Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/June 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Kept status 1.1 Phishing 1.1.1 Review commentary 1.1.2 FARC commentary 1.2 Right whale 1.2.1 Review commentary 1.2.2 FARC commentary 1.3 Sarajevo 1.3.1 Review commentary 1.3.2 FARC commentary 1.4 Asperger syndrome 1.4.1 Review commentary 1.4.2 FARC commentary 1.5 Medal of Honor 1.6 Final Fantasy X 1.7 The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker 1.7.1 Major review commentary 1.7.2 FARC commentary 1.8 Antarctica 1.8.1 Minor review commentary 1.8.2 Major review commentary 1.9 Indian Institutes of Technology 1.9.1 Major review commentary 1.9.2 FARC commentary 1.10 Super Mario 64 1.10.1 Review commentary 1.10.2 FARC commentary 1.11 Iranian peoples 2 Removed status 2.1 Wikipedia 2.1.1 Review commentary 2.1.2 FARC commentary 2.2 Lord Chancellor 2.2.1 Review commentary 2.2.2 FARC commentary 2.3 Sealand 2.3.1 Review commentary 2.3.2 FARC commentary 2.4 George II of Great Britain 2.4.1 Review commentary 2.4.2 FARC commentary 2.5 Java programming language 2.5.1 Review commentary 2.5.2 FARC commentary 2.6 C programming language 2.6.1 Review commentary 2.6.2 FARC commentary 2.6.3 Miscellaneous commentary 2.7 Volkswagen Type 2 2.7.1 Review commentary 2.7.2 FARC commentary 2.8 United States Electoral College 2.8.1 Review commentary 2.8.2 FARC commentary 2.9 Linus Pauling 2.9.1 Review commentary 2.9.2 FARC commentary 2.10 Vanilla Ninja 2.10.1 Major review commentary 2.10.2 FARC commentary 2.11 Coca-Cola 2.11.1 Major review commentary 2.11.2 FARC commentary 2.12 Humphrey Bogart 2.12.1 Review commentary 2.12.2 FARC commentary 2.13 Jim Henson 2.13.1 Review commentary 2.13.2 FARC commentary 2.14 King James Version of the Bible 2.14.1 Major review commentary 2.14.2 FARC commentary 2.15 Peerage 2.15.1 Major review commentary 2.15.2 FARC commentary 2.16 H.P. Lovecraft 2.16.1 Major review commentary 2.16.2 FARC commentary 2.17 Hero of Belarus 2.17.1 Major review commentary 2.17.2 FARC commentary 2.18 Space Race 2.18.1 Major review commentary 2.18.2 FARC commentary 3 Pages over-lapping merger of FARC and FAR 3.1 Hinduism 3.2 Batman 3.3 Hugo Chávez

[edit] Kept status

Place more recent additions at top

[edit] Phishing

Article is still a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

I helped bring this article up to FA status last year. Since then, the article has taken on some crud and unsourced statements. The article still appears to be in decent shape, henceforth I am nominating it for a minor review, just to polish out the flaws that have developed since the granting of the FA status. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 14:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"Has taken on some crud"... Would a revert be in order? Marskell 16:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Potentially, wasn't sure how to go about it though. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 12:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well a wholescale revert isn't always best. Open the old one in a new window and look at them comparatively to start? Marskell 13:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Extra note: I guess it's in the nature of the topic, but Jesus this gets nailed by anons. Looking at it, I wonder if it should be delisted on stability grounds... Marskell 22:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm one of those "anons". Could you look at the content of the article and suggest what it is that needs improving? The nature of the editors isn't important. Bizarre edits get reverted, and I've been contributing a lot of good content, with references. It was me that added the "cite" tags, and me that has just gone through and found cites for those. Please, be specific in what the "crud" is, and quite how much this "nailing" is causing problems. Which parts of the article need attention? As far as I can see there are very few unreferenced statements now, and the quality of the article is improved from that a year ago. If you don't agree, compare the two and list where it has got worse, and then make changes to improve it. Surely? Best of luck. --82.33.54.90 08:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that probably did appear to be a back-handed comment about anon editing. It's just harder for a third-party to judge it with a lot of small anon edits. Marskell 12:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Who is working on the substandard prose? Here are random examples.
  • "More recent phishing attempts have started to target the customers"—Since they're recent, why not "have targeted"?
  • "system to quickly deactivate any account involved in phishing"—do you mean "promptly"?
  • "caused most phishers to leave the service, and many phishers — often young teens in their heyday — grew out of the habit." The last bit is ambiguous; the parenthetical phrase is potentially POV. Tony 01:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony - I've made some of your suggested changes. If you can see other phrasing that jars please help out. I think the AOL section needs more work, particularly for some of the details. That last part about growing out of phishing is out of the cited aolcracks article, at the end, but it might do with reworking. --82.33.54.90 22:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I've found from where a lot of the original content came that was in this (featured) article a year ago: [1]. Some of the text that was first in here almost completely duplicated examples in that text. I don't want to repeat that, but this paper could be heavily cited for the remaining technical parts of this article that are missing cites. It could also serve as a template for improving the article, as long as the previous error of literally using text is not made again. --82.33.54.90 19:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• looking this over, the citations could be converted to the new system as well. the current footnotes look like they don't point to the sources they are supposed to point to anymore.--ZeWrestler ^Talk 12:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Using the new citation system would be good but I failed to fully understand it. Someone who is familiar with it could really help out by updating all of the links to the new system. If you mean the numbers don't match up, they do - I just checked. I also recently found cites with dead links and found new fresh links for them, so the situation isn't that bad. 82.33.54.90 17:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    • User:Esprit15d has converted refs for me in the past. The bot doesn't always work, but you can revert if it doesn't. You can try contacting him/her. Sandy 22:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Do people feel this should go to FARC? Looking at it, I see an underweight LEAD and some short sections (the example section doesn't seem right, for instance). The citations are certainly there. ZE what do you think? Marskell 15:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I see good references, which make me very happy, but lots of cleanup needed:

• Has anyone looked at the images? I don't understand that area well, but it strikes me there may be some problems.
• Please put the categories in alphabetical order.
• Short lead. It's been in review, for a while, can't it be fixed?
• Prose - getting through this sentence tired me out (and it has a typo): In an example PayPal phish (right), spelling mistakes in the email ("no choise but to temporaly suspend your account"), and the presence of an IP address in the link visible in the tooltip under the yellow box ("Click here to verify your account") are both clues that this is a phishing attempt.
• Per MOS, put refs after the punctuation: a new one containing the legitimate URL[14]. should be URL.[14]

It does seem to need more work. Sandy 16:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, struck my objection to the intentional spelling mistake. Sheesh. Sandy 16:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Major concerns raised in the minor review were: inadequate lead, prose and images and expansion of AOL section. Joelito (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This comment was made on moving the article from minor to major review categories, just before the two processes were merged. Tony 12:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science. Sandy 22:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Main featured article criteria concerns are prose (2a), lead (3a), citation format (2c), and images (4). Marskell 11:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There are a few people who have pointed out flaws, but don't seem to have carried out changes to correct those. Obviously, there aren't any owners of this page, and no one else has a responsibility to make changes that are pointed out.

Improvements that have already been made include:

• references for almost all uncited statements
• improved prose in some places
• better lead

Can you help keep the ball rolling? -82.33.54.90 13:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• RemoveUndecided. Precious little has been done since nomination. Anon. user 82.33: we'd love you to log in. Tony 04:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Not so hasty! A fair amount has been done, if you put June 22 instead of July 22 as the start date. My point stands - no one owns this page. A few people have come and criticised and not made changes; the article will simply not improve without people actively making changes. -82.33.54.90 08:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There has indeed been some good work. Near doubling of refs; indeed, the refs per K is quite exceptional here (which it probably should be for a technical article). I'm a neutral for now, as I was above. I'll try and look at it closely before the time is up. Marskell 19:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I think this article falls within the bounds of the criteria. Citations are there, covers its topic, writing is fine. It's short, but reading it the length feels right. I still think the example sections don't fit perfectly (perhaps just turn them to bold rather than the headlines and move them after "techniques") but this is not enough for a remove. Marskell 18:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - My apoligies for not being more active during this process. I am in the process of leaving my home state and moving into graduate school. Things have been hectic. I believe the article still meets the criteria as Marskell has stated, but still needs to be polished. if it wasn't for this move, i'd be more active in helping out. Hopefully, with a little help from various contributors here, we can polish off the crud that has been added, without needing to remove it from FA status. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 18:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note left with ZeWrestler about her/his requesting an extension for this "polishing". Tony

S/he has just replied (on my talk page, rather than here, unfortunately) that an extension would be good. Say a week? Tony 04:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, leave it open. But I'm actually not sure what "crud" there is that needs serious work. I'm not especially familiar with the topic, but the article doesn't seem to wander away on tangents or present info that's off topic. I'm comfortable with it. Marskell 19:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

First off, I am a male. Second, I managed to free up a little bit of time to work on it and I completly converted the citation format for the article. The article uses the <ref></ref> system. This in turn fixed the out of order reference problem the article had prior to the correction. I hope this helps. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 19:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the references. Simpler than I realised. I still don't know what "out of order references problem" you were talking about though! I'll look at naming the reference to the OED that appears twice when I get time. -82.33.54.90 09:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A couple of the references where out of numerical order in the article. So, for example, the third footnote was linked to the 4th reference in the list. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 13:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Right whale

Article is still a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

A number of editors have pointed out on the talk page an inconsistency in this article: the article intro states that there are four species of Right Whales, while the majority of the rest of the article refers to three species. A knowledgable editor should resolve this. Outriggr 01:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

And a spruce-up of the prose is in order:

The lead: ambiguous "finally" and redundant "geographically". "During the active years of the whaling industry"—why not give us a chronological idea if you're going to raise this?

Then: "After many years of shifting views on the number of right whale species, recent genetic evidence has led scientists in the field to conclude that there are in fact four distinct species." Two two parts of the sentence don't seem to be logically relate (population versus number of species).

"Today the species still stands alone in its own genus as it has done since the work of Gray in 1821." What, before Gray's work it didn't?

"Thus, it is likely that all four species will be placed in one genus in some future review." "Some"?

I'm wondering whether a major review would be more appropriate. Tony 02:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Tony. The prose needs some clean-up, yes, though that's true of almost every article here. However, this article is unclear about the very topic it purports to discuss. The article on Right Whale ought to, at bare minimum, make it clear exactly what a Right Whale is, and this article doesn't do that. If the issue really is unresolved by marine biologists, then we need to state the current state of events, the past misunderstandings if relevent, and other hypotheses as needed. I would vote to remove under a FARC unless this can be cleaned up. Matt Deres 16:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is the diff in the almost two weeks since it was placed for minor review [2]: time for major review. Sandy 22:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk message left at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals Sandy 20:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cetaceans. Sandy 22:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Marine life. Sandy 23:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Not a single edit since this article was moved to major review (when the processes were separate). Criterion 2a is at issue, including the nominator's query at the top. Tony 13:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I am not an expert, but I have tried to address these issues. It seems clear to m that "right whale" is used primarily to refer to the three species in the genus Eubalaena, which is what this article concentrates upon, but the term can also refer to the fourth species, which has its own "main article" at Bowhead Whale. However, the Bowhead Whales needs to be discussed briefly in this article for completeness. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Message left at User_talk:Outriggr. Sandy 02:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. (Thank you for the message, Sandy.) In addition to the prose concerns listed by others, the original concern remains, and is highlighted by sentences like these two, which are one paragraph apart:
  • "...recent genetic evidence has led scientists in the field to conclude that there are four distinct species of right whale, in two genera."
  • "...There is, however, little genetic evidence to support this two-genera view."

The article's approach to the four-species/three-species issue does not seem clear to me. Outriggr 04:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, my reading is that there is genetic evidence for 4 distinct species, but the number of genera is not so clear. To quote more extensively: "recent genetic evidence has led scientists in the field to conclude that there are four distinct species of right whale, in two genera" ... "The Bowhead Whale is clearly an individual species ... The remaining three species are classified together in a separate genus. There is, however, little genetic evidence to support this two-genera view" ... "it seems likely that all four species will be placed in one genus in a future review." ... "In dealing with the three populations of Eubalaena right whales, authorities have historically disagreed over whether to categorize the three populations in one, two or three species." [concluding that there is sufficient evidence for three]. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Four species-two genera, seems clear to me. Several editors, including myself have made copyedits. --Maintain 06:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not clear where the article decided that the Bowhead Whale is no longer among its subjects. We still have this, for example:
    • "Today, the three right whale species inhabit three distinct areas of the globe..."
    • "The four right whale species live in distinct locations..."
  • No one has actually explained how the sentences I mentioned above are not contradictory. Is there genetic evidence for two genera or not?:
    • "...recent genetic evidence has led scientists in the field to conclude that there are four distinct species of right whale, in two genera."
    • "...There is, however, little genetic evidence to support this two-genera view."
  • I have no desire to see this article de-frocked. If these are "just" mistakes in wording, then they can be changed easily enough, but I am not in a position to judge that. Outriggr 07:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is just wording that can be clarified. My understanding is that the genetic evidence relates to the separation into species, not into genera (that comma was quite important, but I have separated into two paragraphs for clarity). I think the article is talking about all four species, up to the point where is says that the Bowhead Whale is in a different genus, and refers to its own article for further details). -- ALoan (Talk) 10:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see more commentary by other Wikipedians. (There was earlier a significant contingent of concern regarding the FA-worthiness of this article.) Failing that, the decision can be left in the hands of a wise administrator, whom I expect to be conservative and not de-feature the article. That's OK with me. Outriggr 03:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I would love to see more commentary - better, input - from other Wikipedians. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Demote If there's this much debate, article should go back through FAC to ensure a high FA standard. --jwanders^Talk 13:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sarajevo

Article is still a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Comprehensive indeed, but overpacked with images, often badly referenced and using strange markup. Could use inline citations, footnotes, etc., and needs some cleaning up ({{main}} instead of poor plain-text imitations). Many minor issues make a major one, so I think this article needs some considerable work to be up to date with the FA criteria and expectations. Todor→Bozhinov 18:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

A lot of those images appear to be copyright violations, by the way. Pagrashtak 19:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep, seems like User:Bosna 101's image contributions to the page are all blatant copyvios. He mentions Flickr and other websites as the source and claims they're {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} when the source says clearly they're copyrighted and there's no mention of Creative Commons whatsoever. They sould all be listed for deletion... another (this time quite serious) problem with the article. Todor→Bozhinov 19:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I am beggining some image cleaup but I have been reverted once by the same user. I hope the cleanup will not be further reverted. Joelito (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep. The article is fantastic, but has continual problems with edits inadvertently making it worse. If the present version is deemed to be poor, then at the very least revert to Asim Led's last - brilliant - version - which was filled with images he took himself, rather than removing its much-deserved FA status. Rebecca 01:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Major reviews are not votes. Here we try to address which FA criteria an article does not meet and try to correct them. If that is not possible then the article is moved to vote on Featured articles removal. Joelito (talk) 02:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Rebecca, be bold! :) - FrancisTyers · 08:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ditto, Rebecca. If there's a good, older version, that may provide the best starting place for improving the article. Sandy 13:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Copy-edit required to satisfy 2a. Here are examples.
  • "According to a 1991 census, its population was 529,672; currently estimated at around 600,000." After a semicolon, the clause must function as a stand-alone sentence.
  • "Sarajevo is located close to the geometric center of the triangularly-shaped Bosnia and Herzegovina"—Spot the redundant word. And "triangularly" must be one of the ugliest words in English.
  • "Sarajevo experiences warm summers, with temperatures of 35 °C (95°F) not being uncommon,.."—"With" is a poor back-connector; the last three words are clumsy.
  • "snow is guaranteed due to the city's high altitude"—500 m is high? Minus one degree needs a minus dash or an en dash, not a hyphen.
  • "The warmest month of the year is July, when the average temperature is about 19 °C (66 °F), although August's average temperature is only a degree lower." What's "although" doing here?

This is on the express train to FARC, but please note that "keep" and "remove" declarations are appropriate only for FARCs, not here. Tony 03:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concerns are prose (2a), lack of citations (2c), images and reference formatting.

Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities. Sandy 23:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography. Sandy 23:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Remove, since nothing has been done to address the problems in the prose since review listing. Here are the differences: [[3]]. Tony 13:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Excellent article. If the current version is not sufficient, then at least revert back to Asim Led's last version and judge that before removing this deserving article from FA status. Rebecca 13:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Rebecca, if you revert, is the older FA version referenced? Can you provide a link to the older FA version? My vote depends on references and citations, so I need to know if the potential revert would result in a better referenced article. And, would the reverted version have problems with the images? Sandy 21:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. A comprehensive article, but lacks citations and needs better referencing. Also, many of the images seem suspicious. Todor→Bozhinov 22:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - no inline citations and still contains images with copyright problems. Pagrashtak 01:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we leave this one on review for a little longer? Asim Led's original article ([4]) is still of excellent standard, lacking only really references and a few minor changes made in the intervening two years. I really don't think there's any need to delist when it could be back at a perfect standard with a little bit of work. Rebecca 05:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Still, it's not referenced, needs some cleanup, and most of the problems with the prose that Tony mentioned seem to be present in that older version too. Although I agree it's probably better, not FA quality according to the present standards. Todor→Bozhinov 18:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree in leaving this a little longer, the article is getting improved Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Me too, someone's working hard to save it, so let's give him a chance. Inappropriately-licensed images are being deleted, inline citations are being added, so I'd like to wait and see how it shapes up in the end. Todor→Bozhinov 09:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I've been working to add inline citations and making the prose sound more professional. If anyone would like to volunteer some time I would really appreciate a copyedit to make the prose acceptable. Also, could someone please provide a link to where I can see how to format references for websites and books? --Maintain 06:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Status Per Maintain's obvious commitment here and above comments, we should leave this open. Refs have jumped from zero to sixteen. I'll try and do a copy-edit myself (of course, I'm always making promises of that sort...). Marskell 13:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep now that the article is better Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• I have not finished my copy-edit, but I am a tentative keep as this is going to get there, I think. A few things, if Maintain doesn't mind:
  • I have placed a fact request in the intro. I think a ref from demography can be moved up to take care of it.
  • There are two squared area stats given (142 twice, and then 200). Perhaps one is for the city proper and the other for the metro.
  • There is a hidden note asking for a bit of expansion in the history section. Marskell 19:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It should be 142 km². The 200 km² was already there and I don't know what it refers to. The metro is more like 350 km². I added a bit about the wars (but most of the Balkan fighting occurred in Serbia near Belgrade). I also corrected another inline comment about the date of the founding of the city. A settlement was there for centuries but became a city in 1461. --Maintain 23:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• It's still easy to find things like:
  • "Sarajevo at winter" (first caption)
  • "It is comprised of"
  • "Sarajevo experiences mild summers"—why not just "has"?
  • "The rainiest month is October when the city receives 103 mm (4.0 in) of rainfall"—"wettest" is idiomatic. Mostly redundant; try "The wettest month is October (103 mm or 4.0 in),...".
  • "The area of present day Sarajevo has a long and rich history dating to the Neolithic period"—Awkward. Try "Sarajevo has a long and rich history dating back to the Neolithic period."

These are things I've picked out at random from the top few paragraphs. If Rebecca is keen to keep, can she pitch in and help us? Tony 01:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Work seems to have stalled: there are still sections lacking citations, sections that are stubby, random typos, and sections which seem uncomprehensive. I'll change to support if work is completed over the next few days. Have a look at the Sports and Education sections, for examples. I hope someone who knows Sarajevo will pitch in and finish polishing this article. Sandy 13:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Update I see Maintain is at work on it again today, so I'll hold off on my remove. Sandy 19:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yah, I'm still moving it along. I added a table to make the Sports section look less stubby, what do you think? --Maintain 23:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping Maintain would return here to comment as he seems best able to track down info. The only real absence on the page that I see is two or three sentences on the World Wars. The history doesn't seem complete without this. The rest is minor to my mind and the ce'ing has not stalled. Marskell 16:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who is helping with the copyedits. --Maintain 23:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I've done a little copy-editing. Culture has a mass of red links. It's not possible to fill in a sentence for each of them, to turn them blue, is it? Tony 14:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asperger syndrome

Article is still a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

This article requires major review. Since it was originally given featured article status, this article has changed significantly. In particular, the sourcing for much of the article is now vague, with many column-inches given over to handwaving and speculation. For example, there is an entire major subsection of the article, "A gift and a curse" wherein nearly every sentence begins with qualifiers like "Some speculate...", "Some claim...", "many critics...claim...", "Many people think..." without a single citation in sight. This section of the article is also rife with what appears to be original research (eg: "Such speculation may simply be an attempt to create role models for autistics to demonstrate that they can be exemplary contributors to society.") More or less the entire latter half of the article currently reads like a personal essay. Nandesuka 13:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's been in bad shape for quite a while: so bad, I was afraid to tackle it alone. If there isn't significant editing to clean it up, I'll support FARC quickly. I agree the article is a speculative, poorly-sourced essay, in bad need of cleanup. Sandy 15:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support sending to FARC as I was part of the group of editors (me, User:PurplePlatypus and User:ManekiNeko basically, of whom I'd reccommend ringing for those who need help in keeping it a FA) who helped save it from its last FARC at Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Asperger's syndrome. Since then it has been the victim of a lot of soapboxing and dubious edits - there is likely some original research, etc.. Mainly the problems are lack of sources/cites - also someone might want to check and see if any useful info got nixed from the (second) featured version (circa [5]). RN 20:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• FARC it. I can't add much more to the above, but it doesn't read well and does lack citation and solid evidence. S.Skinner 08:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC) I am currently awaiting the outcome of the review. Opinion: Withdrawn S.Skinner 09:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Please allow sufficient time for the major review. RN and myself have gotten other editors involved now in improving and referencing the article; a good chunk of the speculation has been identifed, some removed, and much has been referenced; and other editors are now working with us to improve the article. There appears to be resistance from one editor only, but consensus has developed around the need to improve the article to a medical standard. Work is in progress and, with a few more days, we may be in shape to ask for some help with a major copyedit, to smooth out the prose. I'll be the first to vote to FARC if work stalls or resistance to improving the article prevails. Work remaining to be done is outlined on the article talk page. Help is welcome. Sandy 14:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The article has come a long ways. There are still problems (some vague unreferenced portions, in need of wikilinks, and others), but massive speculative sections have been removed or sourced, and the article is better organized and referenced. Some help with a major copy edit would be helpful at this point, and would go a long ways towards encouraging the involved editors to continue making the needed improvements. Comments on work still needed would also be helpful. Sandy 02:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've had a go at copy-editing the top half. It was a lot of work. Can someone help by going through the rest and changing all references to the syndrome to "AS". I think this is better than the inconsistent terminology that is currently used, including Asperger syndrome and Asperger's syndrome. Tony 16:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll do that. Thanks, Tony ! Sandy 17:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like RN beat me to it, changing all references to Asperger syndrome.AS. Sandy 17:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's OK now, but I'd be happy for further tweaking to be done over the next few months. BTW, I'm a little concerned that one text appears to have been the source for too much of the text (I may be wrong, but I just get that feeling). Tony 00:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The article has come very far, with the combined efforts of many people. I am also concerned about the sourcing, though, and prefer to see mostly PMID sources for medical articles, rather than a couple of books. Although the sourcing could be better, at least the article is now based on reliable sources, without speculation, and more comprehensive. It will need to be watched closely to make sure original research doesn't creep back in again. I've got in on my watchlist, and I think the editors there now understand the standards for referencing any new content. Sandy 00:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The current state of this article is horrible. It should imidiately be sent to FARC. The article currently is reading like a promotional effort for NIH, and basically every opinion that goes contrary to NIH-disorder view has been remooved in the name of "peer-review". It is horrible that the insight of people in the autistic community have been effectively silenced. Not only that, controversial information put in separate articles have also been "dragged back" into the article, but only the views that fits NIH. Every effort to remove this stuff has failed. --Rdos 20:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

RDos, original research has no place on Wikipedia. You have been encouraged several times to present your views by referencing them to primary and peer-reviewed sources. Your own surveys are not a primary source. Please refrain from blanking entire sections which are based on peer-reviewed sources. Sandy 21:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, ownership also has no place at Wikipedia, and POV is one of the cornerstones. Both these seems to apply to this article. --Rdos 14:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

So what's the status then? Still at work? Marskell 16:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to say. The large majority of editors working on the article are collaborating on introducing, upgrading and refining text with appropriate references and a consensual process, and their effort was a good one. It is difficult to know what will happen once the article moves out from under the examination of FAR. It would be sad for their work to be in vain because of insertions of original research, but they are going to have to police it, I guess. My inkling is that, at this point, it is what it is and has been for a long time, and perhaps it should be submitted for a broader vote under FARC. But I defer to RN, who has been involved longer with the article, and who has seen it go through FARC before, only to end up back here with the same problems. I will ping RN. Sandy 17:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Like Sandy, I think it is hard to say as well. If it stays, it is very likely to end up again on FARC in several months from now - if it does go to the "round table" of FARC the stability issue needs to be considered. The article itself has vastly improved in referencing though, and seems to meet at least some of the FA points at the moment. RN 00:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, as it has improved on one account, it has degraded on another. I don't see this as any general improvement. AFAIK, NPOV is not less important than citing reliable sources. --Rdos 07:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I will leave this up two more days to give it three weeks in the review period before going to FARC. It has had in the range of 700 edits since the nom; at least it's getting attention. No, POV is not less important than citations, but a lack of citations is the most difficult fault to correct in an FA. Given that that isn't an issue here, I see no reason this can't be retained if you can work out the other issues. Marskell 12:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concerns are supporting assertions with appropriate citations (2c) and POV (2d). Marskell 15:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Additional concerns emerging during the Major review: 2b) Comprehensive, 2c) Suitability of references, 2e) Stability, and 3a) Lead. Sandy 17:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk messages left at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Week. Sandy 17:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Article history:

• First promoted FA on April 10, 2004: [6]
• Kept FA in September 2005 FARC: [7]
• Prior to June 26, 2006 Major Review: [8]
• After major copyedit by User:Tony1 July 9: [9]
• Compare between Tony copyedit and current: [10] :Struck compare, outdated, significant changes/improvements since article moved to FARC. Sandy 23:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandy 18:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Additional concerns:

• 1) Our best work:
  • Please see Cystic fibrosis, the most recently promoted FA for a genetic condition. (Almost every source used is a PMID, medical journal article.)
• 2a) Prose:
  • In good shape since Tony's copyedit, with some minor deterioration since his copy edit (easily corrected). For example, a change after Tony's copyedit resulted in: The cause of AS is unknown, but since it was properly defined several possible causes of AS have been investigated by researchers. Another example is: "AS is defined in section 299.80 of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) by six main criteria. These criteria define AS as a condition in which there is: ... " There are other examples, which could be fixed.
    • Strike comment above, as text has changed significantly from copyedit. Sandy 18:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• 2b) Comprehensive "covers the topic in its entirety, and does not neglect any major facts or details": this is a larger problem to overcome, but not insurmountable. This information is readily available, but is deleted when added. [11] Omissions occur in three main areas:
  • Audience: Because AS is a relatively new DSM condition, it is increasingly diagnosed in pediatric populations. It is defined by significant impairment in several realms of functioning. Yet, many editors working on the article have the POV of successful adults with AS, leaving out easily available and much needed information about children with AS who may be coping with difficulties or distress in academic, behavioral or social realms. Specific examples are the lack of information about treatment options, management therapies, diagnostic information, screening tools, school accommodations, and differential diagnosis (for example, what other conditions, such as Stereotypic movement disorder and other Autism spectrum disorders, can be confused with AS, and information helpful in distinguishing between them).
  • Causes: the article completely glosses over Causes, in spite of a growing body of information easily available. It doesn't mention twin studies and other genetic studies which demonstrate a genetic factor, it doesn't discuss the interplay between genetic and environmental factors, and it gives equal weight to all causes, even though a genetic underpinning enjoys wider medical consensus. It would not take more than a couple of paragraphs to summarize what is known and not known about causes. [12] The current version has two sentences.
  • Treatment/Diagnosis/Screening: there are numerous screening tools available, which are not mentioned. [13] Information about a differential diagnosis -- what other conditions to consider -- is not well covered. Treatment is almost entirely glossed over, although there are numerous options that should be discussed. Again, this is a result of an article focus on adult advocacy (acceptance of AS), neglecting significant issues confronting pediatric populations. The diagnosis section (in fact, much of the article) ignores the main diagnostic criteria in use in the USA (DSM), and goes into more detail on other sets of diagnostic criteria (Gillberg, Szatmari, etc.). By overlooking the DSM - the main diagnostic tool used in the USA - undue weight is given to other sets of criteria. It would not be difficult to give equal weight to all.
• 2c) Factually accurate (references): the article is now thoroughly referenced from primary sources, but there are some problems with the sources used. Several of the sources are not independent, medically reliable, or peer-reviewed sources, even though references could be easily found in PubMed (NIH database of journal-published medical literature, identified by a PMID number).
  • A large part of the article is referenced to Attwood's book. While Tony Attwood is held in very high regard by families with AS, he is not widely published in medical journals (relative to his peers), and it is not clear if his book enjoys peer review. Attwood also has his own set of diagnostic criteria, so undue balance is given to that view, overlooking the DSM.
  • Myles has a PhD in special education and learning disabilities. Her CV indicates she is not a physician, and her books are self-published: Autism Asperger Publishing Co was founded by her husband. [14]
  • Kirby (of Romanowski and Kirby) is held in very high regard by families with AS, and is popular because of the OASIS website [15]. Nonetheless, according to book jacket information, Romanowski is an educator, and Kirby is the mother of a child with AS. It is not clear that their book enjoys medical peer review, although its foreward is written by recognized AS experts. [16]
  • There are other examples. On the other hand, the references show a paucity of information from the leading AS experts in the USA, from such places as Yale Child Study Center, Kennedy Krieger, and several of the California UCs, and well-regarded medical texts are never mentioned as resources (example [17] )
• 2d) Neutral:
  • Discussed above. Some editors feel the article is too medically-oriented: I conclude it 1) has an adult with AS POV, overlooking parents of children with AS, and 2) ignores basic medical facts. Presenting accurate medical facts is not incompatible with presenting the view that AS need not be considered a "disorder": it is possible to cover both medical facts and advocacy for acceptance in one article. In spite of repeated requests, alternate text has not been added, even though it should not be hard to find and reference.
• 2e) Stable:
  • The article has been submitted to FARC before, but similar problems have re-surfaced.
  • One editor has appealed outside of the Wiki community to have content removed. [18] (Although this message board professes 5000+ members, only 4 endorsed Rdos concerns, but the potential for disruption and future reverts exists.) Other original research (Wiki spam blocked, see rdos.net) has been deleted from Wiki [19] [20], but original research is an ongoing problem with the AS and other autism articles.
• 3a) Lead:
  • Following Tony's copyedit, it was 3 paragraphs. It is now 2, and does not summarize the article or basic information about AS. Struck. Sandy 02:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• 4) Images:
  • None of the images have clear Fair Use tags.
• 5) Summary Style:
  • Several sections (for example, Causes) rely on daughter articles which are in dismal shape, with tags, and not referenced.

Forgot to add, 1) our best work: not well wiki-linked. For example, one encounters Attwood's name many times before finding his Wiki entry. Sandy 20:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Mostly wiki-linked. Sandy 02:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutral. Many editors have brought this article very far in two weeks. In spite of this lengthy list, I believe the necessary work to retain FA status can be completed within the review period, if the editors commit to the work, avoiding original research and using referenced information. I also believe all POVs can be incorporated. I will re-evaluate my vote at the end of the FARC period. Sandy 20:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Remaining neutral. Sandy 17:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Update: Referencing is greatly improved, and NPOV and stability concerns seem to have subsided. But, 2a) prose needs attention, 2b) comprehensive isn't quite there yet, and the lead needs to be massaged into a compelling summary of the article. Work is ongoing, and editors are aware of and working on these areas. Some prose examples:
  • Aspergers in children and adults assistance can consists of contraversial therapies that address the core symptoms of the disorder:
  • Some research is to seek information about symptoms to aid in the diagnostic process. Other research is to identify a cause, although much of this research is still done on isolated symptoms. A lot of research have exposed base differences in things such as brain structure. To what end is currently unknown; however, research is on-going.
  • The direct cause(s) of AS is unknown. Even though no consensus exists for the cause(s) of AS, it is widely accepted that AS has a hereditary factor.[42] It is suspected that multiple genes play a part in causing AS, since the number and severity of symptoms vary widely among individuals.[5] Studies regarding the mirror neurons in the inferior parietal cortex have revealed differences which may underlie certain cognitive anomolies such as some of those which AS exhibits.[43][44] ther possible causes being investigated include: a serotonin dysfunction and cerebellar dysfunction.[45][46] Simon Baron-Cohen proposes a model for autism based on his empathising-systemising (E-S) theory [47][48]
  • A few studies are more useful for determining efficiency of treatment with control group and pre-test and post-test designs and statistic evaluation of efficiency of treatment. These interventions typically are packaged to treat the entire syndrome (UCLA and TEACCH for instance). [55] Side effects are unintended effects. This topic has largely been ignored in the intervention literature on children. [55] Behaviorally based programs rarely include measures of the core symptoms of autism such as the ADI-R or CARS. [55] Sandy 18:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep Despite the negetive critisms from Sandy. I feel like the article has done very well in the past 2 weeks, it has less original research and more referenced sources. It is has more then 700 edits which means that people really do care about the article. It is in many parts well written with the minor exceptions of the Causes section and the beginning. I will not re-evaluate my vote at the end of the FARC period.Natche24 23:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep Remove unless NPOV is restored. In the last month or so Sandy, RN and several other pro-medical, pro-disorder advocates have completely distroyed the once neutral article. In its current state it reads as a promotional essay for NIH, and should be unlisted from featured status and the entire article should be tagged as biased and POV. Sandy claims we can reinsert the opposing views, but history shows this not to be the case. Attempts to replace biased terms and neutralize unproved claims have systematically been reverted. The best option is probably to revert the entire article to the last FA status review, and then insert the new citations. Sandy above compares AS with Cystic Fibrosis (CF). This is really symptomatic of the problem here. While CF is a disease with known genetic factors, AS is not a disease, neither is the genetic background known. There is a large online autistic community today, and they oppose calling autism an disease, they oppose the disorder-view of NIH and they usually think that many of the problems are due to intolerance. Sandy claims we need to use NIH as a reference for any claim made in the article, but since NIH is clearly a part in this ongoing debate about autism, this is what causes the bias and POV. --Rdos 08:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a note: that is not my claim. Please check the talk page. Thanks, Sandy 13:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The article is improving, but there still exists two sections that are both highly controversial and where NPOV seems very hard to introduce (research into causes and treatments). The rearrangement of the article into a clinical and non-clinical part seems appropriate, but the claims that there is no need to provide NPOV in causes because it is in the clinical part are worrying. I think eventually it would be possible to write a better (and neutral) summary of causes, especially since several neutral reviews have been posted to the talk page. --Rdos 11:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Keep Very concerned that this article has become, effectively, the province of a single editor and their attitudes/opinions, frequently stated as established fact or policy, editing by bulldozer rather than concensus. As long as the article is subject to this degree of personal autocracy and bias I really do not see how it is worthy of representing the best efforts of the community of Wikipedia which, in my opinion, are always achieved by a genuine concensus of equals.

• Comment What a difference a day makes...staggering improvement in the spirit and execution of consensus, kudos to all who managed to "bury the hatchet" in places other than one another's skulls. --Zeraeph 00:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Sadly, that didn't include everybody, one person just had to keep stirring the pot as soon as I posted the above, see:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nandesuka&curid=3199574&diff=64570655&oldid=64351761 - still there is no reason to take that out on the sterling efforts made by other editors today, with 22 carat results, but I am very sad to see it --Zeraeph 00:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I also think it would be faintly ridiculous to have a featured article so heavily loaded with invisible "directives" from a single editor.

• Comment They are thinning, but they REALLY need to go --Zeraeph 00:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the solution suggested by Rdos above of reverting the article to it's last reviewed state and adding in new citations, and would be prepared to commit some time to so doing.--Zeraeph 09:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I think we may have found a better solution - fingers crossed, reserving my final opinion a while

• Comment I am was going to stay neutral, I had to really sit down and think about it, so let me explain why. The problem of one editor's control has now ceased in the context of this article, this is not the place to speculate why it has ceased, it is sufficient that it has ceased, and is very unlikely to resume before the review is completed, that's the end of that problem.

However, I may not care about FA status, but I do care about fairness and justice, seeing that this same editor, after constantly assuring other editors that they must do things her way to retain featured article status, and having seen the huge body of work these editors put in towards that end, only to note that same editor is too mean-spirited to give the a "keep" vote, I'm giving mine...because peeps, you EARNED IT. ;o)

Apart from that there have been some remarkable elements of melding and bonding into a serious effective team from other editors, at times so diverse in their view and approaches you wouldn't think it was possible for them to form a team, but they did. IMHO they deserve a Nobel Prize each for the team work they achieved against the odds. Unfortunately that isn't the primary point of a Wikipedia article.

The resulting article is excellent and I have a feeling the editing team will be hanging around a long time to come, tweaking and improving. But the fact is, I genuinely do not care about featured article status, I am not sure I fully agree with the criteria for it either. If it had not been for the problems associated with this article I doubt if I would ever have been aware of whather it had featured status or not, let alone read this page or posted on it, so, it seems, the RIGHT thing for me to do is revert to my personal default and not cast a vote one way or ther other --Zeraeph 00:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Also feel it is essential that everybody involved in editing this article familiarise themselves with what Wikipedia:Reliable sources actually SAYS about identifying reliable sources, which advice seems to have been misunderstood throughout the recent editing, to the extent of excluding invaluable sources, diverse POV and information, and even disputing the appropriate inclusion of acknowledged experts in favor of the exclusive use of PMID, medical journal articles. --Zeraeph 11:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutral. The article as it stands is quite good from a medical standpoint and with some minor tweaks, could very easily continue to be a Featured Article. However, the POV it pushes is not terribly balanced from a non-medical standpoint (that of the patients and general "community"). Inclusion of said counter-point may not be able to pass the rigorous sourcing requirements for any given FA, as peer-reviewed citations to that effect are slim (or non-existant)--the overwhelming majority of scientific focus is upon a message/ideal counter to the desire of said "community". Nevertheless, it would be an important incorporation, but I honestly have no idea how to balance it properly and maintain FA status' higher/est standards regarding medical articles' source requirements. --Keyne 12:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• It can be done, Keyne: this job is doable. Let's discuss on talk page, where several good examples have already been proposed. Sandy 13:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think you have just opened the real "Pandora's Box" here; the dilemma being, which should take priority, FA status or the integrity of the article? I would then go further and say that if FA status takes priority over the integrity of that article it doesn't warrant FA status anyway and shouldn't have it. I do, however, believe it is possible to cite sources for all POV in accord with Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which, in turn, should be enough for FA status.--Zeraeph 13:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Yes, I agree. What is the use of an article that passes FA on the bases of an medical article but fails to give readers a balanced with of AS? --Rdos 14:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Revised opinion: Keep, pending continued rework prior to close of the FARC. The article is in much better (POV) condition now, and with a some work, it should be quite acceptable. --Keyne 22:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It meets every featured article criteria...NCurse _work 17:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. (I should declare that I've copy-edited the article and work with Sandy in this and the FAC rooms.) Although the article might benefit from further work and updating over the next few months, I feel that it's now well within the standards of FAs. Tony 11:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• I will stay neutral on this one. The effort to return this article to FA status was remarkable: the prose has been largely cleaned up, the references are significantly improved, the lead is fixed, and POV concerns seem to have subsided. Involved editors have been vigilant about original research and the link farm. I am still concerned about the lack of comprehensiveness in Causes, Treatment, Diagnosis, and information relevant to a parent of a child with AS, but my concern is not enough to lead me to vote for removal. I hope editors will continue to guard against original research, and maintain the quality of the references, so we not see this article back on FAR again. Sandy 17:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medal of Honor

Article is still a featured article

This article is quite well written, but the prose can be improved. In particular, a cursory reading of the first few paragraphs revealed the following problems with respect to Criterion 2a.

*"All branches of the U.S. military are eligible to receive the medal, though each branch has a special design." "Though" in wrong here, since it doesn't contradict the preceding clause.

*"The Congressional Space Medal of Honor is a separate award and not equivalent." Insert "is" before "not"; "equivalent" to what needs to be explicated for ease of reading.

*"Scott did not approve the medal; however, such a medal found support in the Navy." Either "approve of the medal" or "approve the proposal" is required here, whichever conveys the intended meaning.

*"In the rare cases (19 so far) where a service member has been awarded more than one Medal of Honor, regulations specify that an appropriate award device will be centered on the MOH ribbon and neck medal." The parenthetical phrase would be less intrusive if place after "Honor" (i.e., before the comma). Remove "will".

*Stubby, one-sentence paragraphs, including one in the lead and quite a few further down.

I note that Medal of Honor is displayed as the example of FA-class articles at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, next to the statement that these articles require "no further editing ... unless new published information has come to light."

The problems listed above suggest that the article needs a close copy-edit if it's to continue to be held up as a shining example of the pinnacle of Wikipedia's achievements. Tony 16:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to fix some of the specific problems you listed, but I'll still have the following content issues with the article:

• Not enough references. Unverified sections include Origin, Appearance, Versions of the medal, Flag, Evolution of criteria, and Similar decorations.
• Accounts of the meaning of the medal contradict each other. The quotation in the first paragraph leaves no clue as to its source, and the quotation in "Authority and privileges" is similar but different. The latter seems to quote the 1862 law, but it is inconsistent with the quotation at the end of "Origin".
• The introduction contradicts itself on the awarding body; does the President act on behalf of Congress or the people? What precisely does being commander-in-chief have to do with it?
• The image layout in "Appearance" obscures the connection between image and text.
• Data tables in "Recipients" should be moved to the subarticle and/or replaced with prose.

Melchoir 16:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Sandy 23:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It's been a week with no progress, so I'll move this to a major review. Melchoir 19:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note that this comment was made just before the minor/major review processes were merged. Tony 12:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Work is being done, though it is slow. Please give it time. — ERcheck (talk) 01:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• I just fixed the refs. There may be a few stragglers.Rlevse 02:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• I've added several refs and others have been working on this too. Rlevse 00:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Could someone please list remaining concerns as of this time. Thanks. Rlevse 02:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure! The following elements need either citations or revision to meet 2(a), 2(c), and 3(a). Feel free to interleave your own indented notes, but please wait for me to strike out items on my own. (fm Rlevse, those would be well-written, accurate, and lead section)

• All of the quotations:
  • "for conspicuous gallantry ... enemy force" (1p intro, infobox)
    • This quotation still needs help. It's currectly cited to [21], which doesn't have the same wording. Perhaps some brackets and ellipses are in order...? Melchoir 22:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • made quote exact Rlevse 23:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "any singularly meritorious action" (1p Origin) Not found at website cited at the end of the paragraph.
  • "to be bestowed ... the present war" (3p Origin)
  • "to such noncommissioned ... present insurrection (3p Origin)
  • "The President may award ... call of duty." (1p Authority and privileges) This needs a citation including a date, since the U.S. Code may be amended. Or if this is the 1862 language, it needs to be identified as such; it isn't clear, especially upon comparing with the rest of the article.
    • found and added refs for all these, plus found one you missed-;) Rlevse
• Specific facts:
  • "awarded by the President on behalf of the Congress ... presented by the President of the United States, who acts as commander-in-chief on behalf of the American people." (1p-2p intro) This doesn't add up, and it's glaring. Does the President really change hats between "awarding" and "presenting"? Is he specifically acting "as commander-in-chief", and does that theoretically mean something?
    • It's better now but still not perfect. For example, do we really mean to say that the President signs the medal? And I still wonder if "as commander-in-chief" has some content or if it's fluff. Melchoir 23:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • The President IS the commander-in-chief of the US military, yes, that means he is in charge of them. Neither the Sec. of Defense, nor the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is the top dog. I reworded it too.Rlevse 23:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't question that the President is the commander-in-chief, but for all I know some constitutional expert at the White House has written an authoritative report stating that while the President exercises his commander-in-chief powers by approving a medal, during an awarding ceremony he is actually functioning as head of state. In fact, are you sure that isn't the case? Melchoir 00:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
          • I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill on this one.Rlevse 02:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Well, it is the fifth sentence of a Featured Article. I'll just remove the detail. It's not discussed in the body anyway. Melchoir 02:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "The Medal of Honor is one of only two U.S. military decorations that are presented as neck orders." (3p intro)
    • Wording is better but I'd still like some verification. How do we know that MoH and LoM are really the only two neck orders? Perhaps they're simply the only two that Wikipedia knows about? Melchoir 23:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • reworded so we don't have this problem.Rlevse 23:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "This decoration is considered America's first combat award (and the second oldest, after the Fidelity Medallion)" (1p Origin) In what organization's consideration is there a distinction between first and oldest?
  • "Scott did not approve the proposal, but such a medal found support in the Navy." (3p Origin) Who in the Navy supported the medal?
    • It's a bit of a stretch to point to Secretary Gideon Welles; [22] only has him requesting the Philadelphia Mint to work on the design.
      • If he didn't approve it, he wouldn't have asked the mint to work on it and as the Sec Nav, he'd have to approve any new medal. You're splitting hairs here.Rlevse 23:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
        • The paragraph states that Lincoln signed a "Public Resolution"; I don't know what that means, but it doesn't sound like it comes from the Secretary of the Navy. The current wording, in its context, suggests that Welles was given the same opportunity as Scott to reject the medal. Was he really, if Lincoln was ordering him around? Melchoir 00:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Things get approved at every step of chain.Rlevse 02:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
            • You don't mean it was some enlisted sailor's idea? Now, I don't know who proposed what to whom, and I don't know how Lincoln's cabinet operated. How's this instead? Melchoir 02:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "The Air Force Medal of Honor is unchanged in appearance since its inception in 1965." (2p Appearance)
    • Uh, where in [23] does it say this?
      • It simply hasn't and it's implied by that you can not find any mention of change anywhere. In the US military, this is well known. If it's a problem, remove it if you like. Rlevse 23:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Okay, I removed it.[24] Melchoir 00:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "It is considered a conjectural decoration by the Institute of Heraldry." (3p Appearance)
    • Sorry, but [25] is an old Wikipedia mirror![26] Melchoir 23:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • OK, removed it. Rlevse 23:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "On special occasions, the medal can be worn on civilian attire." (5p Appearance) Is this unusual for a medal? Who decided it?
    • (A) It's not only unusual, it's the only exception (lapel pins are provided for civilian attire for lesser decorations) (B) Nobody "decided it". It's part of previously cited Army regs. footnote added.--Buckboard 07:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
      • That would be an excellent addition to the article, but are you sure it's true? Army §578.4 only says the rosette is for wear on civilian clothing. The claim "Medal of Honor recipients also wear the Medal itself around the neck of civilian attire for special occasions" is, as far as I know, an invention of the website [27] that was blindly copied by [28]. Melchoir 07:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I erred and footnoted the wrong regulation. AR 670-1 is the governing regulation. I added the proper footnote (it's in pdf) with the exact page number and also discovered something else--the Army allows retired soldiers to wear any of their medals with "appropriate" civilian clothing! 578.4 and AR 670-1 forbid only active duty personnel from wearing their medals except on the uniform--otherwise they must wear the rosette or pin. I changed the text to read "former military members".--Buckboard 08:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Ah, that clears things up! I'll merge the information into the relevant item under "Privileges". Melchoir 17:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "Many stayed four days extra, and then were discharged." (2p Evolution of criteria)
  • For that matter, every example in "Evolution of criteria" needs a citation.
  • "Since the beginning of World War II, the medal has been awarded for extreme bravery beyond the call of duty, where a service member consistently and persistently put his comrades' safety foremost, to the utter disregard of his own life, while engaged in action against an enemy." (6p Evolution of criteria) Is this a quotation? Where is it from?
    • I don't see it in [29]. Melchoir 23:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • changed ref. Rlevse 23:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
        • It isn't in [30] either. (I've since moved that ref to the following sentence.) Melchoir 00:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I've simply removed the wording that can't be found elsewhere, so I don't have a problem with it now. Melchoir 08:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "Due to these criteria, the medal is often, although not always, awarded posthumously." (6p Evolution of criteria) How often is "often"?
    • Now it seems to imply that McGonagle is the only recipient to survive the medal.
      • reworded.Rlevse 23:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I looked at older versions of the article, and this seems to be the intent of the passage. I think it's fine now. Melchoir 00:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "Various times after the Vietnam War, past heroism was recognized and previous awards have been upgraded to the Medal of Honor." (7p Evolution of criteria) How many times is "various"?
  • "A 1992 study commissioned by the Army described systematic racial discrimination in the criteria for awarding medals during World War II." (1p Controversies) Does this study have a name?
    • The reference [31] is extremely troubling. See below in a few minutes... Melchoir 23:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • REMOVED ALL REFS USING THAT SITE, used official army cite that discusses the racial issues.Rlevse 02:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Same for "A similar study of Asian Americans in 1998".
  • "The American Indian Movement has asked that the 20 medals awarded at the Wounded Knee massacre be rescinded." (2p Controversies)
  • The section "Authority and privileges" still has no citations. (added, see USC template links too, RLEVSE)
  • "The Medal of Honor is the only service decoration that cannot be privately bought, traded, or sold." (1p Legal protection)
  • "When the patent expired, the Federal government enacted a law making it illegal to produce, wear, or distribute the Medal of Honor without proper authority." (2p Legal protection) What law?
    • I guess this can now be inferred from context, but it ought to be explicit.
  • "In 2003 Edward and Gisela Fedora were charged with violating 18USC704(b) - Unlawful Sale of a Medal of Honor. They sold medals..." (3p Legal protection) Does that mean they were convicted...?
  • "However, legislation has been proposed to sanction those who falsely represent themselves as Medal of Honor recipients." (1p Impostors) Proposed when, and by whom?
  • The statistics in the first paragraph of "Recipients".
  • The second paragraph of "Recipients".
  • "While current regulations explicitly state that recipients must be serving in the U.S. Armed Forces at the time of performing a valorous act that warrants the award of the Medal of Honor, exceptions have been made." (3p Recipients) Were these medals awarded before current regulations? If so, how are they exceptions?
  • "The Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor is also typically considered the police equivalent to the Medal of Honor." (Similar decorations) Considered by whom?
    • Reference added. — ERcheck (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • A connection to the MoH is not asserted at [32]. Melchoir 23:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • This one was reworded too.Rlevse 02:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Ah, so it was. The President bit isn't found until the subpage [33], but it's close enough for me. Melchoir 02:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "The highest civilian honor of all is the Presidential Medal of Freedom, considered to be a direct civilian equivalent of the Medal of Honor." (Similar decorations) Considered by whom?
    • Reference added. — ERcheck (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • A connection to the MoH is not asserted at [34] or at [35]. Melchoir 23:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • reworded to show all awarded by President. Rlevse 00:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "The following obsolete military decorations were equivalent to the Medal of Honor" (Similar decorations) Equivalent? Surely not in their awarding criteria? If their only similarity is that they're all top-level military awards, doesn't this information belong at List of highest military awards and not at the American article?
    • No problem now, but I wonder, would anyone else like a list article? Melchoir 23:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Worked every specific facts. Rlevse
• Editorial problems:
  • The lead section contains stub paragraphs.
  • The lead section does not summarize the article.
  • The image layout in "Appearance" obscures the connection between image and text.
  • Most of "Versions of the medal" is a duplicate of previous material in "Appearance".
  • Why is the second paragraph of "Versions of the medal" in the past tense?
  • The "Flag" section reads like a newspaper article. It's out of order, it consists of stub paragraphs, and it repeats itself.
  • "Awarding the medal" starts with three disconnected stub paragraphs.
  • "Nomenclature" is just one short paragraph long -- too short for a subsection -- and it is misplaced. It needs to be worked into the prose elsewhere or else just deleted for being redundant.
  • Most of "Evolution of criteria" is passive voice.
  • "Legal protection" consists of stub paragraphs.
  • The "By conflict" table in "Recipients" creates too much white space for being in the body of the article.
    • addressed all in "Editorial problems". Rlevse

Eh, that's enough. Melchoir 07:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I've acted on each of Melchoir's inputs in some way. Rlevse 19:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well, here's something disturbing. http://www.medalofhonor.com/Summary.htm is such a good source for those hard-to-verify details because it's a copy of this version of our article! Note the minor edits not too long before and after that version and the provenance of the images, such as Image:KY Medal of Honor.jpg, for proof that they copied us and not the other way around. So, the good news is we're not committing a copyright violation. That bad news is that at least the page [36] is an unreliable source, and you've got to wonder about the entire website. Thoughts? Melchoir 01:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I found Army Center for Military History refs for the racial citations, they're better info anyway. I also removed the question web site refs (GOOD CATCH!), using governemtn sites for that, again better anyway. Rlevse 02:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Great! If you're looking for more reliable sources, I wonder if you'd be willing to replace http://neptune.spaceports.com/~kjb/medal.htm and http://www.homeofheroes.com/? Melchoir 03:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Even better, I replaced it with 3 refs, two of them government ones. Are there any issues left, anyone? If so, place them below here so they're easier to find. I'm okay with all changes at this point.Rlevse 10:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Actually, one more reference issue that I neglected to mention before: http://www.pownetwork.org/phonies/phonies1065.htm is currently our only source for the statement that the MoH is the only unbuyable medal. Any document that makes its point through varying combinations of center alignment, multiple fonts in various sizes and colors, SHOUTING, underlines, and italics... well, I find it hard to take seriously. Melchoir 18:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • • • • Actually, if you click on the US Code link ((18 U.S.C. § 704)(b) - click on the "704"), it shows you the actual law from a Cornell University web site. The U.S. Code templates all link there , so I consider them valid references from a highly regarded university. If you prefer, convert the USC templates to cite php, but I prefer the USC templates. Rlevse 20:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
          • So, our reasoning is that the MoH is the only protected decoration because if there were another, it would be listed in §704? (I'd buy that, but I'd want to change the wording a bit.) Melchoir 20:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Feel free to change. The MOH has special protections, yes. Note that 704a says "any decoration", but that section b specifically addresses the MOH. Rlevse 21:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Right, done. Melchoir 22:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I still intend to have a hard look at the lead section and copyedit the article one last time. Meanwhile, I wonder if anyone is interested in the following low-priority avenues for improvement:

• Is it possible to tighten up the "Statistics" section of the infobox, vertically speaking?
  • not without changing the template, which would affect other articles. Rlevse 12:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Is it possible to place the two tables in "Recipients" side-by-side?
  • done Rlevse 12:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• For all the cite templates, it would be nice to determine if any of the empty fields can be filled out, and to delete those that can't. The latter would make the source code more readable.
• Apart from the new material in the lead section, there are still four paragraphs without inline citations: Origin 2 and Appearance 3, 4, 5. I'm pretty sure they're covered by existing references, so could someone tack on the appropriate ref tags on the ends?
  • • added refs Rlevse 10:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• What's the rectangular thing in commons:Image:MedalofHonor-3.jpg? Would that image be appropriate to left-float in "Legal protection"? Melchoir 02:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • That is the case that holds the medal, it's not a book or anything like that. While a nice picture, I would not add it into the legal section.Rlevse 10:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to cry FARC over any of those, but as long as we're here... Melchoir 02:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have two comments about the lead section. First, the Coast Guard MOH is not the same as the Navy's. My understanding is that the Coast Guard has authority to award their own medal, although they have never done so. Second, the wording Since it was first awarded during the American Civil War, the medal has been presented 3,461 times is misleading. It was awarded another 700+ times, but then later rescinded. Otherwise, this seems like great work. Ydorb 17:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The approval for the CG MOH didn't come until 1963 or so. The CG sailor who has the MOH, Munro, got it during WWII, so he was given the Navy version of it. Reworded the CG intro and the rescinded ones are discussed later in text. Rlevse 17:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Status? A lot of work has been done to this article. Where does the copy edit stand? A quick look at a random section in the middle of the article reveals: "President Abraham Lincoln signed Public Resolution 82 into law by on December 21, 1861, containing a provision for a Navy medal of valor." Sandy 13:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct That statement is correct, PR 82 called it a Medal of Valor. I've clarified the confusion now in the article text. I'd like someone to state a valid reason this should not continue to be a FA or close this FAR out as I certainly think it is now still FA status. Rlevse 17:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been dragging my feet on copyediting the article. The article is definitely a FA. I'm ambivalent over closing the FAR. Melchoir 18:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's definitely FA, why not close the FAR? That does not make sense. Who decides to close a FAR anyway?Rlevse 21:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

For example, a quick check shows that the statement into law by on is still there: when will a thorough copy edit be completed? I'll be glad to have a second look: please let us know. Sandy 13:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see the other instance of that, so I've now reworded it. I also went through the whole article and tweaked some more copy. If you have more concerns, please be specific as I'm not a mind reader.Rlevse 14:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've started going through the references for bibliographic details, and #3 turns out not to be the Army after all. It's actually Army.com, which says at the bottom "This website is not affiliated, endorsed, authorized, or associated in any way with any government, military or country." The article itself doesn't include an author or a dateline, which you'd expect from a news source. And, for that matter, it doesn't contain the quote "in the name of Congress", for which it is cited in the opening sentence. So, can we get a replacement? Melchoir 00:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've copy-edited the article and left a few inline queries. Once these have been addressed, I'm fine with closing the review. Tony 02:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Tony left 3 questions, and in IMHO two are for whomever decides to close this to decide which of two wording choices he offers (like "have been" or "were"). The other, which appears first, is about Munro, the lone Coast Guardsman again. Munro was in the CG in WWII and got the Navy version of the medal as the CG version hadn't been conceived yet. The text clearly states this. In the "by service" chart he's listed as CG, just as Marines are listed as Marines, who also get the Navy version. Rlevse 02:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• I'm also fine with closing this review: nice work! Sandy 03:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool, that's 4 votes that all the work by several of us results in a keep, with no objections. I'll close it now.Rlevse 14:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final Fantasy X

Article is still a featured article

Yesterday, Silence, Ryu Kaze, and myself attempted to improve the article's comprehensiveness. Consiquently, we had to expand several sections and redo many aspects of the plot synopsis. Despite clear improvements, the article's length may raise a few red flags, as people complained about the length during the FAC. Although the new information has been compressed as much as possible, we must ensure that the article still upholds the guidelines/consensus and is still fit to be featured on the main page in three days. — Deckiller 22:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The pre-edits and post-edits versions can be compared at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Final_Fantasy_X&oldid=63861357 and Final Fantasy X. It should also be noted: that five additional fair-use images (all with rationales) have been added to the article; that the article is scheduled to appear on the Main Page in 3 days, hence the rush to FAR to see if there are any potential objections ahead of time; that a new "Mythology" section has been added to the article (summarized from some of the more important information at daughter article Spira (Final Fantasy X)), and the character and setting sections have been reorganized and rewritten along with the "plot" section (which received the most severe rewrite); and that overall, the article has gone from 46 KB to 54 KB long over the last day. This may also raise concerns about content stability, a requirement for any FA, though direct criticisms of the article's status are more important to address right now than stability issues. -Silence 00:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to the article's prose, the three of us have gone through the article several times, performing various copyedits and tightening. However, the article clearly needs another set of eyes, especially since the three of us have no strategic distance right now. — Deckiller 00:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to comment concerning the stability of the article if there are any concerns there. From the time the article achieved FA status on May 10 until yesterday, July 15, there were hardly any changes to it whatsoever. It was only after Silence brought to us concerns that the article's lack of comprehensiveness regarding the plot (something imposed during FAC, despite explanations that FFX's plot and backstory are vast) and illustrations of the various aspects of gameplay through fair-use images might detract from its quality given that it should be an example of everything any article on Wikipedia should be. Silence suggested that -- whatever concerns some editors might have regarding length -- maintaining that example of a comprehensive nature was more important.

With all now said and done, I have to agree, and I don't feel that the article becoming comprehensive where it was lacking before should in any way detract from its quality. In fact, I feel that it is now more deserving than ever of its status as a Featured Article, and is certainly ready to be presented on the front page in a couple of days. Ryu Kaze 01:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well-said. Tony, do you have any comments on the prose of the article? — Deckiller 01:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree. The article has been quite stable overall; it is only in the last day that it has undergone significant change, hence this last-minute review. The focus of this review should be the article's content, and particularly what areas still need improvement and whether we should delay displaying the article on Wikipedia's main page to let the dust settle/make more fixes. -Silence 01:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's now on the front page, so the purpose of this mini review is passed. Thanks for hearing us out. Ryu Kaze 00:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The article's length is fine. Raul654 17:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree there, I think that 54kb is enormously long and that very few topics warrant such an amount of text. I complained during its FA nomination about the length. One area that I still feel should be cut greatly is the plot. I looked at lots of other FAs on works of literature, plays and films, and found that all summarised their plots in 3-5 paragraphs. This one has 9 very long paragraphs. It would always be possible to argue that a plot section is not comprehensive, because inevitably it can't contain everything. The important thing to remember is that this is an encyclopaedia, which needs to summarise the most important information. Plot summaries are a kind of original research which is tolerated, but they should definitely be kept as concise as possible.

Another major problem I have with the article at the moment is its referencing. About half the 'references' seem to be snippets of dialogue. These can't, surely, be considered reliable sources, and it's not really clear how they back up what they are citing. Worldtraveller 20:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's going to be comprehensive, it should touch on all the major plot arcs. And that's all it's doing right now. Touching on those plot arcs. During the FAC, I remember your suggestions of cutting, and — eager to please — I went along with it, despite my concerns. But, really, I don't think those edits were right. These things should always be taken on a case-by-case basis. There should not be a "one size fits all" standard when not all plots are one size. Something I don't think most people in the FAC considered about this game is that it doesn't have as short a story as most films and books. There's a lot there, both in backstory and in what takes place during the game's present.

As for the dialogue references, those are quotes from the game itself. They back up what they're citing in that they offer the verbal illustration of the concept, as seen/read/heard in the game. Those are quite often needed, actually. I'm not sure if you're big into RPGs or not, but there's plenty of people who are going to make story-related edits if they're unfamiliar with certain bits of dialogue that solidify what's being detailed in the article. Ryu Kaze 00:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• This is really starting to become an issue. We have a group of editors trying to get us to expand the plot, and a group trying to get us to reduce it. The current verison is about as close to a compromise as we'll get. The key to consensus in this case is compromise; as an editor during a featured article push/review, all I care about is upholding consensus, which usually involves a compromise. — Deckiller 01:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Being terribly honest, I agree that what we have is a compromise. We touch on each major arc and its resolution while supplying sufficient backstory to make sense of what's happening. There's still a lot that's not being brought up, so inclusionists and deletionists alike (not sure if using those words or not is a no-no, but at the moment, I'm not too sure I care given that — like Deckiller — I'm starting to become frustrated with the matter) should be happy.

There's a lot more we could add to the Plot section. We could mention how Seymour's mother is his Final Aeon. We could mention how she sacrificed her life when he was only 10 years old and how his father exiled him for political reasons and that this is why he has such a bleak outlook on the world. We could talk about how Yuna is half-Al Bhed, and how Wakka has long hated the Al Bhed both because the Yevon order speaks badly of them and because his brother, Chappu, died while fighting with an Al Bhed weapon instead of the sword he had given him (which he gives to Tidus during the game). Hell, we probably should be mentioning some of that stuff as it is. We could mention how Wakka's brother was also Lulu's boyfriend. We could mention that one of the Crusaders from Besaid is the guy responsible for Wakka's brother being part in the battle that cost him his life. We could mention Yuna's rival summoner, Donna. We could mention that Auron despises himself because he feels like it's his fault that Braska and Jecht died. We could mention how Tidus' mother was an immature putz and let herself die after she believed Jecht was dead, leaving her dependent child to grow up without both of his parents. We could mention that the reason Seymour's inside Sin at the end of the game is because Sin sucked up his pyreflies after Seymour's third battle with Yuna and her guardians. We could mention that most of Kimahri's people get slaughtered by Seymour because they choose to defend Yuna from him. We could mention that Braska became a summoner in the first place because Sin killed his wife (the sister of the Al Bhed leader, by the way; naturally his marriage to her caused him to be looked down upon by the rest of Yevon, and no one believed that he could defeat Sin). We could mention that Jecht was hard on his son, but that it was because he wanted him to be tough and that he actually loved him more than anything in the world. We could mention how the fayth did nothing to prevent the cycle of Sin's rebirth for 1000 years until Jecht became one of them and through him they came to understand the suffering Sin's existance was causing and that it should stop, whatever might become of them. We could mention that Tidus and Wakka's team won the blitzball tournament that barely gets mentioned.

There's a lot of things we could mention that we haven't, and that's because we kept things to the major story arcs. Seriously, we are being concise. Ryu Kaze 02:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, the comprehensiveness criterion calls for all major aspects of a topic — which includes the story — to be explained. Fancruft is excess, trivial details. We're mentioning the major plot arcs to provide the reader with a sense of overall plot structure and progress, not to bloat the article with "cruft". If a person reads the summary and does not have a gist of the plot and its major arcs, then we fail to meet the comprehensiveness standard. Similarly, if we bloat the article with excess, we give the reader too much to ingest, which also causes us to fail the comprehensiveness standard. We've provided something in the middle, and I'm proud of the balance we've attained here. — Deckiller 02:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In another expansion comment, we have articles like Final Fantasy magic and Final Fantasy items, which provide a general overview of a minor aspect of the series. Granted, it's notable enough, but not so important as to list every item in each game. On the other hand, when we're talking about a full, notable game, we have to cover all major aspects enough. RPGs have lengthy, detailed stories. They are 40 hours long, and are essensially interactive novels. Heck, this game has a 362 488 page-long script in microsoft word (not to mention the fact that the article also details non-script information, such as interviews, scenery, and characterization). I think there's a common impression that RPG stories are "just video game tales" like Mario; this is not the case — some are more encompassing than most trilogies, and most are in a format with several arcs going on at once to provide a variety for both gameplay and story. Hence, more major arcs to mention. — Deckiller 02:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• 54kb is "enormously long"? I thought it was rather average-length, even on the short side. Past FAs on the main page have been as long as 80kb, even approaching 100kb. In any case, conciseness and comprehensiveness, not "length", is what matters for an FA. It should be exactly as long as its content merits; there are no arbitrary, specific limits on how long any article should be.
• By the way, which FAs on fictional works are you referring to that only spend 3 to 5 paragraphs on the actual plot? Calvin and Hobbes spends almost 50 paragraphs on various story elements. The Old Man and the Sea spends 7 paragraphs on its plot, despite being an exceedingly short, straightforward book plot. The Giver, similarly, spends 9 paragraphs on summarizing the plot (and another page discussing the individual characters, plus 3 lengthy paragraphs on "themes"), despite also having a much shorter plotline and less elaborate storyline than Final Fantasy X. Where are these 3-to-5-paragraph summaries? -Silence 02:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Silence, those features of The Giver aren't acceptable, they're some of the reasons I just listed it for review above. Hmm, perhaps I should take a look at The Old Man and the Sea. Bishonen | talk 20:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC).

• Also, Ryu Kaze, your list of important storylines we aren't currently mentioning in the article is not even half-finished. There are a huge number of major storylines that aren't even mentioned for one word in the current article. The problem is, although Final Fantasy X is a relatively "short" game, it's also an exceedingly dense one; people have complained about its being such a linear, dialogue/cutscene-heavy game because it's so exceedingly plot-focused, even for Final Fantasy, a series famous for its convoluted plots. The article currently ignores almost the entire middle segment of the game for the sake of brevity, only alluding to one or two of the most significant occurrences. Djose, Moonflow, Guadosalam, Thunder Plains, Macalania, Bikanel, Home, the Calm Lands, Mt. Gagazet, and the airship are virtually ignored; only a couple of words are devoted to the major confrontations with Sin at Kilika and Mushroom Rock, the collection of the individual Aeons is ignored altogether, the running plotline involving the Fayth child is ignored, the optional side-plots are all ignored, and a large number of the most important side-characters in the game (most notably Cid) are never once mentioned. I agree that the current state is an acceptable compromise; it could still use some significant tidying up, but it's neither dramatically overlong nor dramatically overshort. -Silence 02:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It is for these reasons why I stopped working on the Xenogears and Xenosaga articles. I know they can never be featured articles, because in order to make the articles comprehensive, I would have to spend at LEAST ten paragaphs on the plot. If it was too short, half of the people would object because it's a confusing summary of a confusing story. If it was too long, people would (obviously) complain that it was too long, regardless of content. If a compromise was made, it would be sacrificing too much on either side to even stand a chance. FFX, fortunately, has the luxury to provide a compromise. — Deckiller 02:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In such a situation, where the story consumes too much space, it is recommended to create a daughter article (like Story of Final Fantasy X) or create subsections. For example I think you'd get a lot less objection to an article with a 9-paragraph plot summary if it is divided into 3 meaningful, 3-paragraph-long sections. Notice that Worldtraveller only objected to the "story" section, not to the other three sections, which add up to be quite lengthy, which also deal with the game's plot ("setting", "characters", and "mythology"). We could do even more trickery like that if we wanted to allay further criticism, like having a 2-to-3-paragraph "history" section explaining the backstory of Zanarkand and Yevon, rather than including that information in the "plot" section at the point in the game where it's revealed. It makes no substantial difference. -Silence 02:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that deception tactic was used with The Wind Waker, which seemed to work. — Deckiller 02:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As it stands, the page already links to Spira (Final Fantasy X), which does a lot that isn't done here, and since the only backstory elements we really saved for revealing in the "Story" section were the biggies, I don't think there's really much cause for concern. And, really, the biggies that are in the Story section are far more compelling when revealed there. While this is an encyclopedia article, the concept of the "Perfect Article" does suggest that it be interesting. Ryu Kaze 14:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• The prose: It's so close, so why not fix silly things like:
  • "Spira is very different from the mainly European-style worlds found in previous Final Fantasy games, being much more closely modeled on Southeast Asia, most notably with respect to its vegetation, topography, architecture and names."
  • "in excess of 7.93 million copies": Ugly expression - what's wrong with "more than"?
  • Remove "Additionally" from the lead - it adds absolutely nothing.

This is a great opportunity to polish it. Please do. Tony 15:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Ryu Kaze 19:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony, as always, thank you for your constructive and civil feedback. — Deckiller 05:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Cover images/infobox. Why does the infobox have four fair-use images? Per WP:FUC #3, we should use as few fair-use images as is absolutely necessary to illustrate the subject, and per #8 we should avoid the decorative use of fair-use images. This is a borderline-copyvio issue, and it's been used to argue that other infoboxes should have multiple images (despite the fact that WP:CVG practice is to use the first or best-selling English-language cover). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  In particular, two of these images are identical but for trade dress. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  Aren't the four images there to illustrate the four different versions? — Deckiller 01:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  Why use four images when one suffices? (Especially given that two of them are nearly identical.) Book articles don't have galleries of fair-use images for each different publishing variation, movie articles don't have galleries of every VHS/DVD cover or every poster, and game articles shouldn't have multiple fair-use images of game covers when one would suffice. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  I've learned to ignore trivial issues like image/format disputes, because it really takes away from the true meat and potatoes of the article — the stuff I personally care about. Besides, the LAST thing I want is two sides starting an image/format dispute, thus putting we editors between a rock and a hard place. If we don't get any objections to this before this minor review has concluded, the change should be made. And then, if we have a camp forming on the other side, I'll personally nip it in the bud with something aong the lines of Raul's common sense brick. — Deckiller 01:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  Even if the consensus is to use multiple images (and some way of satisfying WP:FUC is devised), the two nearly-identical images need to be dealt with. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  Honestly, I don't think I can participate in a discussion on image placement and exclusion and all, since it's my achilles' heel on the site. I've never been into image uploading and other image-related issues, except deleting orphaned fairuses. — Deckiller 01:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  If they go, they go, I guess. Personally, I think it's good to illustrate all the different regional covers, but if there's some kind of fair-use infringment at work ,I guess they should go. Of course, this means it'll have to be done on several Final Fantasy pages. Ryu Kaze 02:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  And let us pray people won't be looking to set stability objections. — Deckiller 02:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  I don't think changes that come of a FAC/FAR/FARC can really be considered as making an article unstable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  Let's hope not. That would be the most ridiculus argument ever cast: "Your article isn't worthy of being FA because you're taking measures to meet fair-use criteria, which arguably has some bearing on FA criteria in the first place!" Let's just remove them from all the pages if there's no objections and have done with the matter. I don't imagine we'll see any "instability" cries, and if we do, we'll put the common sense brick in a pillowcase and go to town. Ryu Kaze 02:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  ...and maybe get Raul's common sense brick award, as well :-) — Deckiller 02:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Usually, one cover is allowed for identification and the preference is to use the one an english speaking audience is most likely to recognize in the marketplace. Combination 09:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Status. So how do people feel about this? Concerns addressed or do we need to go to FARC? Marskell 21:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • There's definitely no need for an FARC. The main purpose for this FAR was to make sure the page was up-to-par for its stint on the front page (now come and gone), and we've gotten the fair-use matter taken care of (removed the extra box covers). Everything's fine. Ryu Kaze 01:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker

Article is still a featured article

[edit] Major review commentary

The prose of this article is not "compelling, even brilliant", and it therefore fails to meet Criterion 2a. Here are some examples.

• • A few more commas throughout would help our long-suffering readers, e.g., "struggling against his nemesis Ganondorf for control of a holy relic known as the Triforce that grants the wishes of its holder".
  • "Unlike most Zelda games that take place predominately on land, The Wind Waker places the hero Link on an island." Um ... but an island is land. Unclear.
  • "Link lives with his grandmother and younger sister Aryll on Outset Island, one of many islands in the Great Sea, although few are inhabited." "Although" is wrong here.
  • "The people of the Great Sea pass down a legend of a prosperous kingdom with a hidden golden power." Is it the people, the legend or the kingdom that possess the hidden golden power?
  • "The elders of Outset Island customarily dress their youths in green like the Hero of Time when they come of age, hoping to inspire in them the courage the Hero of Time knew." Who's coming of age: the elders or the youths? I guess we can work it out, but good prose doesn't force us to. Who's hoping to inspire in whom?

Nearly every sentence needs some kind of fixing. And why are dictionary items, such as "green", "boat" and "sail" linked?

I hope that the contributors can enlist support for a thorough audit of the prose over the next two weeks. Tony 07:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

How could nearly every sentence require some kind of correction? This leads me to believe that all of the content that I have read is wrong one way or another. I disagree with "nearly". —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I would like a reference for the It has also been confirmed that a novelization of the game is a WIP (work in progress). comment. -- ReyBrujo 12:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Added by a anon so I removed it. — Ian Moody ^(talk) 13:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've fixed some of your concerns, but you (or someone else) may need to point out any other problems, as I wrote most of this article and won't be able to see my own mistakes.
• The first sentence you mention -- adding commas to that section wouldn't be correct. It seems readable to me, but that's just my opinion. Pagrashtak 03:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral: the article is well-referenced, features images with proper copyright rationale, and is very enjoyable to read. However, I do not believe that the writing is of an unreadable standard, and I find most of the examples which User:Tony1 provided to be quite clear within the article (with exception to the "island" and "land" bit). Therefore, I remain netural. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the problems I agree with and haven't heard any input in a few days, so I suggest closing this review unless anyone else has something to add. Pagrashtak 18:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• More examples of substandard prose, from a section chosen at random:
  • "a very realistic looking Ganon and Link"—"a"? Aren't there two of them? Should "realistic-looking" be hyphenated? Or changed to "realistic"?
    • Fixed.
  • "fall 2000"—see WP's guidelines on avoiding hemisphere-centric expressions.
    • You'd have to talk to Sony about hemisphere-centric expressions, as this is a direct quote. However, the Japanese release date is earlier, so I switched to that, which avoids the problem.
  • "Nintendo had several software demonstrations to showcase the power of their new system"—had demonstrations? This is not compelling prose.
    • I'm using had in the sense of possessed; I've added the phrase "on hand" to make it more clear.
  • Spell out "IGN" on first occurrence, even if it is linked.
    • Just like KFC, there's nothing to spell out.
      • I believe he is referring to the fact that the article supposes the casual reader knows what IGN is. In example, instead of "Staff at IGN referred...", it would be better to say "Staff at IGN, an online website dedicated to videogame reviews, referred..." or similar. Just like the first time Famitsu is mentioned it is clarified that it is a magazine (although it would also help wikifying it and stating it is a japanese magazine dedicated to videogames. Remember that a casual reader should understand everything without needing to click wikilinks. -- ReyBrujo 16:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • "The official translation of The Wind Waker was given on 2 December 2002"—to give a translation?
    • I've reworded it.
  • "A new Zelda game using a heavily modified version of the Wind Waker engine is currently in development"—I guess that commas aren't compulsory, but they'd make it easier for our readers. Perhaps even change the word order.
    • I'm not sure what to do, this sentence seems perfectly readable to me. This may just be a style preference problem. Pagrashtak 16:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is good enough yet. The challenge is to fix all of the article, not just the examples I've provided. Tony 02:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I realize that the examples you gave were just examples and not the entire problem; however, as I mentioned, I wrote this article and have a hard time finding my own problems, so I must rely on you (or another editor) to point out what needs fixing. I'm more than happy to keep this review open and improve the article as long as someone can tell me what can be improved. Pagrashtak 16:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Spell out? Well, what does IGN mean? Tony 01:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, IGN doesn't mean anything. It's a company without an unabbreviated name. Pagrashtak 14:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I just gave a small hand and changed all dates from dd mm yyyy to mm dd, yyyy format, per date formatting guidelines. If you find some more, please fix them on sight. -- ReyBrujo 02:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that a good number of dates are in both formats, that is not really nice to see. -- ReyBrujo 16:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've copyedited the article. I fixed many of the example problems listed here and any other places I thought could be tightened. The dates should be consistent unless I've missed some. Please let me know what other problems you see, and I would appreciate it if addressed objections could be struck out for clarity. Tony, could you clarify the meaning behind "spell out" above? Thanks, Pagrashtak 04:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

FA criteria concern is quality of prose (2a) Marskell 15:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - This article is in better shape now than when it was featured. Pagrashtak 03:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist - Quality of prose is a current requirement: standards have improved. Sandy 22:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Quality of prose was also a requirement in February 2006 when this article was featured. I don't think the prose standards today are that different than they were a few months ago. Would you mind pointing out the parts of the article that you feel do not meet the standard? Pagrashtak 01:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral for now. This could get there and Pagra seems interested in continuing to work. I placed a fact request in the intro. Also, is it Ganon or Ganondorf (or are they used interchangeably)? This should be mentioned early. I'm also a little concerned that the citations don't start appearing until the article is more than half over. Marskell 16:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'm more than willing to continue addressing any complaints about the article. I removed the fact request in the lead, as the lead is a summary of the entire article, which is itself referenced. If others also feel that the lead needs to have citations, it should just be a matter of copying them from the text. The story and gameplay sections do not have any references because everything in those sections is directly supported by the game itself. Pagrashtak 01:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Pagra, I re-inserted the fact request. As noted in the edit summary, it shouldn't be up to the reader to have to hunt through the article for a ref. I also removed some redundancy at the top (it's mentioned about four times that the game is set on a group of islands). I'll try and do more later and I would note that I'm still not convinced this needs to be removed. Marskell 09:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Fair enough then, I've copied a ref from the body to the lead for the fact request. I also mentioned that Ganon is Ganondorf in the lead and changed a "Ganon" to "Ganondorf" in a section title to be consistent. Thanks for the copyedit. Pagrashtak 15:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per Tony, Sandy Zzzzz 18:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Tony has not voted to remove. I have fixed his examples and more and have not received any futher comments from him for several days. Would you mind pointing out the parts of the article that you feel do not meet the standard? Pagrashtak 01:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Tony has now: Remove. More random examples of substandard writing from just one section:
  • "One new addition"—pick the redundant word.
  • "He wishes for a future for Link and Zelda"—odd.
  • "With the ocean falling all around the tower,"—odd.
  • "in a body of water known as the Great Sea"—spot the six redundant words.

This is not FA material. Tony 01:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Well, those examples came from two sections, but that's beside the point. Fixed, reworded, reworded, and fixed, in that order. However, I might note that any sentence about a falling ocean could be expected to have the word "odd" applied to it. Pagrashtak 15:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixing just the examples misses the point: they're intended as evidence of a wider problem. Tony 02:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. But he is fixing them. I think we should keep this open until the concerns have been exhausted. Marskell 09:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixing the examples improves the article, even if slightly. The examples you've provided here all (or at least nearly all) existed during both the peer review and the FAC without mention. This would indicate that few editors have the capability/time/energy to spot these problems. Since I wrote the majority of the text of this article, I'm at a disadvantage - it's hard to copyedit one's own writing, as you are surely aware. Therefore, I appear to be left with only two options - fix the examples you present or leave them as is. I think I'm choosing the better option, given the circumstances.

You have made it clear several times that you feel the article is poorly written; you don't have to tell me again. I understand that fixing the examples is not correcting the entire problem, it's just the best I can do right now. Pagrashtak 00:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

And a question: what do we generally do with fictional character and place names? Quotes or italics or just leave it? Here things like "King of Red Lions" and "Din's Pearl" are simply presented as is. Marskell 09:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the current presentation is correct, just as one would write "Bilbo Baggins stole the One Ring from Gollum" instead of "'Bilbo Baggins' stole the 'One Ring' from 'Gollum'", but correct me if I'm wrong. Pagrashtak 00:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: this sentence is odd: "This disc, The Legend of Zelda: Collector's Edition, could be had by purchasing a special GameCube bundle containing the disc, by registering a GameCube and two games at Nintendo's website, or by subscribing or renewing a subscription to Nintendo Power." I don't know how to go about fixing this one. — Deckiller 23:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I rewrote it. I think it's better, but you might be able to improve it further. Pagrashtak 23:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Overall, I think this clearly meets 2a in relation to the majority of the featured articles out there. — Deckiller 01:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The prose is looking a lot better. Tony 04:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to make another run through the prose tomorrow. — Deckiller 04:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep After the various copyedits, I am comfortable moving to a keep. Marskell 06:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep after copyedits Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as the prose was improved greatly. :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antarctica

Article is still a featured article

[edit] Minor review commentary

This is overall a worthy FA, but needs a copy-edit (Criterion 2a). Here are examples of problems in the lead.

• • The lead states that Antarctica is the "highest" continent (whatever that means), and then that it's the "third highest" continent.

• • "The continent was largely neglected in the 19th century"; then we read "it was mostly unexplored until the 19th century". These statements are slightly inconsistent, and the second implies that it was mostly explored during the 19th century, which I don't think was the case.

• • "The Antarctic Treaty, which was signed in 1959 by 12 countries and prohibits any military activity, supports scientific research, and protects the continent's ecozone." "Any" is redundant. What is claimed for the treaty might be an overstatement; whether it does in fact protect the ecozone is a matter of debate, even if the intention is there, and "supports scientific research" is ambiguous—does it provide the funding?

• • "Ongoing experiments are conducted by more than 4000 scientists of many different nationalities and with many different research interests." Does it mean to say the more than 4000 scientists at any one time are conducting ...? It's unclear. "Many different" occurs twice in seven words.

The whole article needs a massage. Tony 05:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"Highest" means "highest average elevation"? I'll remove that from the lead because it's uncertain enough and post a talk point. Marskell 21:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reworded the "third highest" comment to clarify what it means. -- Avenue 23:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Have you managed to garner support for a quality-audit on the whole text? Tony 07:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• The article is great, set asise the sentence "highest of all the continents" which I don't understand. Plus, what does the last image mean? It looks like an ad. Plus the article could use a map which shows clearly the Transantarctic Mountains, the Ross Sea and other geographical features described in the Geography and Geology section. CG 15:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Further comment—Please keep working on the prose. I should not be able to pick out poor sentences at random. They're everywhere. Here are some:
  • "Physically, it is divided in two by the Transantarctic Mountains close to the neck between the Ross Sea and the Weddell Sea." Since this starts a paragraph, "it" should not be used; it could refer to a number of items in the previous sentence. "Divided in two"—spot the two redundant words.
  • "Belief in the existence of a Terra Australis — a vast continent located in the far south of the globe to "balance" the northern lands of Europe, Asia and north Africa — had existed since Ptolemy suggested the idea in order to preserve ...". Belief had existed? And there's "existence" and "existed" in the same sentence. "In order to"—spot the two redundant words.
  • "The continent of Antarctica is located mostly south of the Antarctic Circle, surrounded by the Southern Ocean." Why do we need to be told again that it's a continent. Isn't it almost entirely south of the Antarctic Circle, not just "mostly"? Is it the Antarctic Circle or the Antarctica that is surrounded by the Southern Ocean?

Someone needs to go through the whole text to reword repetitions; I see "sailed" in one sentence, then in the next. It ends up being laboured. But that's only a fraction of what needs to be done to satisfy Criterion 2a. Since only a patchy attempt has been made to address the problems (see [[37]]), I'm transferring the listing to major review. Tony 12:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major review commentary

Please note that the intention was to move this nomination from minor to major review, rather than FARC. The first two comments here are the result of the temporary move to FARC a few days ago. Please now make comments relevant to the major review. Tony 09:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep FA I think all in all this remains a fine article. The "highest" business has been addressed. Copy-edit always welcome, of course, but this probably should have remained a minor review. Marskell 13:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep FA per above. — Deckiller 04:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

As noted to you Tony, I did a copy edit. Even managed to find a date and a couple of extra comments to add. It's a fine article I think, with nicely balanced sections. Marskell 10:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be like a terrier at someone's ankle, but the first thing my eyes came to rest on was:

• "scientists from many nationalities", in the lead.

It's better than it was, but I don't want to find sentences that can easily be improved, such as:

• "The continent of Antarctica is located mostly south of the Antarctic Circle, surrounded by the Southern Ocean." (Try: "Most of Antarctica lies south of the Antarctic Circle; the continent is surrounded by the Southern Ocean."
• "About 98% of Antarctica is covered by the Antarctic ice sheet. The ice sheet is, on average, 2.5 kilometers (1.6 miles) thick." Merge these two sentences to save words.
• "If the sheet were to break down ocean levels would rise by several meters"—"break down ocean levels"? Insert a comma to be kind to our readers. Is it written in AmEng or what? "Meters" and "metres" are used, and we're not talking coin-in-the-slot machines here. And see WP's policy on abbreviations where imperial equivalents are provided in parentheses.
• "Due to the lake's similarity to Europa, a moon of Jupiter, confirming that life can survive in Lake Vostok might strengthen the argument for the possibility of life on Europa." Hmm, nice grammar.

Not entirely happy yet. It's such a good article in other respects—I agree with Marskell—that I wonder why some of the contributors don't want to feel proud of the writing. Tony 03:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"From" --> "of" in first. I dropped "continent of" in the second to make it simpler. I had actually noticed the redundancy noted in your third bullet earlier, but I left it so that both "Antarctic ice sheet" and plain "ice sheet" are dabbed; perhaps that's unneeded.

Where is the policy (or guideline) on metric and imperial? Marskell 06:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Institutes of Technology

Article is still a featured article

[edit] Major review commentary

Although promoted recently, the article fails by a long shot to meet:

• Criterion 2a ("compelling, even brilliant" prose); and
• Criterion 2d (proper use of external citations);

with a possible question mark hanging over POV (2e). Please see my comments here.

A serious copy-edit is required, at the very least. Given the hard work that has gone into this article, perhaps you might consider asking one or more members of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team for assistance. Tony 10:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the objections raised by Tony. Please give me some time to improve the article based on your suggestions. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Update. I have addressed almost all concerns raised by Tony. I have even made the changes where I felt they were required but not specifically asked. I have copyedited the article to use the references to illustrate only what is being told and not use non-neutral source for passing a judgement. Again, addressing the objections by other editors, Nichalp raised concerns over referening and copy-editing and gave his support after {{inotes}} were added and Taxman copyedited it. Regarding Anwar's objection, I am not sure why selective quoting was done. Reading the full sentence, "But I am more concerned about absolute lack of information as to how/why IITs are considered superior to other educational institutions and varsitites with reference to syllabuses, pedagogical techniques, placements, associated stats, etc." is what Anwar wrote. The reply I wrote in the FAC still stands. The IITs are NOT considered superior in syllabuses and pedagogical technique. They used to be superior in placement, but nowadays the NITs also have similar placement scenarios. Of course it was a surprise to see Anwar put in a lot of hard work in finding faults with the article and though most of them weren't actioned upon, they could be taken as genuine criticisms. I have worked upon all his actionable concerns, wherever appropriate. Spangineer initially opposed, but later supporting after copyediting himself. Of course he mentioned that Tony would come up with more problems (and he did), which is the reason why this article has been brought up for FAR. Finally I would like to know why 2(e) is considered relevant in this context as I couldn't find any relevance of it myself. Will you please elucidate. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

More updates. I have done another round of copyediting per WP:WTA. Please give your views on the current state of the article. Without any more suggestions/observations, I don't know if any more issues are present. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

FA criteria concerns are quality of writing (2a) and use of citations (2b) Marskell 10:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I think the article does not have the above problems anymore -- Lost 13:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep- I am confused. What are the issues? Tony started a review earlier but from what I understand the editors have been working with Tony and some others to rectify the matter and have been making good progress. No reason to bring this for FARC at this stage. --Blacksun 16:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I had asked Tony to review the progress, but he had some deadlines to attend to. Meanwhile, the "deadline" for FAR expired and since Tony hadn't commented again on the progress and outstanding issues, the FARC was started by Marskell. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I've done some cleaning up of part of it; see my inline queries, please. Tony 16:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Reply to inline querries. Wherever applicable, I have copyedited to make the sentences clearer. Regarding the issues I left unfixed, I am replying point-wise.
  • You left comment on the vagueness of proposals of Nalini Ranjan Sarkar Committee. It is possible for me to make things clearer, but since the committee itself was not clear in its recommendations, I haven't copyedited it (as it would include adding Original Research).

The word "possible" is the problem. Do you see it now?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tony1 (talk • contribs).

I saw it earlier also, but do you want me to remove the word? The source mentions the word "possibly", will it be wise to remove it. Anyway, since it was causing too much confusion and bad prose, I removed the sub-phrase without altering the meaning of the sentence. No OR added; nothing important left out. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Central government comprises of the ruling parties (in multi-party democracy) while the parliament consists of all elected members (both of ruling parties and opposition). Am I allowed to remove the comment now. Frankly speaking I don't know what needs to be clarified.

These terms are not universally understood as your explain them. "Central" was the word that concerned me; is it a federal system in India? Many people would refer to "federal government".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tony1 (talk • contribs).

India is a federation and hence has a federal government. However in India, it is either referred to as "Central government" or "Union government", but rarely as a "Federal government". I have changed the former (central govt) to latter (union govt), which I feel is another widely understood word. If it is not, I am ready to change to "Federal government". The only problem that might arise is that the Indians viewing the page might not understand what "Federal government" means: Whether it is Union government of State government? — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I must add that Central government is the word used even by the government sites [38]. -- Lost 18:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Academic senate members are nominated, not elected by elections. The article never says that IITs are unique in this regard. Anyway, I have removed it.
• — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

To put this out of its misery, I've copy-edited more of it, but am tiring. The quality was way below FA requirements, still. Why am I finding things like: "Since the IITs get only a few overseas faculty and students" (I think I see what it means from the context), "The cultural festivals too last 3 to 4 days", " large panels of an event, or a concept", and "All the IITs have playgrounds of popular sports". Spell out numbers less than 10. Get rid of "variety". Avoid "get". "20 feet": use metric and provide imperial equivalent if necessary—doesn't India have the metric system? Tony 03:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have copyedited the article to fix the issues raised. However, to copyedit and eradicate "get" from "Former IIT students get greater respect from their peers..." is beyond me. I can use "command" instead, but I think it is even more un-encyclopedic. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep the big picture still looks good. This Fire Burns....Always 04:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Let's keep refining it from time to time, don't you think? Tony 08:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Definitely, that's the spirit of wikipedia :) -- Lost 08:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Yes, we should refine the article as needed, and probably the article meets the FA criteria right now. I use "probably" because Tony, as a professional copyeditor, is a much better judge of the quality of the prose that we genaerally are. Thanks to Tony for pointing out the faults the article had! And thanks to Ambuj and others for trying their best to rectify the faults.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Super Mario 64

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Neutrality, Computer and video games, and Nintendo. Sandy (Talk) 15:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Previous FARs at Feb 06 FAR and July 06 FAR. Sandy (Talk) 15:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This article was nominated over a year ago now, and when compared with other such articles like Perfect Dark, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, or Half-Life 2 its certainly lacking in a number of areas. The development section - which should be one of the most important parts - is patchy and not very comprehensive. The course description is far too lengthy, I don’t think Wikipedia is supposed to be a game guide. There is also a profound lack of sources, in the introduction to the impact section, development, and in general. There is a large volume of good information about Mario 64 available on the internet and from other sources, and its disappointing that there are so few sources cited, and that much of the gameplay section is simply devoted to level and item lists.

There are also a number of weasel words here and there, particularly this one in the intro: “Super Mario 64 was considered so revolutionary that many consider to have set the standard for all later 3D platformer games and 3D games in general”. The source is from an author of a gamespot article, which does not represent the ‘many’ other voices out there. I hope that by raising these issues here the article might be improved, if not, then its FA status should be removed. Not the best game article, and certainly not the best of wikipedia IMO. Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 05:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The mission section seems to be a repeat of the storyline section. The article can probably be thinned out by making one story section and not including story in the gameplay section. Jay32183 05:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I will try to work on this article, which I feel can be easily fixed, but will state now that before I was prevented from removing the unencyclopedic course guide by another wikipedian, and feel that they will again prevent this form being done. Judgesurreal777 03:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe invite the person into this discussion so it can be explained why the article can't be a "player's guide". Jay32183 05:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The course guide isn't inappropriately detailed. See WP:CVG -- it provides valuable context for the article. Additionally, there are certainly no weasel words. For some reason Super Mario 64 is often under fire for claiming that the game is revolutionary and a benchmark for other 3D games. It is widely considered to be such and this is fact beyond reasonable doubt. Certainly more references are always nice and we can get some. However, removing content is not the answer, and please let us debate the merits of any such removals before initiating them. SM64 has already been through a Featured Article Review and a Featured Article Removal vote and it survived both unscathed. Andre (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The course guide is very inappropriate compared with any other currently featured video game article. Most of the section on gameplay must be totally rewritten. Also, there are POV support statements in the intro praising the game with no references, too many game images in the "Course section" that are not needed, there are several uncited statements in the "impact" section. There is also a lack of comprehensiveness in the development section, and a strange section of quotes from people who have played Super Mario 64, but has little to do with its legacy. So you see, the article has to be improved significantly if it is to retain its status, and we should not kid ourselves about this pressing need. Judgesurreal777 21:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No one's kidding anyone. I don't see the need for rewrite, nor are any statements POV or unsourced. We'll find more sources if we must. The level list is certainly not inappropriate. These issues have been raised in previous reviews, etc, and were determined not to be issues. Andre (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It has been brought up as an issue in this review, therefore, it will be dealt with. A list of levels is not important to the understanding of the gameplay, the story, the developement, or the critical response. Knowing that, it is not important to the article at all since those are the details that are needed. Jay32183 01:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Judgesurreal, this article needs a lot of improvement if its to retain its status. These issues were not properly dealt with in the last reviews, and its good to see that they are now. I've added some bits to the development section in the past, and I'll see if I can do anything to get it up to the standard required. The impact/reception section seems more like a gushing session to me (some it is unsourced - and probably incorrect - too), and the gameplay section needs a solid rewrite with the game-guide stuff removed. If it does end up losing its status, it might not be such a bad thing, as it will give prople an incentive to improve it. Kingston Jr. 01:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The list of levels helps show how the game evolved from earlier Mario titles. I fail to see how this does not contribute to the understanding of the development of the game. Additionally, the concept of free-roaming worlds full of things to interact with, explore, and fight is crucial to the understanding of the gameplay, and the level list explains this. Besides, those aren't the only categories of information allowed in a video game article. Articles on computer and video games should give an encyclopedia overview of what the game is about, not a detailed description of how to play it. Descriptions of areas in the game are certainly in the nature of an overview. Please read the WP:CVG guidelines in full. This is not game guide content. Andre (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please consult any of the recent Featured articles in video games, all such material of the individual levels has been cut from the Star Fox articles for a recent example and moved to Strategywiki. I think this article gets put up for Featured Article removal is no fluke, it is because of the above problems and because there is way to much information about the individual courses. Judgesurreal777 02:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Just because someone removed the details and nobody objected doesn't set a precedent. Besides, none of the Star Fox articles are featured articles, although some of them are pretty good. Andre (talk) 03:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Any changes I make to this article have been blocked, and from analyzing the last two FAR reviews, Andrevan has attempted to obstruct those as well. This article, as any other at featured status, should not have bulletted sections instead of prose, and my attempts to make it prose have been reverted. Judgesurreal777 03:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

For some reason you seem to think that just taking all the text from the bulleted list and putting it on one line means you've created prose. Not so! There's really no way to take a bunch of peripherally related individual facts and weave them into good prose unless you have some kind of guiding idea for the paragraph. I'd be glad to see someone take a crack at it, but your change to get rid of the list just created a barely readable mishmash of individual thoughts. Andre (talk) 03:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Hm. This does need some work to meet the FA standards. I notice a number of minor issues that need fixing:

• series and caption aren't implemented in the infobox for some reason.
• No sources for release dates, or rerelease dates.
• No source for the claim that Super Mario 64 is going to be released on the Wii Virtual Console.
• The sectioning in "Tasks, aids, and obstacles" is unnecessary and somewhat ugly.
• Missing fair-use rationales on some images.

And some major issues, ones I'd go to FARC over:

• The course list is excessive, recapping the story again and lending little encyclopedic understanding.
• The development section is lacking in sourcing; I see lots of historic claims standing completely unsourced.
• The reception section is also unsourced. If I didn't know anything about video games, how would I tell the superlative claims made here from fannish peacock prose?
• Too many fair-use images; I see five images of Mario standing in such-and-such environment. Ditching most of the course list will help with this.

This needs work. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Man in Black nailed it, but I want to reiterate that reception is usually the most heavily-sourced portion of the article. It establishes the game's notability and makes all kinds of judgments on its importances, strongpoints, and flaws. Getting sources is a trivial task; just go to Game Rankings and blaze through all their listed reviews. I did this with Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon yesterday and apart from a little copyediting, that article now has an all-star reception section. Source this first, as it will give you sources for other assertions in the article. --Zeality 20:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Agreed with A Man In Black: this article does need work. There are too many fair use images: although I encourage the inclusion of the manual image, only one image is needed to represent the game's "environment" and only a couple necessary to represent different concepts. The course list is NOT necessary; Andre, you would be better served taking into account the advice of everyone here and making changes where needed rather than trying to defend it as a very old featured article. This is Super Mario 64, the premier 3D platformer. This certainly should be in better shape than it is now.

If you can't find ANY sources, I'm sure that I can help. I can dig up Nintendo Power issues around and on the time of the Super Mario 64 release, and I have access to various databases for academic journals and magazines. Just tell me what you need, whether it's regarding development or reviews in the mainstream press, I'll do what I can. --Tristam 01:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I'd love to work on this article, if it weren't for the fact that Andrevan will revert any changes I make. Judgesurreal777 21:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment We're hoping to create improvement in this article and we're not trying to bash the work of previous editors. Tristam, if you have the means to fix up the developement and reception sections, then I say go for it, you can't hurt anything by adding information from more, good sources and properly crediting them. I'd also like to point out to Andrevan that attempting to argue against change in the article will not be what saves it, and reverting good faith efforts will not accomplish anything. Jay32183 22:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been making some big changes. It's not there yet, but I think it's a lot closer. A Man In Black, would you mind looking over the article again? I think you can strike out some of your objections above. Pagrashtak 04:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The gameplay section is a lot better. Good job with that. Jay32183 04:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine, it's clear that I'm outnumbered in my opinion of this article, so I'm going to step back and let other people deal with it. Andre (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, not completely, but I'm not going to revert the removal of the course list this time. Andre (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well we don't want you to stop contributing. Your input is welcome, we just can't agree on everything, because that will almost never happen. Jay32183 18:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b), lack of sources (1c), POV (1d), and prose structure (2). Marskell 12:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Remove—The lead alone shows problems WRT 1a, 1c and 1d. Our articles must have a neutral, encyclopedic tone to gain authority, especially when describing commercial products.

• • "Super Mario 64 was considered so revolutionary that many consider to have set the standard for all later 3D platformer games and (perhaps overzealously) 3D games in general. Super Mario 64 was bundled with the N64 shortly after launch"—"so revolutionary" is puffery. Is "it" missing after "consider"? "Perhaps overzealously" sounds like POV intruding here; hyphen required, too.
  • "In going from two to three dimensions"—"going from" is too informal here, and you wonder whether the game itself moves between 2 and 3 D.
  • "It is acclaimed by critics as one of the greatest video games of all time.[8]" Is this more puffery? The reference is hardly authoritative (filibustercartoons.com).

If someone wants to do a fix-up job, fine: quite a lot of thoughtful work is required. Tony 14:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd help out, but I'm already getting the eyetwitches and it isn't even Black Friday yet o.O — Deckiller 01:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The "perhaps overzealously" was a recent addition which has been removed. However, as for the filibustercartoons reference, if you look you will see it is an aggregate reference that tallies known gaming publications. Andre (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Remove per Tony and sourcing. Sandy (Talk) 19:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Contest removal. It seems like this discussion was ended prematurely. Also, I think generally the lead section is fine -- encyclopedic and neutral. The issues are mainly nitpicking. Andre (talk)
  • Discussions generally aren't closed if good faith efforts to improve the article are being made. Jay32183 20:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Oops, hadn't realized this discussion closed. Jay32183 20:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. As per all above. This article isn't up to scratch, and needs to be rewritten and expanded before it will be.Kingston Jr. 07:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh wait, its already closed.Kingston Jr. 07:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iranian peoples

Article is still a featured article

From a look at the recent history of the article, and its talk page, the article can be seen not to be stable, its neutrality being disputed on various issues (notably of religious and ethnic nature), and not being well-sourced, since the introduction of the article cites sources which after careful evaluation, do not supoort its content. This article thus does not meet the criteria of either a good or a featured article, and should be removed from the list or edited accordingly. Shervink 16:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)shervink

• Keep just because one user disputes it doesn't mean it's "unstable". —Khoikhoi 16:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but improve I believe Shervink's concern is true to a certain extent that intro needs better referencing in order to support the subject matter and make the article more stable, but it remains of good quality. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep There's no reason to dispute the neutrality of the article, and obvious POV of including Turkic Azeris as Iranian people cannot be considered a good reason. Grandmaster 06:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please. This period isn't meant for keep/remove comments. Please try to point out things that need editing etc. Marskell 08:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• The article's main improvement should be to clarify the wording rather than references. And I would like to reiterate that the complaints are coming from one user Shervink who consistently seeks to inject his own POV regarding the Azeris as an Iranian people, which is simply not supported by references. So on the one hand we have a demand for better sources to support the definition of the Iranian peoples (not needed as each reference explains who they are even if in piecemeal form as in ancients to modern), whereas a veritable landslide of sources define the Azeris as a Turkic people in comparison to an editorial and a cultural definition of the Azeris as having a lot of Persian cultural traits (which I agree with). The wording insisted upon with the Azeris is that some sources support them as an Iranian people (really only one editorial that I've seen as the other reference is to their Persian culture) and that some support them as a Turkic people (which in reality should read that most sources define them as a Turkic people which I've proven with references and can produce many more if needed). As for improvements to the article, more info. on the impact of Islam might be needed which is something I'm figuring out how to incorporate and the history and settlement section will have to be given subsections which is also something I will try to work out as well. Tombseye 18:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and improve Article needs a modest expansion and some infinitesimal modification. Amir85 16:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note: Major reviews do not concern declarations to keep or remove. Tony 12:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Status. I'm tempted to close this one without the FARC period. It certainly looks stable now and the nom appears frankly "pointish". Well-referenced and a very recent FA (our 1000th). Any new comments before closure? Marskell 09:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed status

Place more recent additions at top

[edit] Wikipedia

Article is no longer a featured article.

[edit] Review commentary

The article is unbalanced, the "Criticism and Controversy" section is the largest single section of the article and is topped off with a "Weasel words" tag. I know there are counterarguments to the critics in that section like mentioning the article in Nature magazine, but I still feel the article is unbalanced. I'm not too sure how much of it is criticism either, the subsection "Authors" barely deals with any criticism.

Smaller points include the tiny "funding" section, it's so minimal and mentions nothing of how the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia is funded, I'm not sure why it's there.

There are a handful of "citation needed" tags in the article, surely for a featured article, this should not be the case. An example of one of these reads:

Some of Wikipedia's editors have explained its editing process as a "socially Darwinian evolutionary process", but this description is not accepted by most Wikipedians.

This is an encyclopedia article about Wikipedia, what would a reader care about how some Wikipedian's perceive Wikipedia? Some Wikipedians are probably perceive it to be a Time Cube.

In general, this article does not represent the best of Wikipedia and is not of featured article standard. - Hahnchen 03:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Two sections: "Scientific analyses of Wikipedia" and "In popular culture" are very short, they should be either expanded or removed. CG 11:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ten days have passed, edit history shows numerous reverts, talk page shows no ongoing effort to improve the article, and there are numerous citation tags. Sandy 02:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concerns are neutrality (2d) and comprehesiveness (2b). Marskell 12:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove unlikely to be fixed Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per Jaranda. Rebecca 05:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove as above - lack of references and more.... RN 07:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove as above. And I don't like the navel-gazing, self-referential aspect. Tony 06:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Chancellor

Article is no longer a featured article.

[edit] Review commentary

Honestly, I find FA(R)C fairly inhospitable places, so I shall say what I mean to say and then likely leave the thing alone, apart from the odd response perhaps.

This article is somewhat the victim of circumstance (and sweeping constitutional change in the UK...) and is now rather out of date. Much was changed by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 which, although mentioned in the article somewhat vaguely a few times, is only really dealt with in a "current events" way in the Reform section. In fact, the effects of the Act are now being seen and it has long passed the parliamentary hurdles (with amendments). There are several other articles affected by these reforms and together with this one, they need a comprehensive seeing-to. It is short on references for much of what it says, and none of them are inlined to particular facts. None of them deal properly with an academic history of the office: the first is a text from 1868 which (I guess) documents the office holders rather than the detail of the office (it is hard to say from a single mention at the bottom) and the others mean to deal with the reforms which the article also has a go at. The sections which have long been tagged as needing attention do; the prose is not poor, but not crisp and the progress of the material is rather uneven. It also does not use 'summary style', although that particular method would be out of place in this article really (as it is in most). It seems that at present, and without significant re-working and inter-working, with other articles this no longer meets FAC standards. (As a side note, its FAC was cursory at best.) -Splash - tk 19:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If it's a victim of circumstance, it further suffers because the uninformed will have no idea. Not knowing the Lord Chancellor from the broad side of a barn, I read it and it seemed just fine. The writing level is good (even a touch ornate) and it appears comprehensive. But if it's out of date as you say than it probably shouldn't have the star now. The refs are definitely a problem; there is a lot of very obscure dating in this that's just begging for in-line cites.

Did you, by any chance, contact the initial nominator? Marskell 12:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Fails 2a. Here are random examples of why the whole article needs to be thoroughly copy-edited.
  • "and is, by convention, always a peer"—spot the redundant word. Is he, by convention, a man? If so, you might make that point somewhere, to justify the male pronouns.
  • "Some give the first Chancellor of England as Angmendus, in 605." Some what? Computers? Where's the reference?
  • Start of paragraph: "The Lord Chancellor's judicial duties also evolved through his role in the Curia Regis"—spot the redundant word.
  • Why are the simple, undated years blue?
  • "discharged the duties of the office until an appropriate replacement could be found." Spot the redundant word.

Tony 01:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I would add that I don't think this "fails" 2a. To the extent I find the writing off it's due to phrasing more appropriate to book form. For instance, "A further historical instance may be mentioned:" Here "Further," is sufficient. And there's some sentences that sound like legalese: "with the exception of the Lord High Steward, which office, as aforementioned, has generally been vacant since the 15th century." Marskell 08:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concerns are citations (2c) and whether the information is up-to-date (2b). Marskell 16:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. Sandy 22:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

what's been done thus far. Tony 23:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• For clarity, none of my mentioned issues have been dealt with, so my nomination to remove FA status stands. -Splash - tk 20:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Remove. Nothing happening on this one. Marskell 10:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove as per Marskell and my comments during the review. Tony 07:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Re content: did no-one notice User:Mhardcastle's edits on 16 July? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pointing that out. Mhardcastle has (I think) brought the article reasonably up to date. It does still lack any proper level of referencing though. -Splash - tk 00:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I left a more specific request for help at Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board. Sandy 00:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Looking again, yes, Mhardcastle did some good work. It's a shame about the citations because it's a good article. Unfortunately, per the consensus on 2C it should be removed. Marskell 10:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove as above. Tony 10:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - most unfortunate, but without citations, we're asking Wiki readers to "take our word for it." Sandy 00:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove as above. No refrerences, unexciting prose. Harmonica Wolfowitz 20:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sealand

Article is no longer a featured article.

[edit] Review commentary

There's a glaringly high amount of citations needed in this article, and in general it's a mess. SushiGeek 00:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Also Sealand is a country, not a micronation, and that should be corrected throughout the article. Insulting is intolerable. Watercool 09:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If you truly believe that, it would be in the best interest of the rest of Wikipedia if you refrained from editting micro"nation" articles. —Nightstallion (?) 09:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it isn't a FA, at least at its current point. However, due to recent events I think it should be given a month or so to improve, as it needs to be updated. Computerjoe's talk 11:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. If it's still as bad in two weeks, de-FA it. —Nightstallion (?) 09:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The prose needs a good audit. Here are examples.

• "post-war it was not until 1956 that the last full-time personnel were taken off HM Fort Roughs and marking of its position as a shipping hazard was left to Trinity House." It just a bit awkward/unrefined.
• "an interesting case study of how various principles of international law"—spot the redundant word.
• "UK" appears and is subsequently spelt out.
• "the court possessed no jurisdiction"—is there a less high-fallutin' word than "possessed"?
• "In 1978, while Bates was away, the "Prime Minister" of Sealand, Alexander G. Achenbach, and several German and Dutch citizens, staged a forcible takeover of Roughs Tower, holding Bates' son Michael captive, before releasing him several days later in the Netherlands." Too many commas—stop-start effect; re-organise.
• "thereupon"? Go simple and plain, please. Tony 02:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, a topic like this needs inline citations. Honestly I think this article should be removed as a FA. Cedars 17:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Main featured article criteria concern is citations (2c). Marskell 18:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unrecognized countries, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. Sandy 22:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

thus far. Tony 23:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong remove. A topic like this needs inline citations. In general, this article is not up to featured article standards. Cedars 06:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove as per Cedars; also fails 2a. Tony 13:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove: a critical lack of referencing (and a link farm). Sandy 19:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George II of Great Britain

Article is no longer a featured article.

[edit] Review commentary

These two immediately stand out:

• Does not exemplify 'our best work' (1)
• No inline citations (2c)

- FrancisTyers · 08:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. It needs greater depth and length, and inline citations. --Oldak Quill 10:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not in the voting process yet. But good points. :) - 139.222.127.232 10:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah well, It's changed since I last did this! :) --Oldak Quill 12:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Fails Criterion 2a. Here are examples.
  • "George II exercised little control over policy during his early reign, the government instead being controlled by ..." After the comma, it's awkward.
  • " He was the second British monarch of the House of Hanover, and the last British monarch to personally lead his troops into battle (at Dettingen in 1743). He was also the last British monarch to have been born outside of Great Britain." In the second sentence, pick the two redundant words.
  • "The Act of Settlement 1701 devised the British Crown to the Hereditary Prince's grandmother Sophia of Hanover if the then-ruling monarch, William III, and his sister-in-law, the Princess Anne of Denmark, both died without issue." "Devised"? "Without issue"?
  • "shortly after the demise of the Electress Sophia (d. 8 June 1714)"—that's a ridiculous euphemism for "death".

Please copy-edit the whole article thoroughly. Tony 03:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concerns are not Wikipedia's best work (1) and citations (2c). Marskell 16:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. Sandy 22:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Here is the compare since the article was nominated June 26. Negligible activity, no improvement to references or prose. Sandy 18:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove as per Sandy and my previous comments. Tony 13:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Java programming language

Article is no longer a featured article.

[edit] Review commentary

Not enough citations. Ideogram 08:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There are two many external links too, which should maybe be put in a separate article. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 08:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Criterion 2a is not met. Examples:
  • "compilers by compiling"
  • "Note that, although there's an explicit ..."—Please don't tell our readers what and what not to note.
  • "$20M"—New Zealand dollars? Which court gave the order?
  • "success at that goal"—"at"?
  • Some commas would make for easier reading.
  • "Although it is indeed possible"—Avoid "indeed" in this register.
  • "the burden of having to perform manual memory management"—Remove the three redundant words.

And much more. Please clean up the whole article. Tony 08:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concerns are citations (2c) and quality of writing (2a). Marskell 16:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Programming languages, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing. Sandy 22:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove three weeks, negligible edits, no change in citations and prose, no indication anyone is working on it. Sandy 03:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. Someone's had a poke around it, but none of the substantial problems has been addressed in all of this time. I notice a prominent "The above example merits a bit of explanation." Tony 02:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. This fails the criteria in 3 especially. I don't believe an article with large bullet point sections is in keeping with the style manual and the bullets are deployed even where not necessary (such as the criticism section). Shortish LEAD, lack of citations, and something of a link farm at the end. Marskell 12:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] C programming language

Article is no longer a featured article.

[edit] Review commentary

Not enough citations. Ideogram 08:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Good, but not featured. I believe it could be a good article, but it has to cite more sources to be featured. Also, I'm not entirely comfortable with how the article covers C. This is an encyclopedia article on C, not a tutorial. The "hello world" example should not be so long. 70.17.41.123 17:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comprehensive, and packed with useful information. But it sorely needs inline citations, both for some of the more controversial claims related to influence and usage, and for the history and philosophy sections. --Allan McInnes (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concerns are citations (2c) and encyclopedic style (5). Marskell 16:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Programming languages, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject C++. Sandy 22:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove three weeks, very few edits, almost no changes, no indication anyone is taking it on. The article needs to be referenced. Sandy 03:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove as per Sandy. In addition, the prose needs a lot of work; for such a complicated subject, our readers need utter clarity. Take the second half of the lead.

"C has also had a great influence on most other popular languages[1], especially C++ which was originally designed as an enhancement to C. It is distinguished for the efficiency of the code it produces, and is the most commonly used programming language for writing system software [2] [3], though it is also widely used for writing applications. Though not originally designed as a language for teaching, and despite its somewhat unforgiving character, C is commonly used in computer science education, in part because the language is so pervasive. Note that C# is a very different programming language.

• • It would be stronger without the "alsos".
  • "Great" might be better as "significant".
  • Comma after "C++" is required.
  • "distinguished for" better as "distinguished by", I think.
  • The second sentence is longish and needs to articulate the relationship between the three separate ideas. Ideas 2 and 3 are very close (contrastive), so why not: "C is distinguished by the efficiency of the code it produces; it is the most commonly used programming language for writing system software [2] [3], although it is widely used for writing applications."
  • Two "thoughs" in a row; two "commonly used"s.
  • "The language is so pervasive" is unclear; so is "somewhat unforgiving". Tony 02:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Good article, but lots of opinion and too much of a how-to. Has a lot of good parts, and the subject is close to my heart :). In addition to the above, I'll add a few random points:

1. "Maintenance" seems very opinionated ("drastically increases build times" [a comparison would be nice as well]).
2. "Although the list of built-in features C lacks is long, this has contributed significantly to its acceptance" without attribution, this is probably a POV violator (I agree with it though after using C++ for several years, but that is besides the point :))
3. The last paragraph of "Philosophy" is just too much of a how-to and an unneccesary reference to its popular cousin, C++.

RN 03:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellaneous commentary

For what it's worth, this article is a textbook example of a Wikipedia phenomenon which, if it hasn't been named, should be called the "too many cooks spoil the broth syndrome". Many, many editors who know something about C have added (or deleted) their favorite hot-button statements, with the inevitable result being an undisciplined mishmash. Someone needs to (and I've wanted to) mount a concerted cleanup effort, though of course this (a) will take a lot of time and effort and (b) is guaranteed to result in N tedious discussions with various of those hot-button editors who won't be happy with the way the coverage of their issues has been resolved. (But I'm merely observing here, neither apologizing nor complaining, and of course the situation here is little different from any number of other Wikipedia articles, plenty of which have managed to overcome these difficulties.) —Steve Summit (talk) 04:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Volkswagen Type 2

Article is no longer a featured article.

[edit] Review commentary

• Introduction is too brief and vague, it doesn't mention the specific models/variants at all.
• Many stubby paragraphs that only introduce a topic without discussing it.
• The "Variants" section is only a list and doesn't talk about each of these different types in detail.
• An almost complete lack of references (the two that are there are done improperly).
• Excess bolding of words.
• The article ends "open-endedly" at the end of the history section, leaving the reader to say "so what makes these cars special?" --SCHZMO ✍ 03:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concerns are LEAD (3a), comprehensiveness (2b), and citations (2c). Marskell 16:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. Sandy 22:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove—Not much activity since listing for review [[39]]. It passes 2a, IMV, but can someone fix things such as:
  • Grammar: "just like the Beetle has".
    • Sentence has been rearranged, improving grammar but not changing the basic content. -71.131.223.24 07:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • A snake to chop up: "Kombi, however, is not only the name of the passenger variant, but is also the Australasian and Brazilian term for the whole Type 2 family in much the same way that they are all called VW-Bus in Germany, even the pickup truck variations." Tony 02:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Holy shit—what a sentence ;). Marskell 16:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - the lack of references and insufficient lead is enough to warrant removal. Pagrashtak 01:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove lack of refs Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Is not even up to par for a good article. misses the FA mark by a mile. Karrmann 23:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove I must say I have been wondering what is this doing among FAs for a long time now, but I didn't want the one to blow the whistle. But now that even Karrmann says so, I feel free to say it loud :D Bravada, talk - 00:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States Electoral College

Article is no longer a featured article.

[edit] Review commentary

This article appears to have undergone some changes, or perhaps was made a featured article when standards differed.

Current issues:

• Introduction is too short.
• Article is poorly structured and needs substantial readability work.
• Patchy in its coverage. For example, mentions the Maine method, how long it's been used, and that it's also used by Nebraska, but does not mention what the Maine method is.
• There appears to be a brewing NPOV dispute.

--Barberio 23:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to emphasize the patchy in its coverage point (your third point). If I were to read this article with an interest in being elected as an elector, I would not be able to figure out the process. I think substantially more space should be devoted to discussing today's selection process, what qualifications are set for electors, how they are chosen, how they meet to cast their votes, etc., and substantially less to a series of pro and con articles. Indeed, a short, concise summary of pros and cons with good references should take less than 10% of the article.

As to other issues, I had no problem finding the discussion of what the Maine method is, and I think the NPOV issues being discussed on the talk page are subsidiary to the need to cut deeply in those sections in any case.

--Sam 21:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Re, the Maine Method, the article does discuss the Maine Method, but never actualy defines what the Maine Method is. Reducing the reader to having to guess what the Maine Method is from how it is discussed. --Barberio 12:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, except on the pro and con arguments, this article makes the reader work pretty hard throughout. I agree with Tony below that this should go to FARC. For a new successful FA, I would expect a heavy refactoring with a considerable change in emphasis. In particular, I'd want to see the whole pro and con discussion turned into a pithy summary; in present form, the pro and con section is virtually an article itself. Sam 11:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• This should go to FARC: the prose is substandard. Examples:
  • "The United States Electoral College is the electoral college"—Not a promising opening, and I see "electoral college" for a third time in the subsequent clause. Other repetitions too.
  • "[the College] ... votes every four years with electors from each state"—No it doesn't.
  • "Election of President of the United States and Vice President of the United States is indirect." This might have been better at the top, since it's a key concept necessary to understand the topic. But first, get rid of the repetition and add "the" (twice, please).
  • A few commas throughout would make it easier to read.
  • Stubby paragraphs.

It's pretty bad throughout. Tony 08:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted this: "By far, most of the electoral votes that would be a part of this compact, so far, were pledged to the Kerry in 2004 and Gore in 2000, and much of the interest in this plan has grown from the dissastisfaction with the 2000 election. But the plan could backfire: for example, if it had been in effect in 2004, when John Kerry lost both the "national popular vote" and the Electoral College vote, and Kerry had managed to win the Electoral College vote by winning Ohio, and nothing else changed, then this plan would have handed the victory to Bush, who won the "popular vote" handily."

There is simply no evidence presented that "much of the interest in this plan has grown from the dissatisfaction with the 2000 election." (News coverage has shown that the legislation has bipartisan cosponsors in many states.) Also, if the goal of the interstate compact is to make the winner of the national popular vote the president, the plan would not have "backfired" if Bush had been elected under it in the Ohio scenario described. It would have done precisely what was intended -- make the national popular vote winner the president.

[edit] FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concerns are LEAD section (3a), readability (2a), comprehensiveness (2b), and NPOV (2d). Marskell 12:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Message left on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. Sandy 01:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. A few paragraphs have been rewritten [[40]] since the article was listed for major review. This is a small proportion of the total text, and reveals gems such as: "Each state has as many electors as it has Members of Congress and Senators." Hmmm, how would 45 million Senators and Members representing California fit into just two chambers? I see what "electors" means now, but my overarching point remains. The rewritten and untouched prose is significantly below the required standard. Tony 13:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. Lack of comperhensiveness is significant. There is no discussion of how an individual elector is selected, how the rules for selecting electors are implemented every four years, or what the role of the political parties is in selecting electors. If someone wants to adopt this article and restore it, I would suggest a few sources:

• [41] (National Archives, which oversees the process nationally)
• [42] (a plain english language overview)
• The web sites for the political parties in each state (not on the national level); and
• the statutes for each state to see what the selection rules on a state-by-state basis.

There may be a good secondary source that has done some of these things as well. Sam 14:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. No improvement in the above deficiencies over the review period, and negligible edit activity. Overwhelming TOC, stubby short sections (3); prose problems, (2a); and not comprehensive (2b). Sandy 15:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linus Pauling

Article is no longer a featured article.

[edit] Review commentary

I am nominating this article for review due to a lack of references and the existence of incomplete facts. For example, the claim that Pauling was awarded his high school diploma after he was awarded his Nobel prizes. The other such example is the Marriage heading which is a two sentence paragraph. MyNameIsNotBob 10:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I did the tiniest bit of work on this but there are indeed problems. Only eight refs and seven of them in the alternative medicine section... I'm not knowledgeable with this though. Maybe contact the initial nominator? Marskell 07:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The criteria have changed sense 2004. I'll work on referencing this article. Thanks for bringing this review to my attention. Gentgeen 18:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Like a lot of the reviews without in-line refs, I "trust" this article having looked it over but I think it needs a going over by a person who can actually cite specific claims. Any work would be great Gent and we'll leave this review open for a while. Marskell 22:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• POV: "widely regarded as the premier chemist of the twentieth century"—I know chemists who would violently object to that statement. No reference, either.

perhaps "popularly", Pauling in the press and even in my organic textbook (M&B was #1?) would be cited as father of something - Modern Chemistry, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. As a kid I thought I would be ill with all the public adoration of LP (even though Pauling was extrememly politically controversial).--69.178.41.55 22:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Prose needs fixing throughout, e.g.,:
  • "Pauling was a pioneer in the application"—what's wrong with "Pauling pioneered the application"?
  • "moved his family to and from a number of different cities"—"to and from" is an odd expression here.
  • "Frances Lucille Pauling (1904-?)"—The question mark is not the standard way of indicating that a person hasn't yet died.
  • "and at one point his father wrote a letter to a local paper"—Tell us when, please; we're in the business of providing accurate information.
  • "Pauling failed to take some required American history courses"—spot the redundant word. Tony 02:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And it just lost it's intro pic. I think this should be taken to FARC as nothing is happening and the concerns are major rather than minor. Marskell 07:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Tony 08:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concerns are citations (2c) and the comprehensive of info under headings (2b and 3b). Marskell 15:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove unless the prose and POV are fixed. Tony 16:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove again, I object more to lack of references than to prose problems. Good prose can camouflage POV. FAs must have inline citations. There are mentions of POV on the talk page, and a request to reference the article going back to April 2005. For gosh sakes, the article is part of History of Science WikiProject: they should have been able to muster the resources to reference the article by now. Sandy 22:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vanilla Ninja

Article is no longer a featured article.

[edit] Major review commentary

I'm nominating this for FAR for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I've become too irregular an editor of Wikipedia as is, but I'm now leaving as a full-time user entirely. I am the only editor of this article, and as un-Wiki as it sounds, I wrote it (check the contributions). If I'm not here it's going to end up out of date (it is already, as it happens). Secondly, I'm very, very annoyed about the requirement for inline citations. When it was made an FA, it wasn't required. Seems like they are now. Well, I know I'm not going to do that, because I think a list of sites used suffices. Regardless, this article therefore is allegedly not referenced properly. Plus the fair use policy has some problem with the images. Feel free to maul my article, but it's never going to meet your FA criteria again. Remove, and thanks. Esteffect 12:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Remove as all images lack fair use rationales. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 19:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed all but one of the "fair use" images. Jkelly 04:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This does obviously have some problems with refs and pics. It's also a bit underweight. Este, why don't you look at the music section on WP:FA and see if there's something you can use as template there to bring this back up to standard. Marskell 10:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concerns are citations (2c) and image copyright status (4). Marskell 10:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove - insufficient citations and Image:Kivi-v-kivilaan.jpg lacks fair use rationale. Given the comments from Esteffect, this article seems unlikely to be improved to the featured standard. I understand that the band originally comprised four members, but it's confusing to the reader to have "Vanilla Ninja are a three-piece Estonian girl band..." as the first sentence with a picture of four girls right beside it. Pagrashtak 01:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - lack of citations, no improvement over a month. Sandy 16:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coca-Cola

Article is no longer a featured article.

[edit] Major review commentary

For these reasons:

• Doesn't comply to LEAD criteria.
• Not enough references.
• Biased article in POVness and in criticism/good points. Lincher 15:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment References seem adequate although some should in-line references should be converted to footnotes. Also please specify where there is biased and POV. Joelito (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• More reasons and answer :

  As per POVness :

  1. However, widespread outrage and boycotts after the announcement of the rollout led the company to restore the original drink, while keeping New Coke on the market.
  2. for the first eight months only an average of nine drinks were sold each day.
  3. thanks to a belief that carbonated water was good for the health.
  4. Goizueta claims that Woodruff endorsed it a few months before his death in 1985.
  5. As a publicity marketing strategy started by Robert W. Woodruff, the company presents the formula of Coca-Cola as one of the most closely held trade secrets in modern business that only a few employees know or have access to. In particular, the secret ingredient "7X" has long been touted an integral component of Coca Cola's formula though it has never been established what, if anything, the "X" refers to. It has been stated that Coca-Cola had employees mix the drink by numbers assigned to specific ingredients rather than by name, to avoid the possibility of employees reverse-engineering the recipe. However, experienced perfumers and food scientists — today aided by modern analytical methods — can easily identify the composition of food products, a fact that is further supported by the many cola flavorings and competing soft drinks like Pepsi. is not NPOV to me.
  6. Advertising for Coke is now almost ubiquitous, especially in southern areas of North America, such as Atlanta, where Coke was invented., what does that mean, ads are the same everywhere or they show the same amount of ads everywhere in the world?

• • Could there be citations for the history section?
  • There is also no relevancy for the link The Coca-Cola Company#History as it doesn't go into further details of the history but talks about WWII coca-cola.
  • There is also no relevancy for the link Coca-Cola Company#Criticisms as it doesn't go into further details of the criticisms but states the same thing.
  • Coca-Cola was the first-ever sponsor of the Olympic games, who says that? 1924 there was RBC read that [43].
  • Coca Cola Also took over sponsorship from nationwaide of Division 1 2 & 3 in English Football in 2004 (Now Known As Coca Cola Championship,League 1 & League 2) Coca-Cola has a long history of sports marketing relationships, which over the years have included several major sports leagues both in the United States and internationally. needs copyedit.
  • Too many red links. Lincher 16:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I suppose this article on MSNBC is quite relevant to this review. Presumably the nominator read it, bringing the issue to his/her attention... DJR (Talk) 16:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Sure, I have read it, though this nomination of the article on Coke was done back in July of 2004 which is not the article that is up now. It has changed in all and every aspect. I was mentionning more than their biased criticism, mentioned in the article and that is why I ask for a review. Anyway, if the article would be re-assessed for FA with the present criterias then it would simply fail. Lincher 20:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  Plus, I normally work on GA articles, it wouldn't even qualify for that. Lincher 20:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• I totally agree. The lead alone is woefully POV, and the fact that the page has got external sources referring it as overly critical should really send alarm bells ringing. Demote from me - defs. DJR (Talk) 20:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• (No idea what the FAR jargon is, so I'll go with FARC terminology here.) Keep as a featured article. The lead was not biased; read any account of the New Coke controversy or of urban legends surrounding Coke, and in the end, you will still be able to distill it to the two sentences which were originally removed from the lead. It's impossible to deny that Pepsi claimed it was superior to Coke based on taste testing. It's impossible to deny that Coke rolled out New Coke because of this challenge, because the executives themselves said so, and not a single account of the issue challenges this depiction. And there was widespread outrage over the New Coke rollout, although perhaps those of us who did not live in America at the time/weren't alive at all at the time probably won't understand it. (To get an idea of the outrage, pick up a decent book, such as one of those listed in the references, or just read the Snopes articles cited as sources. People were forming clubs like the Old Coke Drinkers of America - or something of that sort - and smashing cases of New Coke in the streets.) I've since rewritten the lead, redone the criticisms section (which did not need such a major pruning; all you had to do was cut the cruft, and you get the core of the issues - and anyone who thinks that including things like Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola, the major pesticide controversy over Coke in India that made headlines even here in Malaysia, or Mecca Cola, in the article constitutes bias needs to get their head checked). I will try to get citations for the history section, but that means I'll need to make another trip to the library (which isn't that near my home)...you'll need to give me at least two weeks for that. (And in any case, there's been a longstanding agreement on FARC that we wouldn't defeature articles with no references at all - this was only recently revoked, with significant opposition. There is/was something of a consensus as well that articles which collate references but don't have inline citations, and were promoted prior to the implementation of footnoting systems, should remain featured.) All in all, I see no reason not to maintain this article as an FA. Compared to other WP articles on Coke, it's actually the most neutral of all (probably because we dumped all the POV cruft from this article to those other ones). If this is defeatured for POV issues, then I'll finally see why people claim Wikipedia has a pro-Coke bias, because I can't see how the original article prior to the recent spate of edits due to the MSNBC article was significantly anti-Coke. It is not anti-Coke to mention a major court case against Coke, nor is it biased to mention major competition in the Arab world for Coke's ostensible pro-Israel policies, nor is it biased to mention (and refute) claims that Coke is bad for your health. IMO, if we actually have people complaining that the article is pro-Coke (as happened about a month ago - the revision then was almost the same as the one prior to the recent controversy) and anti-Coke, we're probably rather neutral on this. (Oh, and it's not external sources - it's just MSNBC. For all we know, they themselves might not be exactly neutral on this, although this is more of a point about how we can't assume something is right just because someone said it than a point about MSNBC being biased, which it likely isn't.) Johnleemk | Talk 10:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

John, see Wikipedia:Lead section on how and what a lead section is. It is a balanced summary of the entire article body contents. Criticisms should constitute a sentence at most in the lead section, it is just once section of many, every company has criticisms, even your favorite company, why are you making such a big deal over it, do you not like the company? The MSNBC article is accurate, the article was a screed against Coke and a discredit to Wikipedias claim to neutrality. -- Stbalbach 02:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What are you getting at? If you're insinuating that I haven't been informed of the policies and guidelines in question, I have been since they were established and publicised. What you're missing is that you haven't given examples of how the lead as it stands is biased. You have not given any sound reasoning for your suggestion that criticism should be limited to just one sentence in the lead; if anything, this would constitute a bias in favour of the company. 20% of the article is currently about criticisms of the drink (a reasonable amount, considering the numerous and prolific urban legends related to the drink's ostensible health effects), but a three-paragraph lead should have only one sentence about criticism? Smells like pro-Coke POV to me. Anyone who has been remotely familiar with my involvement in the article since 2004 knows that I have been accused on more than one occasion of being a pro-Coke POV pusher, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. And does it matter whether I like the Coca-Cola company or not? What does this have to do with my argument? In the first place, why should I have to like the company? If anyone is having a bias here, I dare say it is you. Johnleemk | Talk 05:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• This article needs a good gutting, which I'm giving it now. But there are some things I'm not in a position to fix. Take the "International appeal" section; for all practical purposes, Coca-cola's only major competitor as a drink is water. Yet this section spends far more time talking about countries where, at one point or another, it isn't the bestselling drink. This misleads the reader about Coke's dominating international influence. There isn't enough "meat" here to justify featuring the article. About 15% of the article is editorializing. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. The article was featured around Jul 25 2004. here is what it looked like. IMO the article has not changed much (except some anti-Coke activist who hijecked it while no one was paying attention). If it was up for FA vote today it would never pass, in its old state, or todays condition. I think it should be delisted. -- Stbalbach 01:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • That's activists; there are far too many anti-Coke POV pushers out there to deal with. And considering no reasonable argument has been presented for defeaturing this article (excess detail on criticisms has been dealt with; there is no consensus on defeaturing articles with insufficient inline citations, and defeaturing an article with a clear and ongoing effort to deal with the problem would appear to violate the consensus that has been built among editors intimately involved in the defeaturing process over the past months). There have been only two arguments presented for defeaturing, neither of which apply. I would like to see a detailed explanation of why they do apply, because as far as I'm concerned, it seems me and Ryan Delaney are the only ones who are reading the current version of the article, with everyone else stuck on the version before we rewrote it. Johnleemk | Talk 05:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree major changes have happened since I asked for them so the FA status should stay.

I still think there aren't enough citations (though not a good criteria to de-feature)

There are inline external links that should be added to the Notes and references section.

It is more NPOV than it has been before.

A tad too many redlinks.

Good work you wpdians who worked so hard on the article. Lincher 15:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Demote - I just went through the first section of the article - "History" - with the intention of adding {{fact}} tags all over the place. However, closer inspection unearthed lines and lines of what can only be described as poor English. I appreciate that lots of work has gone into this article and lots of editors have been improving its POVness, but the amount of changes I ended up making without the intention of making any was disturbing. It has been said several times before - if this article, in its current state, came to WP:FAC, it would not stand a chance. If taken on the basis of the work done and commitment of its editors, it should remain an FA. However, if that was the universal basis for decisions then one hell of a lot of articles would become featured. Featured articles should represent the very best content on Wikipedia, and the moment an article slips beneath the standard expected it should be demoted. At the moment, this article definitely does, and it is something more inherent than surface text. If it deserves it, it will be able to quickly re-obtain featured status through WP:FA. I personally feel that all featured articles should have to be re-submitted annually in order to conform to ever-increasing base standards. DJR (Talk) 17:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to elaborate, I believe the article fails on the following WP:WIAFA criteria:

1 - in its current form, definitely does not "exemplify the very best work of Wikipedia"

2a - as I have stated above, the quality of English in many places is not great.

2b - going through the article, there are several hidden messages regarding omitted information

2c - all of the "citation needed" tags need to be addressed.

I really do not see the harm in demotion - if the article regains featured status then it will then thoroughly deserve it. DJR (Talk) 18:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for building a reasoned argument for defeaturing based on comprehensiveness and language. I do not think language is an issue; as far as I can ascertain, this problem is confined to only the history section, and it's not a very major problem. Many of the {{fact}} tags appear to be based on a failure to take the whole article into context; it doesn't make sense to tag a particular sentence with {{fact}} when everything in that whole paragraph is corroborated by a couple of footnotes at the end of the same paragraph. (I've removed the apparently invalid ones.) As I said before, there has been a strong consensus built only very recently among those involved in defeaturing not to defeature an article as long as it is clear that there is ongoing work on the article. (The main problem with FAs is not that they do not meet the FA criteria anymore, but that they don't have anyone actively interested in bringing them up to par. To avoid defeaturing articles under active maintenance, FARC enjoined nominations filed prior to a determination of whether anyone was actively interested in improving the article back to FA standard. Since FAR is essentially a combination of FARC with peer review for FAs, I assume the same requirements are in effect.) As a result, I don't think a FARC nom should be filed as long as it is clear that work is ongoing; this major review can remain open for some time still. It is not mission critical to defeature FAs with active work ongoing, especially when they are being overhauled. The two main issues - comprehensiveness and citations (the latter being a questionable removal criteria) - will be very easily addressed within two or three weeks when I can get my grubby hands back on Pendergrast's book and any other books on Coke/Pepsi my library might have. (If the concern is that this will take too long, not to brag but I have gotten newly created articles to FA status within a week of creation, and also successfully rewritten several FAs nominated for removal in the past before the FARC nomination expired. Coca-Cola is a relatively straightforward topic as long as the various gossip issues regarding the company are kept out, so I think a good weekend's work would be enough, even if I worked alone.) Johnleemk | Talk 18:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the important thing here is that this article does not leave review with the status of "featured article" unless it deserves that status. Wikipedia now has over 1000 featured articles, and it is harrowingly important that this unique status is not trivialised by sub-standard articles. Assuming you do bring it up to scratch, then fine. However, I am not sure I agree with a convention to avoid demoting a sub-standard article simply because "there is ongoing work on it". Featured status is the pinnacle of Wikipedia, and that pinnacle is undermined by articles that have a de facto title that, de jure, they should not hold. If they later made good enough to deserve the status then as I said, it is not difficult to get them re-instated. DJR (Talk) 20:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This also has to do with the fact that users in general will go for FA first thing first without considering other avenues. The Good article status would be nice for the article but considering demoting it is too frustrating for people who work on the FAC. If there were other level of achievement in the articles progression then it wouldn't mind being kicked a notch down but as there is only FA and nothing else thus leaving old FA articles the way they are and not bothering to reconsider their nomination. It would be nice to see articles fluctuate between levels. Even the PR isn't necessary anymore when these articles have achieved such status as the best being FA. Lincher 20:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Goes back to my annual review idea really... IMHO, it should be compulsory in order to preserve the integrity of the status. The best articles wouldn't take two seconds to pass, while articles such as these are filtered out and improved by brute force. That gonna have to happen in the future. DJR (Talk) 20:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delist per other users' reasons and too many redlinks, poor writing and cluttered images. -- getcrunkjuice 02:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note: Major reviews do not concern declarations to keep or remove. Tony 12:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It should then be listed in the FARC since people have started voting on keeping or removal. Lincher 17:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not use colors as it is a bit abusive and breaks the flow of reading.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lincher (talk • contribs).

I used red to alert reviewers to a significant procedural misunderstanding; there's nothing abusive about it. An article should go through a major review before being listed as a FARC, if at all. The purpose of this is to allow time for contributors to address the concerns raised here, and thus to minimise the number of FARCs. Tony 09:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

FA criteria concerns are LEAD section (3a), citations (2c), and POV (2d). Marskell 10:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Also image status (4). Pagrashtak 21:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove per all of the above, unaddressed during the FAR. Sandy 12:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Remove—2a. Here are examples.
  • "whose distinctive shape have become a part of the drink's branding"—ungrammatical.
  • "as a major soft drink first in the United States and later around the world."—Where are the commas?
  • "this was removed a long time ago as health regulations were tightened. Nevertheless, Coca-Cola has been criticized for its possible negative health effects, with many urban myths surrounding it." What's the logic of "Nevertheless"? What does "it" refer to? (Coca-Cola? If so, I'm confused.)
  • "heavily-publicised"—No hyphens after -ly words.
  • "The most famous of these is Diet Coke, which has become a major diet cola, but others exist, such as Cherry Coke." Does "but" contradict the previous statement? It should.

Not good enough. Tony 13:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. This is at time but I'd like a few more comments before closing. The LEAD has been expanded, for instance, while I'm not noticing any remaining fact requests. I'll make a note on the talk and maybe we can wait two more days. Marskell 14:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• (Weak) Remove There are several image problems, so it fails criterion 4:
  • Image:CocaCola.gif, Image:Newcoke.jpg, and Image:Diet Coke FOOTBALL.jpg have no fair use rationale.
  • Image:Camel-3.jpg has no source.
  • Image:Cokebottles.jpg can be replaced with a free alternative, which invalidates the fair use claim.
  • Image:Shark tale coral cola.PNG has no fair use rationale and the use of the {{logo}} tag is questionable.

I've listed my remove as weak, as I haven't read the article to see if it fails any other criteria. If these problems are fixed or the images removed, count my vote as neutral. Pagrashtak 21:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Humphrey Bogart

Article is no longer a featured article.

[edit] Review commentary

Previously nominated at Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Humphrey Bogart/archive1, but the main points raised related to a lack of references, due to the fact that the article was written before this was a requirement.

I believe it needs to be reviewed for the following reasons :

1. Insubstantial lead paragraph. The "overview" section, which I think is intended as a "de-facto" lead section, goes into too much detail of his "iconic" status so it would be unsuitable as an article summary. Therefore a lead needs to be worked from scratch.
2. Too many headers and subheaders. Use of film titles as subheaders creeps towards POV.
3. Not structured very well. The oddly titled "Bogart parties" section falls in the middle of discussion of his acting career.
4. The years from approximately 1942 to 1952 - quite a substantial chunk of his career - is discussed only in relation to his marriage to Lauren Bacall, and even so is barely covered, with most of the section related to his personal life. There is a "request for expansion" link in the middle of the text ("Later career") - hardly inspires confidence that this is the "best of Wikipedia".
5. Some of the writing style could be tightened to give it more of a "news report" (encyclopedic) tone, as some of it is colloquial, anecdotal and conversational in tone. There are other sections where the writing is too blunt and rather than flow from one idea to the next, there are several very choppy sections where consecutive sentences and paragraphs jump from from unconnected point to the next unconnected point. There are some POV issues with specific words used that could be substituted for something more neutral. example a couple of performances are described as "subtle" and unless we know who called them subtle, can only assume that the author of this article did so.
6. Images - Image:Bogart stamp.jpg being a postage stamp, does not qualify as fair use and should be removed (IMO). Image:Humphrey Bogart - 1955 - The Left Hand of God.jpg, Image:Thebigsleep.jpg and Image:Casabl meetrick.jpg are either incorrectly tagged, or do not provide a sources or fair use rationales. This leaves only one image (Image:Humphrey Bogart by Karsh (Library and Archives Canada).jpg with a correctly detailed image description page.
7. A lot of unsourced material, (or at least not sourced to the present standard). This alone is not reason enough for its featured article status to be removed, but is something that could and should be looked at as part of a review. Rossrs 14:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Another one with very substantial issues. This comes very close to hagiography. At the least perhaps the section headers could be rationalized. I'll try and have a go at that myself. Marskell 12:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Marskell, are you still planning to work on it? The Table of Contents is crazy-making. Sandy 22:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Promises, promises huh. I'll try in a day or two and move it to FARC at the same time to accelerate it. Marskell 18:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I replaced two of the unfree images w freely-licensed ones. Jkelly 22:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concerns are LEAD section (3a), comprehensiveness (2b), writing style (2a), and images (4). Marskell 12:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove—None of the issues raised in the review has been satisfactorily addressed. Here's what's been done, or not ... [44] Tony 13:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - Problems not addressed, per diff above. Sandy 01:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - Without even reading the article, I see an insufficient lead, images claiming fair use without rationale, an image with a bad tag, and insufficient inline citations. Pagrashtak 05:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Henson

Article is no longer a featured article.

[edit] Review commentary

I noticed the article is rather short (i.e. possibly not comprehensive) and desperately lacks any references, not to mention inline citations, footnotes, etc. Also, the Kermit sculpture image has no copyright information and the three fair use images use the old {{fairuse}} tags when they should use more specific ones, and do not provide rationale. In addition, I feel the ==Early work== part is too short to be a separate section. Todor→Bozhinov 20:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Remove No references? But then, it was one of the earlest FAs. But still, needs to be fixed. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 00:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Major reviews are not votes. It is a place to recognize FA criteria that the article does not currently meet. Joelito (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. This one goes all the way back to '03. Not even close to FA standard. Marskell 12:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concerns are citations (2c) and comprehensive (2b). Marskell 15:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delist per my nomination. Far from satistying the current FA criteria. Todor→Bozhinov 19:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Can we quickly delist this one, obviously one of the worst of our FAs Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist almost no lead, one-sentence paragraphs throughout, not referenced, many red links, visually unpleasing and difficult to read. Sandy 02:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King James Version of the Bible

Article is no longer a featured article.

[edit] Major review commentary

My main beef with this article is that none of the sources are cited. This was brought to attention by an editor who placed a fact tag on the criticism section. It seemed unfair to require a citation for that seciton, when nothing else in the article was cited. Then I realized, a FA just cannot get away with not citing its sources. --Andrew c 03:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There's an interesting question underlying this. What's the usual practice for older FAs that may not meet standards arrived at by more recent consensus? When you say "cited" here, you really mean "footnoted". It's perfectly possible to cite sources in a general way without footnotes. This is, in fact, what print encyclopedias do -- I've never seen a footnote in one. My impression is that we use them here for the sake of credibility since that's often called into question. That may not have been the case back in 2004 when this article became an FA. So-- do we go through all older FAs lacking footnotes and review their status? Or just address those that come to our attention? TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I think to insure everything is verifiable, we should have a very strict standard in regards to citing sources (because wikipedia can be edited by anyone, we don't have the prestige and 'trust' that print encyclopedias have earned). And if that means loosing a whole slew of FAs, so be it. If the articles have references, it shouldn't be terribly hard for a group of editors to track down the books and go through adding citations. But I honestly do not feel that an article that does not have inline citations can qualify for a FA. GA, possibly.--Andrew c 04:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, the consensus had emerged previously that if the refs are there in a References section, an older FA will not be automatically defeatured for not having footnotes. There's a thread open about this on the talk page right now. Marskell 08:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Which talk page? TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
        • The FAR talk page under "FARC Consensus re: sources". Marskell 09:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Although that consensus was based on a previous consensus at WP:FARC. The idea is, when all of a sudden FAs required inline citations, almost no FAs actually had them. Most had sources, and those that didn't were urged to add them and later culled, but inline cites are (as of right now) only a requirement for new FAs. Obviously, though, it's better to have inline cites than not. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 13:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concern is lack of citations (2c). Marskell 14:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Plus the writing (2a). I say Remove unless someone can go through it to fix the stubby paragraphs and otherwise copy-edit it.

• • "has had a profound impact on English literature as a whole"—spot the three redundant words in this opening sentence.
  • "are replete with inspiration derived from"—can we go plain and simple; this borders on the pretentious (sorry to be blunt).
  • "the majority of extant texts of the time"—as soon as I see reference to "the majority of", rather than "most", I feel like seeing the numbers.
  • "King James Version", referred to as a term, appears in both italic and roman face.
  • "It" is a problem in the final para of the lead.
  • "And remain(ed) so" appears twice in three sentences.

Tony 02:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Reluctant delist References are too important to ignore. Even if an article is well written, if it's not referenced, we don't know if it's outdated, POV, etc. Although many editors have been involved with the article since it was nominated for FAR, it doesn't seem there is anyone who will take on the job of referencing the article. Sandy 22:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

What happened here? It got its featured article status removed without a consensus in the talk page? Is this normal practice? Where do I go to propose that its star back, as it now has scads of sources cited? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peerage

Article is no longer a featured article.

[edit] Major review commentary

Article no longer meets FA criteria. - FrancisTyers · 11:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain why it no longer meets FA crteria, it's rather ok for one of the older FAs out there. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

These two immediately stand out:

• Does not exemplify 'our best work' (1)
• No inline citations (2c)

- FrancisTyers · 10:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Francis. —Nightstallion (?) 11:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

So do I. In addition, it needs a good copy-edit (2a). Here are examples, taken at random:

• • "A hereditary peer is a peer whose dignity may"—repetition.
  • "Writs of summons summon an individual to Parliament, in the old feudal tradition, and merely imply the existence or creation of an hereditary peerage dignity, which is automatically inherited, presumably according to the traditional mediæval rules (male-preference primogeniture, similar to the succession of British crown)." Unwieldy snake, with "summons summon" repetition.
  • "a peerage dignity continues to exist"—Remove last two words as redundant.
  • "In former times, peerage dignities were often forfeit by Acts of Parliament,"—Vague chronological reference. Same here: "Hereditary peers were all once entitled to sit in the House of Lords,"—Once?

Tony 12:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concerns are whether it represents our best work (1) and citations (2c). Marskell 10:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delist - there has been only one edit since the article was nominated for FAR: no movement, no improvement, not FA quality. Sandy 22:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove as per Sandy. Tony 02:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Systemic bias on the United Kingdom. What about other monarchies? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] H.P. Lovecraft

Article is no longer a featured article.

[edit] Major review commentary

I really hate bringing this up, but this is just not good enough... The intro is short, the whole article is pretty messy... --UVnet 20:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Please note that the rules require the criterion/criteria that are at issue to be stated at the top. I guess it's 2a; any others? Tony 16:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur...A lot can be spun off into daughter articles, like the list of places featured in his stories. This needs a good clean-up. The Disco King 21:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's come to a consensus re: what should be done. Some suggestions:

• • Extraneous detail, like the house he was born at, etc., should be removed
  • Lead must be expanded
  • IMHO, more information on his works and less reaction. Having never read Lovecraft, most of the analysis was incomprehensible to me.

Any other suggestions? The Disco King 15:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments—Here's a snake that our poor readers will have to navigate through: "When Lovecraft was three, his father became acutely psychotic at a hotel in Chicago, Illinois where he was on a business trip and was brought back to Butler Hospital in Providence, where he remained for the rest of his life." There are others.

Slightly awkward usage: "His grandfather also stirred young Howard's interest in the weird by telling him"—"the weird"? It's weird! And: "accommodations which were much smaller and less comfortable".

The text needs a good massage to make it nice and easy and clear for our readers. Why do the references at the bottom lack publishers and dates? These items need to be findable, both for credibility and for the practical reason that readers may wish to consult them. Tony 16:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concerns are whether it is well written (2a) and comprehensive (2b). Marskell 14:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Remove, (2a), I couldn't get beyond the first section, and am surprised that the prose wasn't fixed during the lengthy review process. Sandy 13:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Remove, (2a): per above comments. Excessive details should be removed and the lists under "Adaptations" section need to be in a separate article. --BorgQueen 15:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Again, I contacted initial nominator without reply. The TOC is a mess to begin with. Too much extraneous detail in body but an insufficient LEAD. This has enough raw info for a good page on the topic, but it's sloppy at present. Marskell 13:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hero of Belarus

Article is no longer a featured article.

[edit] Major review commentary

Criterion 2a is no longer satisfied, if it ever was, and the article needs a major audit for language and structure. In particular, I noted the following problems as representative of broader issues that need to be addressed if this is to remain a FA.

• There are stubby paragraphs and stubby sections.
• What is "economic excellence"?
• There are many redundancies; e.g., "seven recipients still living today" (still and today?), an idle "various", "Photo of ..." in the caption, which is pretty obvious, and much more.
• Wrongly located "only".
• "The title was created by the Belarus Supreme Soviet on 13 April 1995"—we're told twice at the top.
• Unclear meaning of italic formatting.
• Wrongly formatted bullets (it's a single sentence, so should be formatted accordingly—or is it?).

For a FA, it is of questionable comprehensiveness (2b): nothing about the political/social context of the award, and whether it has equivalents in other ex-Soviet countries. How is it different from the Soviet-period awards?

Samirat: "... still living today" is perfectly valid. While it may be slightly redundant, it doesn't sound redundant, and is not at all incorrect. Any problem is purely technical, and rather irrelevant. Some of the paragraphs are rather stubby, it's true, so I think FARC is not out of the question, but many of the critiques are critical to the point of being ridiculous.

Tony 15:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I would move it to FARC, few refs, rather stubby, and missing sections. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the idea is that it goes to FARC only after its two-week major review. Correct me if I'm wrong. Tony 13:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and move it. Given how FA's have changed in nearly over a year, I think that what I done here is not enough for what is being asked for today. And admitedly, I cannot find much about this title, given that Belarus is a country that does not have much good information on small subjects like this. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

I quickly moved it to FARC per the request of Zscout370 who is the writer of this article in IRC, and the review is very unlikely to be fixed I would vote Remove now because of that. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Remove for now. As stated before, there is a lot more information that FA's need now that I cannot provide with this article. The English sounds weird, and that is my fault. The article is a bit disorganized, but that is my fault there too. It was good while it lasted, but I am not upset at it being demoted, at least it will still be on the Wiki. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Remove as per above, including Zscout, who has graciously agreed that the article does not meet current FA standards. Tony 09:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll probably spruce it up now and see if it works for WP:GA. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per Tony. Far from being 'our best work'. Todor→Bozhinov 15:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Space Race

Article is no longer a featured article.

[edit] Major review commentary

Even though I'm still not convinced how well this FAR process will work, let's give it a try. As a self-identified space nut, I am appalled at the condition of the Space Race article. Since this competition between the Soviet Union and the USA resulted in the jump starting of manned space exploration, this article should have plenty of fascinating history to present. Instead, the article is broken up into clunky, disjointed little sections that have little relation to one another. In addition, the article glosses over way too much history while also devoting too much space to more speculative matters. For example, the section "Cold War roots of the Space Race" is only two short paragraphs long while the section "More "space races" to come?" (which covers possible space competition between the USA, Russia, and China) is way too long and full of unsourced speculation. Finally, the article is almost totally lacking in references. For an article which features so many technical aspects of space exploration, detailed references are a must. So, in short, the issues to be resolved here are: 1) Improve prose (i.e., doesn't meet the "well written" FA criteria); 2) Expand sections as needed (i.e., doesn't meet the "comprehensive" FA criteria): 3) Insert references (i.e, doesn't meet the "factually accurate" FA criteria). Best, --Alabamaboy 13:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

FAC nomination from Feb 2005

• Comment - I started doing a bit of copyediting, but it felt a bit futile when there are bigger problems with the article that need to be addressed. I suggest we prioritize: First, sections must be expanded and references added; then, copyediting. The Disco King 15:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the few references the article had (all three of them :-). I should note, though, that even these three references are incomplete.--Alabamaboy 16:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Judging by the talk page, the article's main contributors aren't active there any more...There really haven't been any comments in nearly two months. Does anybody have access to any of the references listed at the bottom? The Disco King 16:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Finding sources for those poorly-sourced quotes may be difficult - I tried to Google them, and most of the results were Wikipedia mirrors or noted that they got the quote from WP. The Disco King 19:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• I linked the FAC nomination. I had some concerns there about the date used for the end of the space race that weren't ever really addressed that I recall. But sfahey had consulted all of the listed references and since there are so many, I'm not sure we can say it fails the referencing requirement just because they weren't done as footnotes. - Taxman ^Talk 16:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • "I'm not sure we can say it fails the referencing requirement just because they weren't done as footnotes"--that was my thought. It's a good example of an old page where ample reading was obviously done and I think we can trust the info. I think the TOC needs rationalizing, so perhaps start with that. Marskell 17:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I've reworked the headings per WP:MOS - some were unnecessarily long and complex. I merged a few tiny sections together, and renamed "More "space races" to come?" as "Recent events" (which I'm not too sure about). The Disco King 17:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • An improvement. Perhaps move the timeline to its own page? Marskell 18:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Probably a good idea, most of the information is duplicated elsewhere on the page and the rest isn't particularly interesting. The Disco King 18:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Done. See it here. The lead is verbatim from the first paragraph of Space Race right now, but I'll try to tweak it. The Disco King 18:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Good job. I moved the note to the top and put deaths under legacy. The TOC, anyhow, seems more sensible and browsable now. Marskell 18:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

• Remove. I left a note with the still active original nominator without reply. Disco made some improvements to structure but there's been little movement on the page since. Ref problem hasn't budged. Marskell 15:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. The lack of reference to either Red Star in Orbit (Oberg) or ...the Heavans and the Earth (McDougall) make me worry about the sourcing. These are staple texts. Mackensen (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. No changes, references are all too important. Sandy 13:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Too many issues to remain a FA. --Alabamaboy 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pages over-lapping merger of FARC and FAR

[edit] Hinduism

No longer a featured article

I am regretfully nominating this article for FARC. It fails the FA criteria in many ways:

• Lack of Wiklinking. A quick glance at the article will show scores of religous terms that are used without any sort of wiklinking. Example: Tantra section has terms like 'Pranayam', 'Yantra', etc. without wikilinking. This problem is repeated in other sections.
• Lack of quality references. I do not see a single reference in "Origins of Hinduism" section. Criticism section has atleast two statements that requires citation. I can keep going - basically, people are more interested in adding information pertaining to their view on the matter without worrying about scholarly aspect of the article. At the time of nominating, the articles reference section is vandalized (has 400+ references). However, in its normal form it seriously lacks good referencing.
• Incorrect referencing. The reference by Vanita R. should not even be in the article anymore because all the text that was pertaining to that reference is (for some mysterious reason) no longer present in the article. I know this because I was the one who had read that journal article and added the relevant text during the previous FARC. This makes me wonder how many other references are present in the bibliography but without the relevant text?

* Prose quality degraded. Again, lot of material has been added over the months with very inconsistent quality. For example, Dualism section has statements like "Bhakti is the only way for liberation." What does that mean? Why is it stated in a factual manner? --Blacksun 15:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

*Strong Keep. This article survived a FARC vote in March 2006 (see this link, since that FARC archive has been deleted in the creation of this new FARC). The article also plenty of references and I don't see the "lack of Wikilinking" refered to above. While it would be nice for more of the references to be in the inline style, that is a minor issue and not worthy of removal.--Alabamaboy 15:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I gave some examples for the wikilinking not present in the article. If you did not see it, I would suggest using "Find" option in your browser. I have also added fact tag next to the most obvious lack of references. Also, the article in its present form is very different than what it was in March after rejection of FARC. I should know it. Also, I may have deleted the archive by mistake while creating this. I apologize in that case. --Blacksun 15:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Its interesting to note that Blacksun was one of the strongest defenders in the last FARC. Would like to know why not improve the article to its previous self than nominate here... -- Lost 15:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Response I have gone back to it but it just gets reverted within few days. I have asked for help on various project pages too. Eventually I have came to realize that maybe what it needs is start from scratch. Maybe I am wrong - which is fine as long as it gets the attention that I think it needs. --Blacksun 16:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that about Blacksun and it really adds to what he/she says about the article. However, I'm just not comfortable with reverting for the reasons stated by Blacksun (references, prose quality, and so on). That said, the article does seem to be suffering from a lot of editorial conflict and, as a result, I'm not comfortable with the accuracy of some sections of the article. If someone could point out some instances where the article is not accurate, I'd be willing to reconsider my vote.--Alabamaboy 16:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. And trust me, I will be happy if the FARC fails based on improvements done and useful criticism received. Some editors have already started working on many of the issues that I mentioned and have been raised on talk pages since the FARC. It is unfortunate that sometimes it takes a FARC to ignite community response. I will go through and add more examples of what I think needs fixing. --Blacksun 04:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I just went through the article again - got rid of some text that was suffering from lack of wikilinking and added a whole lot of citaction needed tags. I do not think any of these citation needed tags are trivial. I also believe strongly that the article would never be granted a FA status without these citations. If someone actually bothers to do proper research to rectify these (instead of finding some random websites) then I have no issues with the article. One of the things that was silently agreed during the previous FARC was that people will improve the citation quality in the article. However, as soon as FARC was dealt with some editors chose to redo much of the text and ignore the citation requirement much less improve the existing ones. In fact, much of the existing cites were made useless. --Blacksun 20:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delist. After going through the references, as Blacksun suggested, I am seriously concerned about their reliability. While I still think this is a good article, it doesn't meet the FA criteria so I'm changing my vote.--Alabamaboy 18:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delist. Article is a mess and needs serious refactoring to bring some brevity. Too many links to subarticles. For instance, section "Hindu sacred texts" should be four paragraphs with links to the more detailed articles. Many other problems, e.g. four "citation needed" tags, too many for an FA. All your problems will go away if you shorten the article considerably to keep it manageable. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Same as Alabanaboy. Issues raised are not very serious and can be corrected easily, if any. I have already provided three references. so, no there are not four "citation needed" tags anymore.- Holy Ganga ^talk 17:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work - I have added about eight more tags that I believe require citations. Please go through it when you get time. --Blacksun 14:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I am working on it. Regards, -Holy Ganga ^talk 15:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delist. As per Blacksun and Samsara. Article is unstructured and reads like a memorandum of POVs. How is Taoism and Zoroastrianism related to Hinduism? Anwar 19:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about whether you know this...but when you vote on an FARC you must at least provide us with something to fix the article with...thus can you please tell us where the structure displeases you and where the POVs are? Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Stating agreement with previous comments is perfectly acceptable. In fact, it is conventional to reply in this way to indicate agreement. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Except that he does it on all India related articles. I am not flattered to see him agreeing with me because I suspect our intentions are far from being parallel. --Blacksun 20:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand me, it's just that I suspect Anwar hasn't even read the entire article before voting. However, I could be wrong... Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep A lot of FAs promoted before 2005 have developed plenty of issues because of rising standards. The issues must be resolved using WP:FAR.I disapprove of going to FARC the moment someone notices a series of problems - there needs to be more emphasis on upgrading FAs, or we'll keep losing a bunch of FAs each year. Editors must be given a few weeks to repair this article. Rama's Arrow 03:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

A) it has nothing to do with when it was promoted or not promoted. Most of the information in the article has been added in past 5 months. B) Their has been a series of attempts made over the past few months in the talk pages. This is not something that was done on a whim. I have not seen any editor try to address these issues in months. You are a smart guy who has written many FA articles - do you believe this is FA quality in its current form? I am willing to take back my objections if you think you can address the issues in appropriate time. This article really needs work done by an editor like you. --Blacksun 03:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and improve Per Rama's Arrow -- emphasis should be on maintaining quality rather than on removing the FA tag -- how exactly does the latter help the article, or indeed the Wikipedia project?? I also object to the "you are a smart guy" comment. That editor's FA-article-building work has been constructive, which is more than can be said about this effort. Anyway, herz hoping that this exercise will rally interest and result in improvements being effected. ImpuMozhi 01:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

?? what exactly are you objecting? I definitely meant what I said - that I respect his capabalities and if he were to tell me that he is going to work on the article, I would withdraw my nomination immediately. And regards to everything else you have said, their has been very little improvement done till now. It is not the criteria of FA tag to "help" the article. If the article does not meet the stringent requirements it should not be FA. Go through the citations in the note and tell me if they are quality citations. Respond to the issues raised instead of talking about other things. --Blacksun 06:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

And I think that the last FARC was in many regards a "Keep and Improve" vote. That was what more than two months ago? Why is it going to be different this time? Bandaid solutions like googling and using the first link as a citation will not work. --Blacksun 08:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and improve It's on my watchlist now and (when I get back to constant editing on Wiki after my short break) I'll keep an eye on the history to stop vandalism from seeping in. It's an article of quite large proportions, very informative too, I think the issues mentioned by Blacksun can be fixed. Just give it a week or two... Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Remove and rework As per supporters of removal. Article desperately needs a thorough renovation. Amir85 11:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Remove and improve as above --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 17:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Status This needs closing but hasn't received comments in twelve days. Any last comments from people about whether concerns have been addressed? Marskell 10:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No - the concerns regarding references still remain. I am not sure if anyone is working on them or not. Have not seen much movement. --Blacksun 03:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delist I have waited as long as possible before voting, hoping to allow time for the references to be reworked. Unfortunately, it hasn't happened. I respect and understand the argument about changing standards, but there should be an attempt to upgrade to and maintain current standards, and references are all too important. I also find the Table of Contents overwhelming (3c). Sandy 19:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Remove, sadly. I'm surprised that the contributors haven't adequately addressed the problems raised by the reviewers, given the time that this article has been in FAR. And I must throw my hat in the ring, too, in relation to Criterion 2a. There's an air of disorganisation about the prose, even on the sentence level. It fails the Criterion by a long shot, not just by a little. Let's look at the lead, which doesn't fill me with confidence.

::Hinduism (Sanskrit - Hindū Dharma, also known as Sanātana (eternal) Dharma and Vaidika (Vedic) Dharma) is a religion that was born out of the ancient Aryan teachings of the Vedas. However it must be noted that Hinduism does not have one main holy book and the Vedas were not the only teachings to have influenced the religion. There is also an extremely large amount of other writings that have contributed to forming what is now known as Hinduism. It is the oldest existent religion in the world[1][2]. The term Hinduism is heterogeneous, as Hinduism consists of several schools of thought. It encompasses many religious rituals that widely vary in practice, as well as many diverse sects and philosophies. Many Hindus, influenced by Advaita philosophy, venerate an array of deities, considering them manifestations of the one supreme monistic Cosmic Spirit, Brahman, while many others focus on a singular concept of Brahman (God), as in Vaishnavism, Saivism and Shaktism.[3]

::Hinduism is the third largest religion in the world, with approximately 900 million adherents (2005 figure), of whom approximately 890 million live in India.[4]

• • Now, why "however" at the start of the second sentence? Is the next clause surprising or contrary to what has just been said? No. This kind of slip up makes it hard to read, not the sparkling, brilliant prose that we expect for an article that we can show off as "among our best".
  • Please don't tell our readers what they must note. Allow them to judge that.
  • Do you mean "unlike other major religions, Hinduism does not have one main holy book"? The second clause in that sentence doesn't flow logically from this. And if you're going to tell us that the Vedas were not the only influence, why leave a rag-tag hanging here? Better not to beg the question until the body of the text.
  • An "amount" of writings is ungrammatical. "Body" or "corpus? "What is now known as Hinduism" begs questions of how it might have been in the past compared with modern Hinduism. Do you want to raise this issue right now, without explaining it?
  • "Existent"—better as "extant".
  • "The term Hinduism is heterogeneous, as Hinduism consists of several schools of thought." Why not remove all but the last seven words?
  • "many religious rituals that widely vary in practice"—well, a ritual is a practice, so why tell us? The order of "widely vary" should be reversed.
  • "as well as"—sigh, this is the marked version of "and". You don't want to highlight the addition here, surely.
  • "... Brahman, while many others ..."—"while" is a poor back-connector. Why not: "Brahman; many others"?

In its current state, the article can't possibly be retained as "one of our best". I'm sure that we'd all like to see it thoroughly worked through and resubmitted to the FAC room. Tony 05:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

i realise that there are some absolute issues in it being a featured article. mainly because , to say, hinduism encompasses everything. there is not a practice in world that you dont find in hinduism. including beef eating and cannibalism (by aghori sadhus, subsect of shaivites).

its also an evolving religion, with new rituals and practices relevant in current time and space, which make it even harder for it to be FA.

but i still strongly feel that it can be regarded as an A rated article. but before that i would like to have more views on this by prominent users

nids 04:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Batman

Article is still a featured article

While I love Batman, this article simply needs a serious rewrite, a peer review, and to be resubmitted to the FACs. It is filled with one paragraph sections (and generally poor formatting), lack of in-line citations, it is uncompressive and needs expansion at the same time, especially for info on the versions of the character in other media, such as the films. It also features a trivia section which in and of itself would prevent the article from reaching FA status today. The article was greenlit for FA status very very early on with only two supports out of two contributors, so it's not surprising that it has gone down hill.

• The version at the time of FA initiation: As of December 16, 2003
• And now: As of June 6, 2006
• The difference: December 16, 2003 to June 6, 2006

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Filmaker (talk • contribs).

• Keep This article is comprehensive. It does not lack references, it lacks in-line citations but this is not a reason to de-feature. The copy-editing may be a concern but it is nothing major. Also I suggest talking to the Comics Wikiproject and also to leave comments on talk page before listing for nomination per procedure.
• Also, I believe the info on other media lacks a paragraph at most since Batman has been a comic book character for more than 60 years, and his appearances in other media do not have the importance of its 60 year comic history. Maybe a paragraph on the 4 filams and the TV series. Joelito (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oh my...there is a trivia section --Osbus 01:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• I've revised my rationale. The Filmaker 01:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, just remove the trivia section. Again that's not something for de-featuring. Joelito (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - based on your diff, it looks like there have been many improvements since it was promoted. If the Trivia section is nixed, then I've got no problems with this article. The Disco King 13:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• remove - this is a serious POV biased article. serious cruft piece, reads like it was written by the Comic Book Guy. 4 example, the fanboy-reviled TV show (which had much, much more exposure than any comic referenced here) is barley mentioned. --Ghetteaux 14:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you tried to add a jokes section to it and have repeatedly vandalized the "homosexual interpretations" section. You even tried to link Ace the Bathound to McGruff the crime dog without any source whatsoever. I am fascinated with your attempts to weaken this article and your accusation of POV. --Chris Griswold 17:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur -- this vote should be called into serious question, given the user's past vandalism to the page. ~CS 03:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Batman is a comic book character which happened to have a TV show. It should be expected that the show not be covered extensively. But, I agree that a sentence or two is missing from the other media section. But is that a reason to defeature? A missing paragraph or two? Joelito (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - If anything, this article has improved since being labeled as a feature article. There might be a thing or to to change or remove, but we cand accomplish that in a day or two. --Chris Griswold 16:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - It's been improving, and while it's a touch long and I'd like to see it spun out into some daughter articles, the content is rather comprehensive. The TV show has it's own article, Ghetteaux. Trvia section is all gone now. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 17:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - There's been lot's of work as a result of this FARC. All this needed was a nudge to bring it up to spec. Is it normal for an article to be listed without a anything being said on it's talk page? CovenantD 17:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me, I aware that we are entitled to post our concerns with the article in the talk page before we nominate for FARC, but I simply....... forgot. Still, I have to say that this article lacks in-line citations, features one sentence paragraphs, and one paragraph sections. I retract my original statement that it has "gone down hill" and admit it has actually improved, but that does not mean it is feature worthy. If it was put through the FAC today it would not last. The Filmaker 18:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What are inline citations? Are they the things used in the article's Homosexual interpretations section? As to the article being one paragraph sections that are discussed at greater length in longer, separate articles, I take it you are familiar with WP:SS, WP:SIZE and WP:BREAK? A lot of work was put into this article when it became too long and was suggested for farc before, although in that instance the concerns were addressed on the talk page rather than here. Steve block Talk 20:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Demote. Will change my vote if the films are adequately addressed. Otherwise it looks good compared to many other articles in the comics category. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  The films are discussed, in summary in the other media section, and in detail in the articles regarding the films. The article is too long to allow discussion of every aspect of the character, and has been broken up per guidelines on the matter. Steve block Talk 20:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  Seeing the significance of the films to Batman's perception in popular culture, that little paragraph is rather disappointing. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  But wikipedia is edited by consensus and that's the way the consensus shaped the article. Perhaps you would be so kind as to help shape the article. The difference between the last bout in response to the page size can be seen roughly, in this differential. I agree that there are better ways to split or structure this article, but unless people are willing to become involved in the debate and help see the process through, it's hard to agree on a common purpose. There's strong feeling that the article should reflect the character's existence in comics, given that is the main source of the character's history. I don't see that the fact that the article can'tr support all the information people desire due to article size should be a reason to remove the FA status, that seems unfair. Steve block Talk 21:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

that is the root of the problem. bias exists everywhere. examples: Encyclopedia = written by experts, biased towards personal views. WIkipedia batman article = written by consensus of internet-abusing batman fanboys = not neutral POV. just my $0.02. --Ghetteaux 10:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would seem to be the conclusion. And btw, @Steve block, I can vote here even if I don't edit the article. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

How about we create a 'Cultural_impact_of_Batman' page, much like the one for Wonder Woman? Spinning off sections into secondary pages isn't a bad idea, and the Batman page will start to stagger under it's own weight of conflicting histories if we try and fit it all in one. On that sort of page, we can address the TV shows (animated and otherwise) and movies, as well trivia 'bits' that demonstrate Bats' influence outside the comics. This page, as it stands now, is primarily for Batman the comic book hero. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 11:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I w2as thinking the same thing after we did that for Wonder Woman. It would allow us to bring back some of the good information recently deleted and put it into a better context. --Chris Griswold 19:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather that stuff was on this page and that the detailed character biography and sections on all his paraphernalia were sectioned off to Batman (comics). Steve block Talk 19:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking at Superman and Wonder Woman as examples, both are primarily comic characters. Yes, they have movies and TV shows, but if you're looking up Batman, it's more likely you're looking up the comic. It's more notable than the multiple TV/movie versions, and should be the focus of the page. If you're suggesting a split to pull out the comic pages, a History of Batman page would be a logical start there (obviously IMO as last time I was bold and did that it got reverted). -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Given you're discussing Wonder Woman as an example of where you just performed this sort of split, I don't think we can discuss that as a counter point here. As to what this article should do, this should be the top level article on Batman. It should summarise every aspect of Batman to a reader, and should not seek to make value judgements on what that reader is looking for, that is a POV. I'd appreciate how you reach the conclusion that most people are looking for information on the comic book version of Batman, can we agree that a wider audience are more familiar with the film or TV versions of the character than the comic book version, which at best has, what, 327 000 (+/- 1%) regular readers, if we assume each reader of an individual series is unique, according to April sales figures? Given the worldwide gross of the Burton Batman movie is cited here as being $413,200,000, even if we assume an average ticket price is $1000, it is greater than the comic book readership. I think we can safely assume audience awareness of the movie version is far greater than the comics. We should avoid giving any aspect of the character undue weight in the article, per WP:NPOV. Steve block Talk 20:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not NPOV, it's notability (NPOV is the comics are a damn site better than the 60s TV show). Batman, as a comic, has been around since 1939. 327,000 regular readers multiplied by about 67 years of active comic publication is pretty damn remarkable. Also, in keeping with the other superhero comics, the 'main' page tends to be based on the medium which birthed the hero, which is comics for Batman. The Green Hornet, if his page was large enough to warrent is, should primarily focus on him as a radio character. Sherlock Holmes' article is primarily about him in the books by Conan Doyle, with daughter pages for Canonical deviation and non canonical. Does that make the films, tv shows, serials, radio dramas or comics less watched? No, but it does mark them as what they are: less notable. Even if you first encounted Holmes on the silver screen, the books are world wide and more notable. Batman is, first and foremost, a comic book superhero. The rest are derivations. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we agree that Batman is a cultural icon and should be handled in a different manner to other articles based on superheroes. That's long been my reading of the discussions on the Batman talk page and WPT:COMICS? I would say that Batman is, first and foremost, a cultural icon, in fact, The Guardian have gone so far as to describe the character as "the perfect cultural artifact for the 21st century". We should also agree that the article is a Featured Article and thus is to be handled in a manner different from non-featured articles. Other similar featured articles, to reference the manner in which they cover their topic, include The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, The Adventures of Tintin, Doctor Who, Coronation Street, Middle-earth and Starship Troopers. Featured Article criteria require that a topic is covered in a "comprehensive" manner, noting that "comprehensive" means that an article covers the topic in its entirety, and does not neglect any major facts or details. The topic is Batman, not Batman, the comic book version. Also note, it is your point of view as to what makes Batman notable, and also, that undue weight dictates we should not give any details undue weight in an article. Detailing Batman's recent adventures in comic books read by a handful of people to the exclusion of the impact the character has made in films and television programmes places undue weight on such details. Steve block Talk 21:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No we cannot agree, see Superman for example who is a major cultural icon. The character development of Batman happened entirely in the comic books. Films are just adpatations of the comic book persona. I agree that they should be given a little more importance in the article but I disagree that we should not give undue weight to the comic book aspect. Joelito (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is a policy, and cannot be disregarded as lightly as your comment implies it can be. The article Superman is perhaps not the best example, as it does not meet the Featured Article status either, but I am refraining from nominating it per WP:POINT. The films may be adaptations of the comic book version, but their impact on the audiences understanding of the character is the sort of thing that should be analysed in an encyclopedic article, not the fact that, to quote the article, in a recent comic book "Batman and a team of superheroes, including the new Blue Beetle, destroy Brother Eye and the OMACs". This is a serious breach of the undue weight policy. Steve block Talk 21:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Steve, I think you;re missing the point I was trying to make. it's not NPOV to give weight to that which is, has been and should be the weightiest (i.e. comics).Now, that you're arguing that it's just my POV that the more weighty aspect of Batman is the comics is a slightly different story. I can't prove or disprove that in any way :) Batman's a cultural icon, but he became that way because the comics were popular. Does comprehensive mean we have to include every detail of every aspect of Batman? Does comprehensive mean we're not permitted to spawn off children articles to make an article easier to read? If you're saying we should trim the article in some respects and give more equal time to various other medium interpretations of Batman, then I agree. Spawn off a couple sections (trim the comic char stuff into History of Batman and keep the most important, though that's harder to say for current issues...). If you're saying everything about Batman belongs in one article (which is what I'm hearing), then I disagree. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 23:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I missed your point, although I'll reiterate my understanding of it. You want this page to look like Wonder Woman which analyses only the comic book character, and not the character as a whole and its various representations and impact and meaning to society as a whole. I want a top level page of a cultural icon such as Batman to discuss the character in whole, its impact and differing representations and what they mean and have meant to society as a whole. I do not mean we should have a 3000k article, rather that this is the top level article and each area should be given equal space relative to its worth. I do not believe a top level, featured article which covers a topic comprehensively should have a one sentence pointer to a separate article on the cultural impact of a character, and yet discuss recent adventures in great depth. That's a clear case of bias and undue weight. I'd also argue to the contrary that Batman became a cultural icon because of the comics. It's a fact that Batman first appeared in comics, everything else is opinion. If it's hard to say what is important in recent issues, then don't include it, a reliable source is needed to cite an event as important, not your or my opinion. Steve block Talk 10:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

(breaking this out cause it's getting squnched). Steve Block, I've come to agree with what you're saying, for the most part. I was missunderstanding what you meant to be that you wanted to cram it all in and throw out the comics stuff (which is what I got when you sugested Batman (comics) for an article). I still disagree that giving more weight to the comics is bias -- the comic history is going to be longer, by dint of having more years to make more history -- I agree that it can be trimmed down to give more time to the movies and TV shows. The comment I made about it being hard to say what's important is a time-passage issue, and people tend to err on the side of more=better. After all, looking at the 80s right now, the biggest thing to happen in the Bat-comics was Jason Todd. At the time? We may have said other things. Bygones, moving on constructivly. Step one should be to par down the Modern Age section into something more resonable. I've made a sample suggestion here on my user page, so you can see what I mean. As for the 'other media' section, if we craft it out into subsections 'Movies' and 'Television' that may give us a better structure to address those instances, and summarize how Batman is different from 'main stream' Batman in them. How's that sound? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I just read the version that was originally nominated for FA. Are the standards really that low? This article is ten times the article the previous one was. This discussion essentially boils down to "here's what we need to do make the article better", not "this article should no longer be a featured article." This should have taken place on the talk page. --Chris Griswold 20:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's more that the standards were that low, but that they have been steadily raised as the encyclopedia has moved on. Sadly, whilst the standards have been raised, editing to reflect the raising of said standards has not been effected to articles already granted FA status by those raising the standards. Those of us not connected to the FA process have not been as aware of the issues as perhaps we should have been. Steve block Talk 22:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Many of the requests for improvement on this page are valid -- but they should be part of the controbutions toward continuing to improve the page, and not grounds for demotion. The article, as it stands, is very good. ~CS 03:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I take full responsibility for how awesome it is. --Chris Griswold 03:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That's very gracious of you. Perhaps you should read WP:OWN. Steve block Talk 19:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I think this covers Batman's history pretty well. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 10:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Remove unless the prose is fixed; it's not bad overall, but when I see text like the following, I wonder whether it has been copy-edited:
  • "Over the years, Batman's origin story, history and tone have undergone various revisions, both minor and major. Some elements have changed drastically; others, like the death of his parents and his pursuit of justice, have remained constant."
    • Do the first three words add anything useful?
    • What is an "origin story"?
    • Can "various" be removed? Why not "major and minor revisions"—says it all.
    • "Drastically" is too pejorative. "Dramatically" or "significantly" would be better.
    • "such as" is nicer here than "like".

Tony 03:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep Article is all right... SSJ 5 05:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hugo Chávez

No longer a featured article

Hugo Chávez hardly exemplifies Wikipedia's best work. Looking at the article, one can see the {{POV}} and {{cleanup}} templates, which have, in combination, resided on the page for weeks. It's far from comprehensive (note the Personal Life section especially), although it somehow manages to amount to 73 kilobytes in size. References include websites of questionable legitimacy, such as ZNet and VenezuelaAnalysis.org, which borrows content from Green Left Weekly, a decidedly left-wing Australian newspaper. There are also entire sections, such as the Labor section, that don't have any sources. The great amount of recent discussion regarding the article on its talk page indicates that perhaps (as suggested by some other editors) the article is overdue for a rewrite or at the very least a great overhaul to remove these issues as well as the perceived failure to adhere to the neutral point-of-view policy. On the talk page, it was discussed that perhaps if the article was not restored to some order by May 30, it should be put up for featured article removal. Well, it's May 30; it's time to suggest removal of featured article status. joturner 02:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: This article has 35KB of prose as of 31 May 2006

NOTE: This article has 64KB of prose as of 12 June 2006

• Remove unless it's copy-edited. I noticed the following problems just in the lead:
  • "Chávez was elected President in 1998 on promises of aiding Venezuela's poor majority, and reelected in 2000." Extra "was" required.
  • A few more commas are required, for ease of reading and to convey the intended meaning (e.g., "Domestically, Chávez has launched Bolivarian Missions whose stated goals are ...").
  • "Chávez has been severely criticized during his presidency. He has been accused of electoral fraud, human rights violations,.." (Merge these sentences.)

Tony 04:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - in its current vastly over-long state it's not worthy of an FA, but note that the direction it's going in is positive, thanks to the efforts of User:SandyGeorgia and others - it was 90kb before. Talk page indicates ongoing major effort to trim, re-write, remove bias and generally make FA-worthy. Worldtraveller 09:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think it is over-long; only has 35KB of prose as of now. --mav 17:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Hey Mav, I haven't crossed paths with you in a long time. Great to see you're still around. By the way, you may not be surprised that I agree with you on the article size! 172 | Talk 23:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
      • A lot of the size is references, with the accompanying markup. Much has been trimmed but doing more would actually lower the quality. How much of prose is itself too much?SuperFlanker 02:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Haven't noticed any POV. The problem with gratuitous tags is fixed by removing them altogether, until the detailed rationale is given on talk. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Assume good faith, and please don't remove tags without addressing (and reading) the talk page issues. (We've been working on and improving the issues which led to the tags for several weeks, but more work remains. Much of the remaining POV is by ommission rather than commission, due to the work we've put into the article since I added the tags cleanup tag.) Sandy 04:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: It's quite long and clearly needs a bit of work but this should not take long. Are the issues of length and a few minor mistakes worth removing its featured status? michaelCurtis ^talk+_{contributions} 12:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep ZNet, VenezuelaAnalysis.org, and Green Left Weekly are indeed illegitimate sources. Still, it is quite easy to replace that handful of citations with real sources such as BBC, AP, Reuters, etc. The criticisms are relatively minor and easy to fix. The nomination here seems to be politically motivated. 172 | Talk 13:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• If it's quite easy, why haven't you done it since the revert, which you supported and which removed a lot of current referencing? I don't have access to the resources you do, and I don't find it easy at all. Sandy 17:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• The nomination is not politically motivated. joturner 22:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'll take your word for it. By the way, I saw your user page. You are incredibly articulate for your age. It's quite a distinction for Wikipedia to have you on the site editing articles. 172 | Talk 23:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• It's not so much a matter of whether VenezuelaAnalysis (et al) are legitimate or not (the BBC is as pro-Chavez as Venanalysis, Wilpert, Weisbrot, and other avowedly pro-Chavez sources used), as the lack of balance in the article because of emphasis on similar/same sources. Sources are not balanced, and VenezuelaAnalysis, in particular, is overrepresented in the references (count 'em). I'm not sure it would be easy to replace those sources (as stated above); further, it's not only a matter of re-referencing the pro-Chavez statements, as telling all sides of the story, to attain NPOV. Sandy 04:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• the BBC is as pro-Chavez as Venanalysis, Wilpert, Weisbrot, and other avowedly pro-Chavez sources used Are you being serious? I can't tell, as this assertion is laughably ridiculous. 172 | Talk 03:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not laughing, and I don't appreciate your ongoing rudeness. Would you be happier with the simpler, "The BBC's reporting has been largely pro-Chávez?" I'll give you one example to work on. The BBC headlined that "Chavez 'will accept referendum'." [45] Now, considering that you have access to Lexis-Nexis and I don't, how long will it take you to produce a BBC report headlining the important developments when 1) earlier, according to Spanish-language sources, Chavez had stated he refused to leave office even if the referendum succeeded and 90% of the country was against him, and, 2) he would talk up arms again if he lost the *constitutional, legal, and democratic* referendum. (These are some of the many bases for claims that he is dictatorial, and POV is created by omitting them. Notice that the BBC article referenced never mentions why the headline is relevant, never discussing the prior events.) If you can find that info quickly in an English-language source, please do add it, to counteract the POV in the article. And let me know how long it takes you to find it, using your resources, because I can only locate that info in the Spanish-language press, and only because I speak Spanish, was there, and knew where to look. Sandy 17:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment ==Bolivarianism== should not be wikilinked, per WP:MOS. I would have changed it myself, but I'm not sure of the best way to work the word bolivarianism into the paragraph so it could be linked there. - The Catfish 23:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak remove. I was between the ones in the discussions prior to the FARC, I moved the whole references to the new system to reduce the article size and make editing easier. Still, this article has been in a not-so-good status during at least two weeks. Many have committed to try to improve the article, but users such as Anagnorisis and Saravask (who worked real hard on it some months ago) don't seem to have any interest in improving the article. Although Ghirla claims that POV and cleanup tags are not needed, I think those issues are clearly stated here, here, here and here. The article has improved in the last weeks, but presidency and political impact still need a lot of work. I feel bad about doing this because I wanted the article to get better, but unfortunately it's not FA material anymore. However, I am confident that this article will become featured again. With the help of SuperFlanker, Sandy and other users currently involved in it, I think that we can get it to FA again before the presidential elections in December. --Enano275 02:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Like Enano275 (and several others), I had high hopes the article could be rescued rather than FARC'd, with an intense effort from multiple editors working together. I worked on reducing a couple of sections, but there are still several that are much too long and rambling, and poorly referenced. My first priority was to get the size down to something reasonable, so that the article would not be so difficult and time-consuming to edit. It needs a complete review of references, as some of the references I checked a few days ago didn't say what they were alleged to say, and so many biased sources are used. Further bias is introduced by portions of the Chavez history that are simply never mentioned (e.g.; what happened to the mudslides? What happened to Chavez saying he wouldn't go even if he lost the referendum? How did the articles manage to ignore charges of treason and conspiracy against people conducting a legal and constitutional recall referendum? Why are not legitimate issues that led to Chavez' election not discussed with good references and statistics?) Several weeks ago, I thought the work was doable, if we could get the article down to a manageable size, so that editing it wouldn't be so time consuming. But it's not doable on a time deadline, and every section we decrease later gets increased by subsequent edits. We haven't made enough progress in the few weeks we've been working on it, and my busy travel schedule doesn't permit me to focus on the article until mid-June. IMO, the talk page history shows the article was never particularly stable, and that biased sources has been a long-standing problem with the article. In terms of all of the problems: the prose is not good, it has numerous sections needing copy editing (still), the article doesn't stick tightly to the subject, POV is a problem, sources are biased, references need to be checked, and the article is hopelessly too long, even rambling and not all succinctly summarizing the topic. Sandy 04:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I don't know why the decision has to be restrained to timelines, considering work is ongoing, SandyGeorgia mentions some good points such as fluidity and size (although it should not be punished for having refs) that said there are other things I disagree with such as the strongly percieved bias (apperantly of omission) particularly on the sources and statistics, they are the government's side but neutrality can only be achieved by adding the other side not removing what is.SuperFlanker 03:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per Joturner and Sandy. Rama's Arrow 17:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: We may strive to kee the FA status, after addressing the points being raised. I do not have much knowledge on the topic - others may help. --Bhadani 15:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: We have been unable, over more than a month now, to get others to help. The person who brought the article to FA status, when asked to help, said the article should be FARC'd, here "Just FARC it now — I don't have the time or interest in fixing the problems pointed out. Saravask 04:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)". Sandy 04:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - It's not good enough to grant FA status, and then clean up the article. I agree that the article needs clean-up and a serious revamping of its citations (they are largely socialist, and thus inherently biased). However, since the article does not currently meet FA requirements, it should not currently have FA status. Remove FA status, clean-up, apply again. --Tjss(Talk) 04:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - per Tjss. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 05:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Here is a talk page update on progress made this week. With few exceptions, Wiki guidelines of civility, good faith, building consensus, and resolving disputes have been respected, and work has extended into the overlapping series of daughter articles. Editors working together have helped check facts, references, grammar, punctuation, phrasing, etc., but succinct, brilliant prose needs work and fluidity is a problem. Regardless of FARC outcome, help from a good copy editor/writer (so that we can remove the cleanup tag) is needed. Sandy 14:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Further update The article has been reverted to a much older version (*not* the original FA version) and "Wiki is not a democracy" work is in progress. While I concur that the article was in very poor shape, and don't disagree with the revert, my separate comments on the way this was handled are on my talk page. The reverted version is not the FA version [46], and many of the reasons for FARC still exist.Sandy 21:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes it is the main page FA version. The link above is misleading. WGee considered restoring a later reversion, but I talked him out of it. The current text is based on the main page version. To confirm this, compare the diffs between the 10 December 2005 version (the day it appeared on the main page) and the current updated/copyedited version of it. [47] 172 | Talk 23:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The diff link above doesn't appear to be as stated: someone who understands it better than I needs to verify. The significant issues raised in the FARC (now in the article talk page archive) have not all been corrected, and the new version now includes outdated information and invalid links (both external and internal), while POV and balance remain to be addressed. Sandy 12:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Is it necessary to re-summarize the problems with the current version of the article? See talk page. Sandy 14:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC) No answer. I posted an update to the talk page. Sandy 22:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - This article lacks too many of the attributes of a featured article: not comprehensive, not factually accurate, not neutral, and really not stable.(Caracas1830 18:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC))
• Remove A Cleanup FA? Are you kidding?! Raichu 03:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Update I completed enough of the cleanup to remove the tag. There is still a lengthy To Do list. [48] I am unable to find a template for indicating that the article is not current. Sandy 12:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)