballets to draw on folk mythology", this is just plain wrong: what is Firebird, if not a folk tale? --Stephen Burnett 21:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I just want to chime in and comment that I was quite shocked when I read this article to see that it was a FA. The last time it was on the main page a couple months ago, the prose was horrible, sections were half in and half out of chronological order, there was a lot of redundancy, and far too few references. I hope this nomination improves it a LOT.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 01:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), LEAD (2a), and prose (1a). Marskell 06:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove per my nomination concerns and Tony's concerns. LuciferMorgan 03:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove Bold statments such as "Stravinsky's work embraced multiple compositional styles, revolutionized orchestration, spanned several genres, practically reinvented ballet form and incorporated multiple cultures, languages and literatures" remain unsupported. Evidence of original research: "Stravinsky was nevertheless photogenic, as many pictures show". It's a shame to see it demoted however, we only have six FAs on composers. + Ceoil 20:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove per my comments above. Tony 23:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 13:37, 11 February 2007.

[edit] Rainbow

[edit] Review commentary

Message left at Meteorology. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This poor article seems to attract the image equivalent of an External link farm because of its subject matter. (It has an External link farm as well.) The images are spectacular, but the article seems to engage WP:NOT. And, rain as a See also ? It was a "brilliant prose" promotion (with 3 supports and 3 opposes) and has been reviewed before. It uses three referencing styles, is mostly uncited, and has external jumps. Really needs a tuneup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, not again :( Can someone help me this time, please. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- I plan to help, ALoan (feel badly for the poor article): I can clean up and convert refs and external jumps, check external links, proofread and light ce, although ce isn't my strong point. I don't understand Fair Use, and the hard thing is to decide which images to lose - they all seem to offer something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Thanks. I cleaned up some of the refs, but feel free to sort out any that I have missed. I have commented out a few images - I think those that are left are justifiable. It would be nice to have a bit more text though, particularly in "Art and Photography" and "Literature". My German was not up to it, but the corresponding sections in de:Regenbogen look quite good. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    - I'll get on it next week - we should find someone who speaks German. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

While you're working on that, I have a couple of requests.
- The lead section needs a lot of beefing up to summarize the whole article.
- Does "Remembering the sequence of colours" really need a whole section in this article? It doesn't have a lot to do with rainbows that isn't better explained at Visible spectrum or even just Color; and ROYGBIV is its own article.
- For comprehensiveness, the "See also" section could be expanded into a section on comparisons with similar phenomena. Melchoir 00:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Does this article really need a whole section on culture? I mean, it's a rainbow. I'm sure you could dig up a ton of literature that mentions rainbows somewhere - it's like adding a "popular culture" section to Earth; we all live on it, a good 90% of novels and poems and other literature takes place on Earth. I'd be in favor of junking the entire section altogether. Hbdragon88 02:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If several of us are going to try to work on this, should we move discussion to the article talk page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Status: Should this move? Marskell 20:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It has a few days left in review, but citation hasn't even begun. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are formatting and sufficiency of refs (1c), general cleanup (2). Marskell 06:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove, discluding the references issues this still isn't FA quality, too short of intro, too many images (we don't need one of a rainbow in waterfall mist and fountain mist), poorly chosen section titles, etc. Vicarious 00:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove, I concur - it will be much harder to fix than I originally thought. It needs references, expansion, and cleanup, and will always be an image farm magnet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove, for the same reasons. CG 10:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove per Sandy's concerns. LuciferMorgan 21:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove, it's a mess. --Peta 00:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 20:23, 7 February 2007.

[edit] Evolution

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Raul654 and Evolutionary biology. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Evolution offers a "take your pick" menu of deficiencies in WP:WIAFA. It was nominated by Raul654 (talk • contribs) several years ago, but has no main author (which is apparent in the Table of Contents). It has an External link farm, and a See also farm (see WP:EL and WP:NOT). Many of the references/footnotes are not correctly formatted. The article size is 104KB overall, with 60KB of prose, suggesting the need for better use of summary style. The article has broad swatches of uncited text. It has external jumps to terms that should be wikified (example, Another mechanism causing gene duplication is intergenic recombination, particularly 'exon shuffling', ... ) It needs a complete re-evaluation, reorganization, and rewrite. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My opinion, which I have mentioned several times before, is that the article could stand some improving. Here are my suggestions, most of which are not new:

remove the history of evolutionary thought sections and leave at most a paragraph with a link to the longer main articles on this
remove the objections to evolution section and replace it with a short summary paragraph with a link to another article describing this (which might for time being be the controversy article, but eventually could be a separate article on this; I am working on a draft that might either go into the controversy article or be a separate article summarizing the objections). The evolution article should be on the science and little else. Other articles can address the history or the controversy with creationism/ID/creation science etc.
the links could be moved to a separate article listing and organizing links on the topic, and then only a few links included in the article itself
the introductory paragraphs, or at least introductory sentences, of all sections should be accessible to the average reader.
After many attempts I am glad to see the lead is becoming accessible and less technical
I am glad that there is an accessible introduction to evoltion, which I lobbied for
excessive bits on the philosophy of science in various places should be removed (removing the objections section would probably get rid of most of them)--Filll 17:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I might also mention that in the past, efforts to improve it were met with severe resistance. I am glad to see that it seems to be moving ahead now, finally. Iam not sure what happened to the authors that fought so desperately to avoid any changes.--Filll 17:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your idea to create a separate article with links, pls see WP:EL and WP:NOT - that seems to be the equivalent of creating a webpage, which is not encyclopedic. Just get rid of them - isn't there a DMOZ category which summarizes them? I'll go look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have seen articles which provide links, with annotations to them. They are very useful. They also divide the links in categories. For a reader who wants to know where to go and what to look for this, this can be invaluable. Why not something here? I know it might violate some rule or other if not done properly. But it would be helpful in several was, and others have done it.--Filll 17:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Other articles may also be in violation of WP:EL and WP:NOT. It's not our job; this is an encyclopedia.

Evolution at the Open Directory Project (suggest site)

There you go - one place that does it for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but that really is not as useful as what I have seen here in Wikipedia. Organized by subject. Uniform articles. Annotated links. etc.--Filll 18:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken - but being a web directory is *still* Not Our Job, and External links should be used sparingly. This will eventually be a Remove vote from me if ELs aren't cleaned up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The most egregious problem with this article is found right at the top - For a non-technical introduction to the topic, please see Introduction to evolution. It has been decided in the past that even technical articles should be - at least partially - accessible to layman. (And, to be frank - evolution is not nearly as technical as the math articles that inspired the previous discussion.) Raul654 17:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

- Writing as the person that lobbied for the introductory article and also helped to write it, I think I must respond. Yes the main article or at least the introductory paragraphs of each section and the lead should be accessible. The existence of an introduction to evolution article does not get one off the hook. However the argument has been made repeatedly that the editors can not be as technically precise as they want and use the jargon they want if it has to be dumbed down for the public. So it is not unreasonable to have a suite of articles, like the Simple Wikipedia Simple:evolution article, and the Introduction to evolution article and the evolution article, to address all levels as much as possible. After all, Encyclopedia Britannica has at least 6 different levels in their products.
- Also, it is true that evolution is not as complicated as quantum mechanics or special relativity. But people still have problems even with stupid old evolution, obviously. And we have had people write to us to thank us for writing the introduction article so they could get up to speed. After they understand the terms a bit, they feel more comfortable about tackling the main articles.--Filll 18:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  - the argument has been made repeatedly that the editors can not be as technically precise as they want and use the jargon they want if it has to be dumbed down for the public - for (at least) the introduction, that is exactly what they are required to do by the FA criteria. For the rest of the article, it's perfectly acceptable to use a technical term, and link to the article on it. Raul654 18:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, there is no problem with them being technical in the body of the article as long as they make the lead accessible and the introductory paragraphs or sentences. Which is what I have been fighting for with only minimal success for months and months.--Filll 18:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A major problem is a group of editors who keep reverting the lead to versions from months ago, allowing only attempts to simplify it that fit in with that original structure, and often reverting even that. The best I've managed to push through is a major structural change in the order of the article, and certain cleanings-up of the introduction.

For instance, this is a version from October: [14] As of time of writing, the opening reads: [15] However, here's a version from 26 December: [16]

This was a version come up with over a month by numerous editors, it has been reverted to an old, WP:LEAD violating version. Frankly, losing FA and having to edit it to get it back may be the only way to make real progress on the lead. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I had not noticed what happened to the new lead. It makes me sick. It was gorgeous. I have had similar problems with editors who are in love with what existed 5 months ago, or 1 year ago or 3 years ago. I had an awful time trying to battle them and withdrew for the moment when I did not seem to have any support. I think the only way forward is as Adam suggests: Slam them and slam them hard. Take away FA status. Downgrade the status even further as you see fit. And maybe even have some sort of voting/comment session on the status and future direction needed for the article. These editors need to be confronted with the truth of 20 or 30 or 50 or 100 other editors telling them they are damaging the article, which I believe would be done. I will not battle these characters alone. For example, just because an editor started the article almost 6 years ago, does not give this editor any rights to keep it the same way it was years ago (recalling a very nasty fight I had a few weeks ago). The article is, as pointed out above repeatedly, a mess. So they need their faces rubbed in it and they need to know that their efforts at slowly progress are definitely unappreciated. A new consensus needs to emerge.--Filll 19:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted it back to the last version I could find - if there was a better, later one, use that. Also shrunk History of evolutionary thought - still needs some work, but in one shot gets the article into length requirements, as far as I can tell. Frankly, though, I do think it might be beneficial, and remove some of the stagnation, to put the article through the wringer of public comment again, by which I mean no offense to all the other - and there are quite a lot - good editors out there. The whole thing could use a simplification in language, and if losing FA helps get past certain overly-conservative elements, it's probably more beneficial in the long run than not. I don't think the article is that bad - it needs a lot of copyediting and glossing of terms more than a complete rewrite. Perhaps we can take bits from Introduction to evolution for this purpose. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And I've reverted youir reversion of the into Adam. It was reading very well before you reverted and you gave no reasons for your changes in talk. Candy 21:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly why I am reluctant to do much to try to help with the current horrific mess of the article. People are not really convinced if it needs to be improved, or how it should be done.--Filll 21:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be sensible to have an "FA Review On Hold" status - whereby a month or so is given for the article to be worked into shape before FAR is reopened. It might not be regularly useful, but it would be a good, less disruptive way to encourage people to help fix an FA that had fallen somewhat below FA quality. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

We are always willing to extend time in review, as long as progress is evident and ongoing; it may be premature to request an extension since today is the article's first day in review. There is much work to be done to clean up, shorten and bring the article to FA standards; if some editors are determined to resist all efforts, extra time may not be useful. A month is enough time to rework the article, if all editors will work together. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If all editors work together. I will believe it when I see it. Not only do editors have to waste a lot of time combatting creationists, but then they fight amongst themselves. Some want it more technical. Some less. Some longer than it even is right now. Some shorter. Some would see no problem with it being two or three times as long as it is at present I bet. The battles can be so pitched it is ludicrous. So...I just make suggestions over and over and watch them be ignored.--Filll 00:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Having had my restoration and expansion (to define mutation as well) of the introduction reverted, I'm kind of inclined to agree that this is an uphill battle. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

One can do a tremendous amount of work, try to build consensus, wait for weeks, hammer out text. And then ask if it can be installed. Have everyone agree. Install it, and get it immediately reverted. And the editor who reverts it refuses to even give a reason why. And if you push them, have them attack you and threaten you with administrative consquences. I hate the idea of an edit war. But people who have been here a long time know lots of people and know all the rules and they can be impossible to buck to improve the article. I saw random replicator who is a biology teacher try several times. She/He did a great job on the introduction article with me, and tried very hard on the evolution article several times to fix a paragraph or two. Only to have them blown away, after working on them for weeks and building consensus. Something is badly badly broken here. And I do not know what to do. --Filll 04:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Filll) Having looked over the talk page, and considering the resistance to needed improvements in the first day, it doesn't look promising; but, it's only been a day, and you've got a month. Just a note (based on talk page comments); yes, some topics need to be longer than others, but 60KB of prose is over the line. Articles with 40KB of prose are considered long - that would be a goal for a *long* article, which still means cutting a third of this article. (You can read how to calculate readable prose at WP:LENGTH - the fact that See also and External links also need to be pruned is separate from readable prose.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

25 problems to resolve, for starters:

The third paragraph of the lead section goes into too much detail about the circumstances surrounding The Origin of Species. That level of detail might be appropriate in the "History" section, but no more than a few words should be devoted to it in the lead section.
The armadillo image has an excessively long caption, bloated by trivia. It is also poorly-placed; having two lengthy vertical blocks of text and image at the top of the article makes the page look clumsy and cluttered. The armadillo thing should probably be either shortened and transplanted to another part of the article, or removed altogether.
~~Section titles should not be capitalized. "Basic Processes" and "Mechanisms of Evolution" are thus incorrect.~~
~~It is incorrect to italicize "e.g." and "i.e.".~~ (There is also some excessive and inconsistent use of the latter.)
~~It is incorrect to italicize quoted text.~~
Some languages crosses the line from being simple and user-friendly to being overcasual. Academic, encyclopedic tone should be maintained, and we should avoid treating our readers like infants with phrases like "phenotypic variation (e.g., what makes you appear different from your neighbor)".
Although the article does a good job of explaining most terms, some new terms are still unexplained, and a surprising number are unlinked, like gene, genotype, genetic variation, and many more.
There is an overuse of parentheses in this article. These can be replaced by em-dashes, commas, etc. in some cases, to avoid making the text seem fragmented.
~~Avoid external links in the article text, like the Tetrahymena link.~~
There are various minor grammatical errors that are not significant enough to mention here; a thorough copyedit should fix them.
"Selection and adaptation" seems to be a little too long and a little too listy, relative to the other, more compact sections. Cutting down on all the subtypes listed could probably cut this section's length almost in half; that level of detail is more appropriate for the daughter articles anyway. This section also needs references, badly—especially for its paragraph on evolutionary teleology.
~~Bolding should not be use to emphasize a random word in a prose paragraph.~~
There are several redlinks: ~~J.L. (from a formating error in the references)~~, sampling variance, ~~Hill-Robertson effect~~, Colin Norman.
~~There is some inconsistency in reference style in sections like "Cooperation".~~
There is poor illustrative balance in the "Evidence of evolution" section. All three images deal with aquatic animals, suggesting to uninformed readers that there isn't any evidence for evolution from other species; this impression should obviously not be implied, so at least one of the images should be removed, and other images should be added. The "nasal drift" image seems like the least useful one at the moment; although it's very pretty, the sequencing and similarity is least obvious.
Considering how drastically the rest of this article has been shortened, you may want to consider shortening the "Evidence of evolution" section too, to avoid imbalance. This can be easily done by cutting down on examples and trivial details.
~~"History of the modern synthesis of evolutionary thought" should clearly be a subsection of "Study of evolution", and should be shortened to a simpler title, like "History of evolutionary thought".~~
The "History" section is currently far too short. Important information that was removed should be re-added to make it at least 50% bigger ("Academic disciplines", below, is a good example of a nice-sized section). To give an idea of how much compression is appropriate, 3-5 fair-sized paragraphs (about 4 sentences in length each) should be the goal. Anything much shorter or longer than that is not appropriate.
The "Misunderstandings" section is too short, and some very important information (e.g. about the fact-theory distinction) has recently been removed from the article, making it much less informationally valuable to readers. Of course, whether a "Misunderstandings" section (or its new daughter article) is appropriate here at all should be discussed; there is little precedent for such a move, and it seems to fly in the face of academic and NPOV conventions, as well as to be a very useless categorizational method--a misunderstanding about the nature of mutations, for example, would be very useful if put under "Mutations", but useless if put under the generic heading of "Misunderstandings". Ideally, thus, a "Misunderstandings" section should simply be split up into sections dealing with the specific topics involved in each misunderstanding. From an NPOV perspective, it is particularly troubling to see statements to the effect that the creationist movement was caused by misunderstandings of evolution; it is perfectly fair to say that creationists regularly misunderstand evolution, but to make inferences and judgments from that is not NPOV; at the very least, such statements should be replaced with attributed ones, so it is not Wikipedia itself that is making them.
This article needs to have a "social effects" section. The effects of the study of evolutionary biology on society and culture over the last few hundred years is immense, and highly noteworthy. This would be a more appropriate and useful place to (briefly) discuss creationism than a POVed "misunderstandings" section, obviously.
The "See Also" section is too large. Ideally, there should be no "See Also" section at all for a time-level article like this; any highly important articles should be mentioned in the article text and/or series templates, and any less important ones should not be mentioned in this article, but rather in daughter articles. Some of the articles listed here are not even real articles, like Animal evolution.
~~Why is there an empty "Notes" section?~~
A number of the references are broken or inconsistent. It will take an in-depth review and copyedit to make them all consistent.
The external links should be cut down a little. 10-15 is ideal for an FA; there are currently 20. One good method to shorten the list without removing important information is to simply use some of the links in the "References" section; this gives them the added value of having relevance to specific parts of the article, as opposed to just being "add-ons".
Is there any particular reason that Evolution, rather than Modern evolutionary synthesis, is under Category:Theories?

-Silence 19:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent review, Silence. I disagree on the notion of there being an ideal number of External links for any article; 10 - 15 may be high, depending on the topic - the fewer the better. Each one needs to have a reason for being there, per WP:EL and WP:NOT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You may disagree, and I may disagree as well, but I've seen dozens of articles fail their FAs for having any more than 15 links (Jesus, for example, used to have around 20, and got failed partly because of having too many), so clearly a large number of Wikipedians see anything over 15 as unreasonable. And I can see their point; we should be reliant on external links as little as possible, and the ones we do rely on should, as much as possible, be ones we specifically cite within the text. Anything much beyond that is at best a necessary evil. I do agree that there should be some "wiggle room" for different articles, but I'm unconvinced that this article needs that wiggle room, so just to be safe I'd recommend cutting down the external linkage a little bit. I do agree, certainly, that we should analyze them on a case-by-case basis. -Silence 02:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we're saying the same thing - there are way too many - I just find 10-15 far too many in most cases, as well (depending on the article). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

These all sound pretty reasonable. The only think I would like to plead for is to farm out any culled material to other articles. I am more partial to short articles, with other more specific articles on special topics linked to the main ones.--Filll 22:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree. I think too much information has been lost already, in sections like "History". We have countless daughter articles to store this stuff on. Also, FAs are judged partly on the quality of their daughter articles (that's one of the reasons Charles Darwin's had trouble getting to FA, for example), so there are immediate practical reasons for improving them. -Silence 02:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read the comment on your userpage Silence. The History section contained tautology (that it much of it was already in the existing article). Candy 02:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I fixed a lot of the problems I listed above myself. There are now 15 left of the original 25 in the list. However, new problems come up all the time; I noticed a "fact" template in the text, for example. A lot of work still to go on this article! -Silence 20:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Silence is doing a great job and we are lucky to have him on the case.--Filll 21:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is now a more manageable 40KB prose - still long, but doable - and the TOC is now reasonable, but the references will need a lot of cleanup once the text is settled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Status? Much improvement, but still a long list - can involved editors give us an update? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I am only indirectly involved, but Silence has made very impressive progress on evolution and many of the related articles and subarticles, with the assistance of some others. I believe that this is a HUGE task, so it would not be surprising if there were still a ways to go on this task.--Filll 01:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I lack the biological expertise to fix some of this article's largest problems: the opaqueness of some of the more technical sections, lacking even an attempt to provide readers with context in many cases, rnders large portions of this article essentially useless as a general reference tool. What we need is some more work on clarifying concepts by people who are both very familiar with the processes and mechanisms involved, and able to explain them in sufficiently clear, engaging language. We need a Dawkins! :( -Silence 06:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are format and sufficiency of refs (1c), length and focus (4).

Comment: Not clear from above that people were happy with this, so moving it down. Marskell 07:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Minor problems do exist, but they are not fatal to FA status. Overall, this is an excellent article.UberCryxic 23:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove Insufficient citations.LuciferMorgan 01:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Status? Can we have some feedback from editors working on the article? I see that Silence's list isn't all attended to yet, prose size is a manageable (albeit longish) 40 KB, See also is better (can't any of those be worked into the text?), References need work on formatting (example, what is - Created from PDB 1D65 - and - enmicro.pdf - and - ^ [4] - these are not correctly formatted refs), inconsistent ref style and use of PMIDs and ISBNs, missing publishers (Evolutionary Theory by Peter Gogarten, Ph.D. ). There are external jumps, and entire sections remain unreferenced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Remove strangely, it seems that work stopped, no feedback. External jumps, incorrectly formatted refs, external link farm, entire sections unreferenced, Silence's list above - no change, no feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment That's gotten better.--Rmky87 21:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment I am not sure what has happened to Silence and his efforts. He seems to have paused in his efforts. I am not sure of his plans in this regard.--Filll 03:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Guess who's back.--Rmky87 04:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep Encouraging editors to contribute to a Featured Article, as with any article, is a cornerstone of Wikipedia. Yet not keeping a FA in check after such contributions does not necessarily justify removing its FA status. A lack of a main editor could be for a number of reasons. Many of the complaints above- including length- have been rectified, and the article looks very good. Minor polishing is needed for the article now. --MPD ^{T / C} 05:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove unless dramatic improvements ensue. I can only do so much; the incredibly confusing mess of various parts of the "processes" and "mechanisms" sections will require a substantial rewrite by knowledgeable folk in order to be of any use to readers; there's nothing wrong with using complex concepts and important technical terms, but the article's frequent failure to keep its readership in mind and coherently explain these things, as well as poor writing quality in a number of paragraphs and inconsistency in references, makes the current article unfit to be an FA. Hopefully, if efforts aren't rallied beforehand, they will become more focused as a result of the demanding pressures of the FAC and peer-review process. -Silence 06:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll give it a quick copyedit to help out if you guys need it. — Deckill er 09:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking a ce is not all that's needed here. Barring some extraordinary intervention, I'm going to remove this later. Marskell 14:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Much too far from ready to benefit from a ce, Deckiller. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Closing notes. Some notes to be clear on closing as remove with the keep comments:

Given that Silence was one of the people looked to to save this, I take his remove as relatively decisive.
Large uncited sections are not good, particularly on a current, often controversial, and complex subject.
FAR is the place to fix minor problems and enough minor problems are a major problem.
Another FAC won't hurt this article at all, and I'm sure editors can get it back there. Marskell 20:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 09:25, 7 February 2007.

[edit] Gold standard

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Piotrus, B&E and Nurismatics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Primary issue is that the article has literally no inline citations. There is a large references section but it's not tied to the rest of the article.

Additionally the article has many small issues:

It has statement of dubious veracity such as commenting on gold's unique "acoustic properties", something not mentioned at gold; and "A return to a gold standard is not generally thought feasible in mainstream economics", which has already been complained about on the talk page.
Lead section has some unnecessary specifics and some missing summarizations. Also too few links in my opinion.
An immense lack of images, especially in the lead. I'm certain their are some images which could correspond to the text, but at the very least the intro could have an image of gold.

Added a few images, gold bars, coins, extraction. Joe I 04:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Article is very long, long enough to disagree with Wikipedia:Article_size#Readability_issues. It seems like the history section would be ideal to split off into a seperate article.
Has many minor issues that would be ignored if not for the fact this this is supposed to be Wikipedia's best, for example the first letter of one section is inexplicably bolded, and one subsection is empty. Vicarious 09:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. It was up to FA standard few years back. It is not now.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 02:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are lack of citations and factual accuracy (1c), length (4), LEAD (2a), images (3). Marskell 20:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 13:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove per Lucifer. Tony 11:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC) PS And it's poorly written, with lots of questionable statements (1a and 1c). For example: "In modern mainstream economic thought, a gold standard is considered undesirable because it is associated with the collapse of the world economy in the late 1920's, and that aggregate supply and demand is a far better means of regulating interest rates, money supply and monetary basis." Both "modern" and "mainstream"? One would do. Logical problem: I do not think that the association with the 1920s is the reason that it's thought undesirable nowadays. There are technical reasons. "Far better means of regulating monetary basis"—Um .... Tony 11:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 09:25, 7 February 2007.

[edit] Henry VIII of England

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Emsworth, Bio, Royalty, UK notice board, Ireland and Scotland. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I was browsing through the article, and noticed a certain lack of inline citations. From what small knowledge I have on FA status, you have to have ample amounts of these as one of the requirements, and for that fact, even GA status. I suggest getting some more inline citations, if this article is to maintain that status. --Artega 06:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's a misunderstanding of FA status. The relevant FA criterion states that claims made in Featured Articles must be "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." At Citing sources, we find this simple guideline: "Attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." It is also generally desirable to provide inline citations for specific matter that (a) would be difficult for an interested reader to verify, even after considering the general and/or plainly pertinent sources set out in the References section, and (b) contributors have discovered is reported incorrectly elsewhere in a major source or in multiple minor ones. The project's FA standards in no way suggest that uncontroversial claims readily verifiable in various standard works in a field should be cited, just as such claims are not cited in most serious scholarly works.

In short, the gross amount of inline citations is completely irrelevant to FA status. Some of the best articles on Wikipedia have relatively few inline citations. The fact that whole paragraphs, even in succession, have no inline citations is again irrelevant to FA status. See, for example, Wikipedia's superb Featured Article on the sun, specifically the section on its atmosphere. Wikipedia contributors should not be pressured into "getting some more inline citations" just for the sake of it. The objective should be to identify those specific claims that require citation and to provide the best citations possible.

In this specific case, the article has a decent, though hardly exemplary References section. As available, full information should be consistently provided for all sources of each type. The fact that the article has just one specific citation does raise a couple questions. Those questions are: As you have initiated this review, did you actually find any specific claims dubious or counterintuitive or confusing or contradicted by your own knowledge? Did you try to verify any information in the article via the sources provided in the References section and find that that it was difficult or impossible? Here's something I picked up on in a quick dip: Henry "earned a golden rose from the Pope as early as 1510." Did he earn it in in 1510 or do we only know that he earned it some time and could have earned it that early? Is the sentence badly phrased or do scholars disagree? If the sentence is correct as is, it definitely needs to be elaborated on, either in the main text or in an inline-cited note. Many paragraphs in the article contain nothing but straightforward historical information of the most readily verifiable sort and do not call for citation. The quality of the writing (as suggested by my example) seems to be a clearer problem.—DCGeist 08:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur with your argument against citing every fact, though this article lacks any citation whatsoever. Indeed, the writing is extremely poor and it appears that it has mostly declined through vandalism. My suggestion would be to either revert this to Lord Emsworth's nominated version or rewrite it alltogether. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That's quite an essay. Not to worry about the nomination, Artega; past reviews of Emsworth's articles have revealed prose problems and deficiencies with the overriding policy, which is WP:V. If someone is willing to work on the article, we can go through and put cite needed tags on specific areas requiring verification, but reviewers here are reluctant to tag articles unless someone is actually going to begin doing the work, and we've found few takers on Emsworth's old articles. Perhaps DCGeist misunderstands the underlying policy of WP:V? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. What does it strike you that I misunderstand?

I didn't argue that Artega's nomination of the article for review was inappropriate. I made an effort to explain that the lack of inline citations should not be the initial focus of review and that "getting some more inline citations" is never the appropriate way to think about improving an article. Perhaps I should have stated more clearly the point I'm sure we all agree on: the fact that an article has no specific citations and a messy approach to referencing likely indicates that it has other, more serious, deficiencies that render it below FA quality. I didn't mean to imply that Artega was mistaken to initiate a review; I did want to know if, having made the effort to do so, Artega had identified any specific problems beneath the general observation about the article's lack of citations. With little time and effort and no specific knowledge, I identified such a problem. With apparently little effort, Kirill has now identified at least one and a very serious one at that. Disputed accuracy tag placed on article--all readers should be completely wary of the article's fact basis in its current state. And, indeed, we know that as a consequence of Artega's nomination.—DCGeist 20:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, there seem to be obvious factual errors present here. For example, the "Early reign" section starts off by incorrectly having Francis I ruling France in 1512 in place of Louis XII, and goes downhill from there; this needs to be thoroughly checked over by people familiar with the material. Kirill Lokshin 17:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Going through the article in more detail, there are a number of major inaccuracies and omissions at least with regards to Henry's foreign policy (which happens to be the aspect of his reign I'm familiar with; I have no idea if the other topics have similar problems):

The Holy League of 1511 was, as I've already mentioned, formed against Louis XII, not Francis I; the comments about Francis competing with Henry are, obviously, not relevant to it.
Henry made peace with Louis in 1513–14, before Francis had ascended the throne. The Field of the Cloth of Gold—which was, indeed, a meeting between Henry and Francis—was obviously not part of the negotiations involved here; it was rather a prelude to the next war. The article makes no mention of Henry's role in the Imperial election of 1519, and its relation to all of this.
(More broadly, this entire section is pretty devoid of context; Henry was getting involved in the Italian Wars here, not randomly attacking France.)
Henry's role in the Italian War of 1521—and his resulting switch to the French side in the War of the League of Cognac—is glossed over, being presented as some sort of private arrangement with the Pope.
Henry's foreign policy in the 1540's—the Rough Wooing, the Italian War of 1542, etc.—is completely absent from the article.

I would say that at least those areas of the article need substantial work if this is to be an FA. Kirill Lokshin 21:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And there we go. By shifting the review focus from "getting citations" to analysis of specific content, Kirill has efficiently demonstrated that the article as it stands is well below FA quality. Unless a knowledgeable editor steps in to adopt the article in short order, it should move expeditiously to FARC.—DCGeist 22:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I thank you all for taking the time to comment on it. Given, the requests now for changes are nothing of what I wanted the FAR to be about, but I completly understand your reasoning behind what you said, and can agree that inline citations alone shouldn't be the reason for calling an FAR. In any case, some major editing has to be done if the article is to maintain FA status.-Artega 01:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Lack of citations is always a reason for calling for review, although not necessarily a reason for demoting (two different issues :-) If the article had been cited, you wouldn't have needed a domain expert to know it wasn't accurate (the point of WP:V is you would have been able to verify the accuracy yourself). Further, older FAs lacking citations almost always have other problems. It just happens that, having been through a number of Emsworth's older FAs aleady, many here are already aware of the problems with article deterioration over time (he no longer watches them), so all of his uncited FAs will likely be appearing here eventually. Without citations, they will be demoted, for the very reason that readers have no means of verifying accuracy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I note that in the article on Henry VIII, Anne of Cleves' brother Wilhelm is said to be a Protestant, while in her own article, he is said to be "personally" a Catholic. I don't think that the article on him states anything. Other sources that I checked describe him as "mildly Protestant" and "not a Lutheran." (I'm still digging) Anne's and Wilhelm's brother-in-law, Johann Frederick I, Elector of Saxony was an ardent Lutheran and head of the Protestant Confederation of Germany (the Schmalkaldic League), so it may be their relationship with him that was more important in allying Henry VIII with the German Protestant Princes. By the way, I have had trouble finding the articles on both brother and sister, except by going in through Henry VIII. - Beth RootJuglice25A 11:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are lack of citations and factual accuracy (1c). Marskell 20:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove per 1c.LuciferMorgan 01:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove, no effort to address concerns raised above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove, nothing has changed from above. Trebor 23:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 11:13, 6 February 2007.

[edit] Father Damien

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at RickK, Bio, Catholicism, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hawaii. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Message left at WikiProject Saints. –Outriggr § 01:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Nearly all of the information is not properly cited inline. Also seems rather uncomprehensive with just a brief description of his major landmarks. Contains a trivia section. It became featured back in 2004 and remained nearly unchanged since. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Inline citation is just a preference and should not be a factor in de-featuring an article. As you say yourself, it became featured and has remained nearly unchanged since. If there is something you would like to change, why not just change it yourself? --Ali'i 20:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, inline citations are always a major factor in de-featuring articles. This article definitely needs them. The FAR nominator has made some valid comments. LuciferMorgan 21:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Inline citations have been a requirement for FAs for quite a while, and older FAs are expected to conform with current standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment:Is this long quote in "Criticisms" necessary? And the online sources in the few inline citations are not properly formatted. Not to speak of the ^{[citation needed]} tags.--Yannismarou 21:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), comprehensiveness (1b), and a trivia section (4). Marskell 20:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove Insufficient citations - claims are made in the article that need backing up. LuciferMorgan 23:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove no progress, no one working on it. Other than robots and vandal reverts, six or seven edits during month-long review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 02:15, 3 February 2007.

[edit] Tank

[edit] Review commentary

No original author, message left at MilHist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Came across this page while doing other stuff and was shocked to see it featured. It may have other issues, but primarily there is a complete lack of references. It was promoted way back, and perhaps the prose is still good, but it needs going through and thoroughly referencing. Trebor 21:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Needs citations. --Ineffable3000 04:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Move to FARC, unresolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is lack of citations (1c). Marskell 12:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove Insufficient inline citations. LuciferMorgan 02:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove per Lucifer. And the writing problems creep into even the first sentence, which mixes British and US spellings. What is "high mobility"? "Relatively high speed"—relative to what? Tony 11:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove concerns not addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
As nominator, am I meant to say anything here? If I am, remove, plenty of uncorrected problems. Trebor 01:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_article_review_archive_January_2007_995f.html"