Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/September 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Kept status 1.1 Parliament Acts 1.1.1 Review commentary 1.1.2 FARC commentary 1.2 Homo floresiensis 1.2.1 Review commentary 1.2.2 FARC commentary 1.3 Tuberculosis 1.3.1 Review commentary 1.3.2 FARC commentary 1.4 Link (The Legend of Zelda series) 1.4.1 Review commentary 1.4.2 FARC commentary 1.5 Laika 1.6 England expects that every man will do his duty 1.7 Polish-Soviet War 1.7.1 Review commentary 1.7.2 FARC commentary 2 Removed status 2.1 Definition of planet 2.1.1 Review commentary 2.1.2 FARC commentary 2.2 Holy Prepuce 2.2.1 Review commentary 2.2.2 FARC commentary 2.3 Psychosis 2.3.1 Review commentary 2.3.2 FARC commentary 2.4 Louis Armstrong 2.4.1 Review commentary 2.4.2 FARC commentary 2.5 Louis XIV of France 2.5.1 Review commentary 2.5.2 FARC commentary 2.6 Attila the Hun 2.6.1 Review commentary 2.6.2 FARC commentary 2.7 A Hard Day's Night (song) 2.7.1 Review commentary 2.7.2 FARC commentary 2.8 Turquoise 2.8.1 Review commentary 2.8.2 FARC commentary 2.9 Ackermann function 2.9.1 Review commentary 2.9.2 FARC commentary 2.10 History of the Netherlands 2.10.1 Review commentary 2.10.2 FARC commentary 2.11 Miles Davis 2.11.1 Review commentary 2.11.2 FARC commentary 2.12 Telephone exchange 2.12.1 Review commentary 2.12.2 FARC commentary 2.13 War elephant 2.13.1 Review commentary 2.13.2 FARC commentary 2.14 BZFlag 2.14.1 Review commentary 2.14.2 FARC commentary 2.15 A Day in the Life 2.15.1 Review commentary 2.15.2 FARC commentary 2.16 Bishōjo game 2.16.1 Review commentary 2.16.2 FARC commentary 2.17 Abraham Lincoln 2.17.1 Review commentary 2.17.2 FARC commentary 2.18 Sudoku 2.18.1 Review commentary 2.18.2 FARC commentary 2.19 Joshua A. Norton 2.19.1 Review commentary 2.19.2 FARC commentary 2.20 Go (board game) 2.20.1 Review commentary 2.20.2 FARC commentary 2.21 Poetry of the United States 2.21.1 Review commentary 2.21.2 FARC commentary

[edit] Kept status

[edit] Parliament Acts

[edit] Review commentary

Talk messages left at Morwen, UK notice board, Politics, and British Govt. Sandy 00:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Very short, very few references, only one of those an inline citation, inline links are rife, and it just generally seems not up to FA standards. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• All of that, mixed referenced style, external jumps, and should the title be Act or Acts? Sandy 00:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I cleaned up refs and added ref tags. There are very few inline citations. Sandy 01:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• it could do with work on referencing: but "Very short"? i think its about the right length. Morwen - Talk 06:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• (i) There seem to be more references now (just turning the inline links to refs, I think). It would be nice to add Halsbury's Laws and Erskine May, I suppose. (ii) "Very short" is hardly an actionable complaint, as long as no major facts or details have been left out to create a lack of comprehensiveness. Indeed, WP:WIAFA requires featured articles are meant to be "of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". What do you think is missing? (iii) A couple of the sections are rather short and could be merged. In what other ways does it "just generally seems not up to FA standards"? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Both the "Uses of the Act" and "Validity of the 1949 Act" sections have lists of information that need further explanation, and should not be in list form. Beyond that, the Enacting formula section is odd and either doesn't deserve it's own section or isn't nearly well-explained enough, and there's basically no information on said "Recent developments". Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• I cleaned up what few references where there, but the article is still not adequately cited. If there are questions, I could add some cite tags, but don't want to pepper the article. Sandy 13:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both for your further comments. We will have to see what we can do to deal with your concerns.

Why is the list format unacceptable? It would be less clear to have a paragraph listing the items in continuous prose, rather than a list, and most of the items in the lists are explained briefly. Perhaps the explanations could be expanded a little, but I'm not sure how helpful it would be to have a longer and more detailed exegesis on the Welsh Church Act 1914, Home Rule Act 1914 or the other acts mentioned - the short summaries in the lists look reasonably adequate to me.

It may help to pepper the article with cite templates selectively, so we know what you think needs a specific reference. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• I can see how the cite templates could be helpful, I'll go through when I've got a bit more time (heading to the gym pretty soon). As for list formats, I just tend to see lists as one of two things. Either loosely associated information not worthy of further explanation of importance (the violation of this "rule" of course being things like DVD release dates) or it's a list of information that deserves more explanation but isn't getting it because it's relegated to a list. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I really dislike adding cite tags when the entire article needs inline citations. Will do if needed, though. Sandy 18:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• I feel the same way as Sandy - 1. c. needs addressing throughout the article. LuciferMorgan 20:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Besides one inline citation added by Yomangani, there has been no movement on this article. Are any editors planning to work on it; if so, should we add specific ref tags? Sandy 14:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reminder - sorry, I have been distracted by other things. Some "unreferenced" tags have been added to some sections, but more specific tags would help. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I started from the bottom (hoping others will start from the top):
      • (Weasle words and one sentence section): In March 2006 it was reported that the Government is considering removing the ability of the Lords to delay legislation that arises as a result of manifesto commitments, and reducing their ability to delay other legislation to a period of 60 days.[7]
      • Next section up, Enacting formula, is another (basically) one-sentence section, poorly constructed with no citation.
      • (Validity of the 1949 Act):
        • (Weasle words): "doubts have been raised by legal academics" - no citations for any of these concerns or who these academics are.
        • The prose is frustrating: Tony should look at it, as he would be better able to explain what problem is making the prose so tortured.
        • Another citation needed: Following legal principles established when the United Kingdom granted legislative powers to assemblies in its colonies in the late 1700s
        • One-sentence paragraphs: The first legal challenge to the 1949 Act is believed to have been made during the first prosecution for war crimes under the War Crimes Act 1991, R. v. Serafinowicz, but this challenge was rejected, and no record of the legal arguments remains.[3]
        • No citations whatsoever: Support for this conclusion can be drawn from the parliamentary debates on the 1911 Act, in which an entrenchment clause was considered but rejected, the Government clearly displaying the intention to be able to make such amendments if necessary.^{[citation needed]} However, the 2005 decision was made on other grounds, so the question of whether the Courts could refer to the 1949 Act's Parliamentary debates was not decided.^{[citation needed]} The 1949 Act was also held to be primary legislation, but of an unusual sort, since the Courts can rule on whether the provisions of the 1911 Act were complied with.^{[citation needed]} This analysis also applies to the other Acts passed under the Parliament Acts. It was also held that the 1911 Act clearly permits the Parliament Act procedure to be used for "any Public Bill", and this was sufficient to dispose of the argument that the 1911 Act could not be used to amend itself.^{[citation needed]} Effectively, the Court took the view that the 1911 Act was a 'remodelling' of the constitution.^{[citation needed]}
    • This is intended as a sample only of the work needed: the prose is difficult. Tony should have a look. Sandy 14:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The title should be Parliament Acts, since the article covers both acts and "Parliament Act" doesn't really get a mention outside the context of the dated acts- can somebody move it? Yomangani^talk 00:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I moved the article, will now correct this page, correct on FA page, and in our citations list. Sandy 03:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are sufficiency and formatting of references (1c). Marskell 12:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Can somebody have a look through and see what still needs doing - I've added citations, and expanded and reworded some sections. In this case, I think the use of lists benefits the article rather than detracting from it, as otherwise it may seem dense and difficult due to the need to accurately represent the legal aspects which, in turn, restricts the vocabulary that can be used. Yomangani^talk 11:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: As a jurist (though not in Britain!) I can say that it is fine! Comprehensive, covers the history, the jurisprudence and the problems. My only concern is the lack of more academic citations, in order to have a more in depth analysis of the theoritical approaches. The only academician I saw mentioned was the one in note 15.--Yannismarou 18:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I've been busy on other articles and forgot to look back at this one - apart from the article mentioned above, I haven't been able to find any online primary sources for the claims that the 1949 Act was invalid, but since the rulings, proposed amendments and the article cited all refer to them, I considered them reliable secondary sources (anyway, I heard that retrospectively adding inline citations to previous FAs isn't necessary any more...boom, boom). Yomangani^talk 01:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • There are certainly academic sources, but not likely to be online for free. Let me see what I can do in the library. (I cannot promise to do it immediately, though.) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Hood-Phillips' Constitutional and Administrative Law is likely to have something if you need a starting point. Yomangani^talk 11:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, provided all of the referencing issues are addressed. Tony 15:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, referencing looks good now. Sandy (Talk) 14:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homo floresiensis

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Primates and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. Sandy 21:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Additional message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Evolutionary biology. Sandy 21:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice article on the species, but there are a few issues with its content, most issues are to do with 1.

1. The text is disjointed, and not very well written (many paragraphs exist of just two sentences). (1a)
2. There are also some POV issues about the status of the hobbit, the article is set up (structure) and argues for the hypothesis that is is a new species, while the counter argument is not given much weight. (1b,c and d)
3. Lots is paraphrased from the Nature articles, but the sources are not well identified. It is also presented as fact, rather than as a hypothesis. (1c and d)
4. Significance section is weasley, as is the reaction section. (1a) They might be better merged into a section specifically about the discovery and publication of the original articles.

--Peta 06:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Under-sourced definitely. The Ebu Gogo paras are begging for cites (did the discoverers themselves really support the idea?). Last four sections need significant reorganization, as the species debate is brought up repeatedly in a disjointed way. I don't think the counter-argument is ignored, but clauses like "If in fact it is a new species,..." need to be introduced throughout, even if it is tedious. That said, this is probably in better shape than other 2 yr old FAs. Hopefully, it still has some watchers. Marskell 13:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The counter argument is not ignored- it's just presented in such a way that the pro species POV is overt.--Peta 22:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Needs inline citations, especially the "Reaction" section. LuciferMorgan 18:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment:Definitely under-referenced. Some sections are full of one-sentence paragraphs. This needs work as well.--Yannismarou 09:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment:Regarding the "pro-specices POV", one thing that has to be considered here is whether the "pro-species POV" is the majority view in the scientific community (i.e., following NPOV:Undue weight). It's not POV if it's the majority view. The difficutly here is that there are, as of yet, very few peer-reviewed publications on this find. Therefore, simply counting references won't work to establish the majority view. A second proxy for number of publications might be to look at the amount of data and research that has gone into the few publications that are out there. In that respect, the original discoverers would be expected to have had time to collect the most data and do the most comprehensive research, and their opinion would have to be accordingly given more weight than that of others who have had less time to examine the samples. The main problem with the criticism section is that it introduces the counterarguments before properly introducing the objections. This seems to be a problem with logical flow, but I am not sure it rises to the level of POV. My own research area is neuroscience, not anthropology, but I have an interest in brain evolution, and I found some of the arguments made by the Falk et al. 2004 study concerning brain structure (reference number 14 in the article) to be quite persuasive. Perhaps dealing with POV here is more a matter of clearing up flow and explaining the data beter, not eliminating a "pro-species" POV. Edhubbard 07:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. It is significantly under-sourced by current standards. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment on above by Samsara. Again, as I noted above, there aren't that many peer reviewed articles. A quick pubmed search for Homo floresiensis turns up exactly 11 citations. However, eight of those are in Nature or Science, the two most prestigious scientific journals around. So, if you simply evaluate the quality of the article by the number of citations, it's going to fail the number of citations test, but if we evaluate the article on the basis of the prestige and importance of those citations, we may reach a slightly different conclusion. The current version of the article only includes four of these peer-reviewed sources, and doesn't always cite them where it might be appropriate, so the referencing can be improved, but the total number of citations probably won't increase dramatially. Edhubbard 21:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not talking about the number of references. I know that literature reasonably well. I'm talking about the fact that there are some long paragraphs in the article that do not indicate the providence of the material. References can be used more than once, and each statement made should indicate which reference supports it. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 06:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• The POV is a real issue when the article presents the species issue as fact, uses the dismissive section title "A new species?" claims that this is a "controversial issue" and then really gives no space to the argument as to why it isn't a species; in this case I don't think it is up to us to choose the new species argument over the alternative since nothing has actually been confirmed. The article is sill also pretty disorganised and the lead is out of date.--Peta 23:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I have managed to obtain copies of both Nature articles used in the article. Providing citations should not be a problem :-) Joelito (talk) 23:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have now downloaded all of the pdfs of everything I could find in the pubmed data base (Nature and Science, but also some specialist journals). Joelito, if you would like copies of any of them, please feel free to contact me off wikipedia at edhubbard AT gmail DOT com. I will incorporate the Falk et al. article, and the debate that it spawned, into the article this weekend. Along the way, I hope to improve some of the other references, and along the way, perhaps I can clarify what is proposed by the original discoverers and what the counterarguments are... since much of the debate in the Homo floresiensis debate revolves around brain endocasts and the suggestion of microencephaly, I'm not going too far outside my realm of expertise here. The Ebu Gogo stuff, on the other hand, doesn't appear in the scientific publications I've looked at so far, and is getting a bit further outside my comfort zone. How much longer do we have on FAR to get this back into shape? Edhubbard 19:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the offer but I have access to the majority of peer reviewed and scientific journals. I have downloaded the majority of H. floresiensis related articles but I am currently working on a FAC I recently submitted.
    • The review process usually lasts 2 weeks and the removal process lasts two weeks. Both deadlines can be extended if people are working in the article. Joelito (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Best of luck with your FAC! I am pretty confident we can get this back up to snuff before the end of FARC, at worst. Edhubbard 20:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are writing quality (1a), POV (1d), and sufficiency and deployment of sources (1c). Marskell 16:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Moving this down to keep it on pace. Edh, let us know when you feel it's been properly improved. Marskell 16:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Thanks for the heads up. I've gone back through the history since the article was promoted on Dec. 24, 2004. It seems that since that time, as each new discovery or analysis has been made, there was a small flurry of activity adding the paper to the article. However, there has been no attempt to really step back and look at the overview of the article, and how to structure it. I am starting to see the outlines of a bigger revision than just adding the references and eliminating POV. Another problem is that many of the additions seem to be made on the basis of secondary sources, such as newspaper articles, rather than on a reading of the original scientific papers themselves. I still think that saving it from FARC is reasonable in the next week and a half, but I'll be sure to keep you posted. Edhubbard 08:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Several concerns:
• "Those who suggest that LB1 is a pygmoid H. sapiens with microcephaly obviously find such speculations unnessecary.[5][6]". Is this appropiate for the lead? I find the tone unencyclopedic but I have no idea what to do with the sentence other than to rewrite it altogether.

• Reply: In their 2006 PNAS article, Jacob et al say "Most importantly, premature elaboration of speculative evolutionary scenarios diverted attention from detailed study of the morphological characteristics of the specimens themselves." (p. 13421). There is a probably a better way to phrase it, but this is the sentiment I was trying to capture; that essentially, speculations on evolution are premature until the species status is resolved. Feel free to rewrite as you have time (see more below).

• The recent survival section is mostly unreferenced but it shouldn't be too hard to source it.
• The last paragraph in the recent survival section troubles me. Are we speculating/ editioralizing here?
• Significance has many stubby paragraphs.
• Since there are two controversies, access and classification, should we merge into a single controversy section with subsections for each controversy?

• Reply: I am hoping that the scientific controversy section will be large enough to justify it's own first level heading at some point, but since I can't work on it for a week or so, I leave it to you to decide, and then I'll pick it up after my conference. Edhubbard 06:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• There are still some redundancies. I will try to correct them though. Joelito (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, in addition to Joels comments (which I agree with) there are some other things:

• The lead is too long; the third paragraph is not necessary at all
• The shortness of access controversy makes it stand out like a sore thumb; some combination of reaction, access controversy and species classification controversy might be worthwhile since they all cover related information. Mabye called "challanges" or "controversy"?
• The article still assumes that this is a new species; could use the liberal addition of "reserchers propose", "if the hypothesis is true" etc. Stuff like the long quote from the Nature editor (not really a specialist in the field) just add to the pro species/great discovery hyperbole.
• In general the significance section is just really weasely
• Ex links could use pruning

--Peta 05:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I've now read the 20 so peer-reviewed articles that are out there (some are little more than one page peer reviewed debates), and based on the state of the current literature, I think the case for a new species is much weaker than I thought it was when I first started working on the page. The main thing the article needs is for things like the "Species controversy" to be integrated into the relevant data sections. My idea was to integrate the debate by presenting the scientific deta that has been published, both for and against the species view, and then let the reader see where the weight of the evidence lies. My goal was to have a much longer, and more comprehensive section, but I've been buried under work. I am leaving for a conference (The Society for Neuroscience meeting in Atlanta) this morning and just have been too busy to really complete the project I set myself here. In the final version in my head, I think the scientific controversy will be big enough that it might still deserve a separate section. I'd like to see the article saved, but I'll be gone for a week (until Oct. 18) and I can't justify keeping this article in limbo until then. Sorry to leave the article in not the best shape, but hopefully, a little better than it was. I still have my plans for improving it, which I will do even if the FARC closes before I can get back to it. Honestly, though I'm surprised and disappointed that more people that work on the related projects that Sandy contacted didn't come out to help save their FA. Edhubbard 06:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely happy with the TOC. I think some of those later sections can be merged/shuffled. Given that Ed is still up for working but not immediately, and that it still has issues as identified by Peta, I'm a remove. No worries Ed, BTW; you've done what you could and definitely improved the sourcing. I'd like to see this come back to FAC if it loses status as I think it a vital topic; you can work toward that. Marskell 22:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I've done a fairly severe edit, removing most of the problematic text and reorganising other parts. If someone can source all the things that still have cite needed tags then the article is probably OK as an FA and will hopefully be further enhanced by Ed at a later date.--Peta 05:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Concern over TOC has been addressed with this edit. Not a keep yet, however, as Recent Survival needs sourcing. Marskell 10:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I believe the article is properly cited and FA quality. Only one paragraph lacks citations. I do not have access to the papers that support the paragraph. I have read websites that support the text but I prefer to add the peer reviewed references since they are more reliable. I believe everything is fully cited now. Joelito (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article looks much better with Joel's changes. I am still interested in adding more scientific details, but as it stands it seems to now meet FA standards. Edhubbard 12:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tuberculosis

Article is still a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Promoted during "Brilliant prose" phase, no original author. Messages left at Medicine FAR, Clinical Medicine, and Medicine. Sandy 15:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've made an effort to resolve the organisational problems I found with this article. However, I am still concerned that it has only 13 inline references from 11 sources. Of its eight general references, three have abstracts available, so they could be easily matched with the statements they support. It may also be possible to obtain further sources from sub-articles such as Tuberculosis treatment. Others, such as Tuberculosis diagnosis, are similarly poorly referenced. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

First, you could use more images from here. NCurse _work 14:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is seriously undercited, doesn't conform to WP:LAYOUT or WP:MEDMOS, doesn't use the highest quality sources specific to the subject area, doesn't cite PMIDs, has an External link farm, the lead is overly technical and not a compelling summary, the article mixes citation styles and uses weasle words. Adding images might make it pretty, but won't address the major problems :-) I've been working my way through the medical articles, and hadn't realized this one was so bad: all of the older ones should be checked. Sandy 15:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• A new user, User:Gak, is an infectious diseases specialist. He may be able to assist here. JFW | T@lk 19:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm leaving a note (hate to hit a new person with a massive cleanup job :-) Sandy 20:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Ha ha ha you think I haven't already been staring at tuberculosis for the last 3 months and shaking my head in dispair? I rewrote the TB treatment article with a view to gradually tackling the various bits one by one in manageable chunks. My current project is re-writing the latent tuberculosis article so it is less US-centric and actually applicable to people elsewhere. I've got together some decent references on my desk and I'm planning to do that over the next few days. The current UK NICE guidelines on TB are MASSIVE and dwarf even the CDC guidelines. Currently trying to recover from a weekend on call, so please forgive me if I'm a bit tardy. Also trying to organise a job move from Birmingham to Bangkok. --Gak 22:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• The WP:LAYOUT/WP:MEDMOS concerns should be relatively more easy to fix than the issues with sources. An action plan could look like this:

1. Make structure conform to guidelines
2. Mark up unsourced statements and references not within WP:RS
3. Find missing or more reliable references as appropriate.

Sounds like it will take more than a week, with people being busy. Is it worth demoting the article? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You have the entire month of October, and more time is usually granted when progress is being made. The process is at least two full weeks in review, followed by at least two weeks in FARC. Any chance of making Tuberculosis the MCOTW? Sandy 16:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• I've made a start at adding more references. However, I only know the <ref>stuff by stuff in thing</ref> format so I hope this isn't too disruptive. TimVickers 22:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It looks good, Tim. The only thing you might do differently is italicize the journal name instead of the article name: it looks like that will maintain consistency with the cite template that was in use there. But don't worry about that: a layperson (like me :-) can go in and fix refs anytime - more important is for the docs to get the writing done. Sandy 23:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• I've made a stab at reorganizing the sections to more closely conform to WP:MEDMOS, cleaned out the External link farm, fixed some headings to conform with WP:MOS, cleaned up the opening list, cleaned up some references, and did some copy editing. The article is still mostly unreferenced, though, and some of the text is awful. It also seems to focus a lot on the UK. It still needs a lot of work. Sandy 06:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The article now has a cleaner structure, better conforming to WP:MEDMOS, and TimVickers has added some inline cites, but the article is still vastly undercited and not yet comprehensive. Some important sections (Diagnosis and Treatment) are very brief, relying on daughter articles via Summary style, but those daughter articles aren't fully cited and are very technical. A non-technical, referenced, comprehensive, encyclopedic overview/summary of diagnosis and treatment would help. Similar for prognosis, in terms of answering basic layperson questions about the prognosis for latent and active TB patients. Some of the prose needs polishing, relying heavily on parenthetical inserts, which should be converted to prose. In terms of a global view, work is needed to reflect more geographic regions than the UK. Sandy 17:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    • More: some of the data needs to be verified and updated. For example, WHO says 1.7 million deaths annually, while CDC says 2 million. There are some specific incidence numbers from a media report which I can't match to any TB database numbers: relying on media reports in scientific articles should be avoided per reliable source guidelines. It would be better to cite that data from a health organization, and I'm wondering why so much specific data is given for London and not for other areas of the world? If it's because London provides an example of what is happening in European urban areas, that needs to be better explained and explored. Sandy 17:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Another problem is that overlapping daughter articles have been created with Tuberculosis in history and art and List of famous tuberculosis victims. These should be merged into one, and then summarized back to the main article, as per guidelines about "notables" at WP:MEDMOS. Sandy 17:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• I've added more refs and a few figures. A lot of copy-editing is still needed. Sandy, you're doing a brilliant job. TimVickers 05:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm just doing the menial stuff: your images and refs are great. I was going to see how far you could get before having another look at the prose. Sandy 05:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• The article is now fully referenced. TimVickers 19:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If you're done for a while, I'll run through it next: don't want to get in your way. Sandy 19:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Some general notes as I'm sorting through the article:
  • History can probably be better referenced (was probably originally referenced) from the books now listed in Further reading.
  • Treatment, prognosis and diagnosis still need basic, referenced, summary rewrites/overviews.
  • The article is poorly wiki-linked, but that work should be deferred until rewrite is finished.
  • I'm adding cite tags as I go through it: I still don't understand the preponderance of UK-specific information, and the lack of information relevant to sectors of the world where TS is very big problem.
  • A physician needs to make sure "other names" and "symptoms" sections jive.
  • I've added inline comments, questions: do a text search on <!

Sandy 20:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I feel the "Other names" section will need inline citations. Also the introduction to the "Prevention" section will need citations (as I'm curious as to where the three priority strategies came from). Good luck to editors - one could be adding inline citations until Doomsday (good work by the way)! LuciferMorgan 18:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • eeek, I feel like other names fall into the realm of general information. Maybe we can get an opinion from a Wikiphysician. TimVickers has been working his tail off on the article. Tim, where do you think it stands? I wish we could get a fresh set of eyes to look at it, to see what else needs to be done, but I haven't been able to entice anyone else over from WikiProject Medicine. Sandy 21:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'd give it six or seven out of ten. Now all it needs is some rewriting for clarity and structure. TimVickers 21:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I still stick to my comment. The sections I requested citations for must have been unearthed somewhere, so should be able to be cited. LuciferMorgan 21:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, quite right. I've added citations for the beginning of the Prevention section and am going to be removing the strange focus on the UK. I also added refs for the Other Names section. TimVickers 21:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• FARC? TimVickers has made great progress, and I'd rate the article higher on FA standards than his seven out of ten: I give it an 8. But further review is needed, there's still some work to be done, shall we keep it moving to FARC, and encourage other physicians to review? The referencing is complete, quality of references are good, Tim and I have both worked at copy editing, but my remaining concerns are that we get a better overview of prognosis, diagnosis and treatment, another set of eyes on copyedit, and the blessings of several WikiPhysicians on content. If we can get someone to do this small bit of remaining work, we could possibly avoid FARC. Sandy 05:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything else you need me to do Sandy? TimVickers 16:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you've done a stellar job so far, and don't see that there's much else you can do. I'm not sure what's going on with the recent anon edits, though—keeping the article on your watchlist might be helpful? Since I'm a layperson, I'm having a hard time sorting out vandalism from legitimate edits. Sandy 16:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll keep an eye on things. Just drop me a note if you need anything else done. TimVickers 17:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - All inline citations citing web sources need the date they were last accessed. If they then become dead links, they can be retrieved more easily using the Wayback Machine on www.archive.org. Minor work needs to be done to the article (a few more cites here and there maybe), but insufficient enough for me to vote it for FARC. I think this article should avoid FARC. LuciferMorgan 15:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieval dates or PMID added. Need ISBN for Britannical 1911. TimVickers 16:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've pestered the Medical Projects and Wikiphysicians, and no one has objected, so considering that the article is now organized, referenced, cruft cleaned up, and copy-edited, I think we can avoid FARC. I am surprised at the level of vandalism this article gets, though, and hope several people will keep it on their watch lists. TimVickers is to be commended for a job well done and a lot of hard work! I'll leave a message asking SamSara if he's satisfied. Sandy 12:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It's at the level where if I came across it, I wouldn't nominate it for FAR. On the other hand, I did come across one piece of weak prose in the lead, which I fixed, but I wonder whether there is more. I don't have time to read through all of it again just now. So if everybody else is happy, we can leave it at this. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I took that word out once, too :-) I'm not necessarily happy, but I'm not necessarily willing to FARC it. More opinions needed. Sandy 15:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I've stated I feel this one's a keep without FARC. If anybody does have actionable actions though, I urge admins to hold before FARCing so someone can address them. LuciferMorgan 17:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is insufficient citations. Marskell 09:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that concern has now been addressed, the article now has 65 independent citations, the large majority to peer-reviewed journals. TimVickers 16:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I also agree citations are fine. Unless another WikiPhysician appears and says the article isn't comprehensive for any reason, I'll be a Keep on this one. Sandy 01:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link (The Legend of Zelda series)

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at User talk:Phils, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nintendo, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Legend of Zelda series. Sandy 00:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This article need some improvement. In light of the recent Featuring of high quality FA fictional characters, it has the following issues;

Way too many and somewhat repetitious fair use images which also lack rationales and sources.

No information on character creation and portrayal from outside of the universe.

Not sure if this is a criteria, but there appears to be a ton of information about Links relationships and other in-game information that may be unnecessary.

Finally, there are few in-line citations and in the old format style.

I will try to help with this, but I hope this article gets saved. Judgesurreal777 00:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

My minor issues:

• Many of these images are collages, and as such very difficult to source (since we need to source every single image that was composited).
• Many other images are unnecessary. Why do we need an image of the ending of Zelda II when prose suffices? Why do we have so many images of essentially similar Links (the pre-N64 links, with the same outfit, hair, and essential appearance)?
• Why is there a synopsis of every single Legend of Zelda game? We have an article on the series and on each game already.
• More SSB cruft in Nintendo articles. There's a wholly unnecessary full page on Link in the Super Smash Bros. series, including detailed gameplay abilities.
• Ditto for Soul Calibur II.
• An extremely lengthy cameo section; this could be prosified or even summarized (no need to list EVERY cameo).

My major issue:

• 99% in-universe content, 1% out-of-universe content. It's all "Link does foo in game Bar" and no "The creators did X for Y reason."

While I don't want to see this demoted, I'm not entirely sure it's even GA status right now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

To make it clear, the minor issues are relatively easy to fix and shouldn't be a big deal, but the major one I feel is FARC-worthy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, there is way too much information in this article that should be left to Weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series. Pagrashtak 14:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• I agree a large number of images should be cut. Also, the summaries of Link's adventures in each game should be drastically reduced to some standard size and focus on the peculiarity of the incarnation in each game, not provide a synopsis of the story. The cameos section should be pretty easy to "prosify". Phils 03:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

While they're not exactly at standard size, I had a go at taking out 'storycruft' in the adventure summaries. --Sparky Lurkdragon 06:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There are one or two promising hits at Google Books and Google Scholar for anyone willing to slog through the results. And there's always this site. — BrianSmithson 11:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, 90% of the problems are gone, including all the minor ones. As to the major problems, I am going to start hunting for references and going to massively start trimming the article. If anyone wants to help, please consult current featured fictional characters such as Jabba the Hutt or Padme Amidala. Judgesurreal777 21:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Whilst reading this article i was surprised to see the gold star - this simply isn't FA-worthy in its current state. The Video Games section is way too long, waffly, and full of crap. The Characteristics section is fairly pants as well. It needs cleaning up as in language, formatting, as well as more sources and more relevant information (and less non-relevant information). I'll try to help out where i can. -- jeffthejiff 14:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone please help! People have undone all the work I am doing on Link (Legend of Zelda) and I don't want to break to 3 revert rule, so someone please stop them from reverting everything I did. Judgesurreal777 03:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, situation under control, thank you to those who helped out :) But as you can see, I have a lot of copyediting to do, anyone wanting to help would be greatly appreciated. Judgesurreal777 17:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Of ALL our FAs, this is the LAST one I want to see go. I will do whatever needs to be done. Leave a note on my talk page if you are having trouble with something. The more specific, the better. Sir Crazyswordsman 20:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding references to the story section. I could appreciate some help. I say three to five per game, depending on the importance of it. Sir Crazyswordsman 03:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are images (3), format and sufficiency of citations (1c), comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell 10:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The suggested concerns do not take into account any of the work done on this article, such as the lack of any current image issues. Also, on the other two points, A lot of work has been done, and it would be good to hear reviewers comment on how its going, as opposed to now moving to FARC with active work on the article. Judgesurreal777 12:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I say the issues raised have been addressed. If there are any further objections, please state them so those working to keep this article FA can begin work. Judgesurreal777 22:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

To elaborate, I was the one who initially wanted this article reviewed, little suspecting I would be one of the prime fixers :) The images, starting at over a dozen and many montages, are now 3 encyclopedic images with rationales and sources. The article is now comprehensive as it has a ton of concept and creation info, as there was very little before, and we have gone from 1-2 inline ciations to many many more now. Judgesurreal777 17:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. More images can be added, as can more citations. Most of the issues have been adressed though. The article is definitely comprehensive. Sir Crazyswordsman 16:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

  The problem was that there were too many images, many of which were unsourced or impossible to source. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

  Frankly there will be disagreements among editors about what constitutes enough images. There always are. Sir Crazyswordsman 21:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. It does look tons better, so kudos to Judgesurreal. The cruft keeps creeping back in, though, so be vigilant. It's unfortunate that there's nothing else to say about the character's concept and creation. Are there other sources that might be consulted? — BrianSmithson 22:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• I'm still ambivalent about keeping this. The cruft was annoying but not the key problem; there's just so little information here that isn't gleaned directly from the games, and a good chunk of it is of interest primarily to hardcore LOZ fans. (For example, a full quarter of the "Character creation" header is dedicated to explaining that zomg yes there is a Zelda continuity.) It feels more like an A-class than a FA-class to me, but I'm not sure if splitting that hair is worth it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - We should fix the problems but keep it. As the Importance=high clearly states, Link is one of the staples of NES and Gameboy and should be portrayed accordingly in Wikipedia. We just need to bring it up to par. I'll help !! Renmiri 13:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so I added a bunch of game references to get the ingame stuff set, but I see that many people are mentioning the need for concept and creation information. What specificially do people want added? Say what it is, that way we can add it :) Judgesurreal777 16:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Where did the name come from? Why'd they design the sprite the way they did? Did Miyamoto know the backstory before the character was created or was it kind of random as with Mario's design? What design decisions were made and by whom in the character's reinterpretation in future games? That sort of thing. — BrianSmithson 01:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Great suggestions Brian! I also did some wordsmithing, trying to make the section more out of universe and adding specific design criteria Miyamoto has mentioned on interviews. Have a look folks, see if you like the changes Renmiri 02:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

PS: The article is long and the Characteristics / Appearances sections look daunting. I suggest trimming it, though I have not had the chance to read it in detail Renmiri 02:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

So, how's the article looking now? More has been added, more re written. Judgesurreal777 02:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - It still could use some work, but it has been improved enough in my opinion to warrant remaining as an FA. --PresN 17:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laika

Article is still a featured article

Messages left at Zerbey and Dogs. Sandy 16:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if this is referenced well enough to be a FA; and also the popular culture section at the end is mostly just large ugly lists. Mlm42 15:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Not FA material. Very listy, and when you remove the popular culture section, there's not much left. The few inline citations that are provided are not to quality sources, and the entire article needs to be cited. Sandy 16:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Significant improvement by Yomangani. Sandy 18:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Criterion 1. c. is definitely at fault here, and if the popular culture section was rewritten into proper paragraphs which flow and tie the whole subsections cohesively together the article would be much improved. LuciferMorgan 20:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Agree with all the above points. The popular culture section needs pruning as well as rewriting - there are some very tenuous connections in there. If this doesn't get any attention, I'll come back to it when it hits FARC. Yomangani^talk 23:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed another problem with this article - the images of Laika fall foul of the change to copyright status of PD-soviet (see Commons:Template talk:PD-Soviet). I've removed one that is about to be deleted from commons, but I'm not sure whether the main one can be saved with a fair use rationale. Yomangani^talk 01:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a picture on the NASA web site, I did write to NASA about the copyright status during the original FA nom but never got a reply. My opinion is that it is covered under the same restrictions of other NASA images and should be usable. It's unlikely that a free image of Laika is available anywhere else. Thoughts? Zerbey 20:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been looking at that, and I think any real images are likely to originally come from the Soviet Space Program, so wouldn't be NASA images per se (they've got images of the stamps there too which certainly aren't theirs to release). However, I'm not sure about the "mock-up" photo - that could easily have been done by NASA, and judging from the fact the dog looks nothing like Laika, was probably not done by the Russians (wild speculation there). I'm trying to track down the original source for that photo at the moment. Yomangani^talk 23:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that the mock-up in the photo at NASA might be from the model in the Sputnik 2 picture in the article (you can see something similar if you look closely), in which case it comes from the Polytechnical Museum in Russia rather than NASA.Yomangani^talk 02:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I know I said I'd leave it until FARC, but I've nearly finished rewriting and citing this. The image of Laika (top right) seems to come from TASS, but I would think it is promotional material - any fair use experts know the correct fair use tag for this (I can write the justification, just unsure on the tag). Yomangani^talk 02:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I left notes for Peta and Jkelly. Peta knows animals, Jkelly knows Fair Use. Sandy 15:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that we could, in theory, make a good Wikipedia:Fair use claim for Image:Laika.jpg but both best practice (and policy would mean knowing more about this image. If we're claiming "fair use", we should have some confidence in knowing whose work it is and where it comes from. The URL given as this image's "source" is just some random website that is republishing the image without providing any information about it at all. Image:Russian Sputnik 2 Space Capsule.jpg doesn't have this problem, and just needs a fair use rationale like Image:Laika.jpg already has. Image:Opportunity-Laikia-soil-target-sol-400.jpg needs to be sourced to NASA (where did we find this?). Jkelly 20:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The Image:Laika.jpg must come from the Soviet Space Program originally, as there is no other possible source - before she was in the space program she was a stray and there was no after. I have not been able to find it formally stated anywhere though. I'll write a fair use rationale for the Sputnik photo and find a source for the soil sample. Yomangani^talk 23:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment (after cleanup). It's a fascinating read, well written and (AFAIC at least) captivating. Now has inline citations. --kingboyk 17:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, there lead does a bit more than summarise the content of the article and is probably a bit long given the length of the rest of the article. Moving some of the detials about the dog to the body of the article would get rid of most of those cites from the lead (where I don't think they should really appear).--Peta 01:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Concur. Generally cites shouldn't be in the lead (which shouldn't contain anything not in the body; cites can go there), although there are exceptions (a lead in a biography of a human contains full name and date of birth, and this generally isn't repeated in the body; if citations are needed for these - as they are in the case of Bill Drummond, whose real name and place of birth have been confused in the past - that's OK I think). Anyway, it's a minor issue so whilst I concur I don't think it need prevent moving to close. --kingboyk 10:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't have a problem with occasional cites in the lead: there are times when they are called for, and sometimes I ask for a cite when an extraordinary piece of info must occur first in the lead. Since I don't usually object to cites in the lead, can you point me to any guideline which would change my mind? Sandy 16:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Found: WP:LEAD says the lead "should be carefully sourced like the rest of the text". I usually expect sources only for unexpected statements or claims, and don't look for general summarized concepts in the lead to be cited. Sandy 21:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Exactly. The lead should be carefully sourced, but the lead should also be a general summary - ergo, the material can be referenced in the body :) (with exceptions of course!) Not coming from any policy I've read, just general observation of how existing FAs do it. Citations in the lead don't seem overly common. --kingboyk 14:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, great work by Yomangani over the last few days - the article has been given a well needed makeover. Zerbey 02:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment . . . Wait just a second before we decide to keep this. I have concerns about the sources used. Three of them are self-published websites, and as such, fail WP:RS. The sites in question are the ones at novareinna.com, Robin Chase (angelfire? really?), and Sven Grahn. These may be wonderfully written websites, but, like I said, they are self-published, so have no editorial oversight and are thus in violation of WP policies. Can someone find some more reliable sources to replace them with? I doubt it would be hard; merely a trip to the local library (or Google Books) should suffice. After that, I think the article should definitely be kept. It's a great example of the kind of thing Wikipedia does best. — BrianSmithson 22:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Move to close FAR as keep. Only outstanding issue is Fair Use on image, and that is being addressed. Sandy 02:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, no need to go to the removal phase now. Great work. --Peta 01:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. agreed. Mlm42 08:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] England expects that every man will do his duty

Messages left at User talk:Zoney, Template talk:WPMILHIST Announcements, and Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board. Sandy 00:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

England expects that every man will do his duty is no longer up to FA criteria, I reckon. It was in 2004, but no longer. --Knotted 13:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• We're relying on nominators to set the directions for the reviews, at least initially. Which FA criteria do you think are at issue? Tony 15:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Err, well, mainly because this FA is a heck of a lot shorter than the other ones! --Knotted 18:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• By right the nominator should set the direction of the review, so that steps are actionable. Having said that, inline citations are needed (1. c.), and the "References in Popular Culture" section needs a cleanup from its bullet style format which creates disjointed prose. All paragraphs in the section should be tied together to create an orderly, cohesive section which flows smoothly (1. a.). LuciferMorgan 18:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The article seems small to me for FAC. I also want to point out a few more things:

• There are no sources, bibliography, references! This is totally inacceptable for a FA.
• No inline citations.
• The section "References in popular culture" looks like a Trivia section or a long list, which are both inacceptable for FAs. The section should be turned into prose.

As it is now, the article does not deserve FA status.--Yannismarou 18:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• The paragraph under the heading ‘Usage in football’ is completely irrelevant IMO, and the article has already stated that the phrase had entered English popular consciousness. I totally disagree with the analysis of last part of that section which has more to do with the nation's psyche after losing a football match than anything to do with the article's subject!

Under referenced No citations Too short Raymond Palmer 20:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Guys, there isn't a "no short" criteria for FAs. To make your objection actionable, you must say which pieces of information are missing to make it "Comprehensive" (1b).--BMF81 22:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

When the article is already short and half of it is trivia and the rest is unsourced, then there is a problem with the length as well.--Yannismarou 10:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Actually, there is a "too short" article in a way, and I think Raymond Palmer's objections are actionable. The GA process was created for articles under 15kb, and this doesn't even near 10kb. Worthy references on the subject can be named, and also inline citations can be added to the article. LuciferMorgan 21:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • GA has no official status as the "only badge of honour for short articles". If a short article is comprehensive and otherwise meets the criteria it can be an FA (I'm not saying this particular article does or doesn't meet those criteria). --kingboyk 10:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment 2 references for a featured article? I'm sorry, but that alone tells me that this article no longer meets featured article criteria. References seem fine now, though I'm not an expert in the matter --Zantastik talk 01:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I've partially rewritten the article today but there are still a few references to track down for the popular culture section, and the lead needs some work. I'll come back to it tomorrow or Monday, but please point out anything else that needs fixing. Yomangani^talk 01:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I've now finished working on this - it's thoroughly referenced with inline citations; the irrelevant details (such as the section on football) have been removed; the popular culture section has been rewritten; and some more details have been added to the rest of the article. I don't think it is going to get any longer, but then again, I don't think "too short" has ever been a valid objection: The GA process can't make up its collective mind what its purpose is, and even if it could, I don't think we should be quoting one of its criteria as if it is an explicit criterion for exclusion from FA status. Yomangani^talk 23:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Comment Neat, tidy – more importantly, well written and apposite. The irrelevancies are gone. Sufficiently detailed. Good work on an interesting subject. Raymond Palmer 11:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Yomangani^talk has done some nice work and addressed my objections. Having said that, I don't feel the article is comprehensive enough which is one of the FA criteria. LuciferMorgan 17:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Can you give me a pointer to where you think it is lacking? Yomangani^talk 19:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment We donot oppose or support here. The article is much better now. When I read it in detail in due time, I'll comment on its comprehensiveness.--Yannismarou 17:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It's 15kb, and well written articles 15kb and under are usually considered GA material according to GA guidelines. It's best to overall find out what other material you can add to the article. LuciferMorgan 20:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  It should be pointed out that the GA guidelines—whatever they happen to be this week—have absolutely nothing to do with whether an article meets the FA criteria. Kirill Lokshin 21:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good thanks to work by Yomangani; suggest it can be closed without FARC. Sandy 21:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, but too small, so it should go to FARC based on comprehensiveness. LuciferMorgan 16:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

For now, I'll go per Sandy. The article is small but seems comprehensive. If LuciferMorgan indicates what particular topic needs further development and expansion and why it is not comprehensive right now, I may reconsider my position. --Yannismarou 19:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll also reconsider if LuciferMorgan (or anybody else) can point out where it is lacking. The topic area is extremely narrow and it's tempting to stray away from the subject, but I don't think there's anything to add other than padding or original research. Length and comprehensiveness are not synonyms. Yomangani^talk 22:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Status. Agree: comprehensiveness, not length, is the criteria. If Lucifer points out something that is missing and/or other work that needs doing we can move it down; otherwise, I'll close this in a day. Marskell 06:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polish-Soviet War

[edit] Review commentary

Original author, Piotrus and MilHist already notified. Sandy 02:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This article does not meet the criterium of being stable; it is frequently the subject of heated edit wars whether this is a Polish victory or not. Errabee 22:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

FAR is not dispute resolution: the edit history shows a problem developed today. I'm just one voice here, but my recommendation is that you either list significant areas where the article fails to meet FA criteria, or take this through dispute channels: the MilHist group has a number of knowledgeable editors. Sandy 22:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should examine the history more closely. Those steps have all been taken, but the reached consensus is being altered time and again. Errabee 22:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Sandy that the current problems have started no sooner then yesterday, although as I don't like to see Featured Articles with NPOV or other tags, I would hope comments (and edits) of reviewers may speed up resolving the current conflict. As for consensus: the consensus was undisputably reached in April 2005 when the article was featured. Last vote at that time took place on 21 April, this is the article after last edit on that day; you can see the article states the war ended with a Polish victory - the point which you are disputing. Since that time the entry about the result has been expanded not only with the link to the Treaty of Riga, but also has two academic references in cite.php format; one of those entries is actually a footnote discussing the issue. Only on that example it would seem that the article has been improved from the time it was FACed, but others, like the fact that the article has moved from 4 to 55 footnotes would indicate to me that the article still fullfills FA criteria. If there is anything else you are disputing, feel free to mention it here - or on article's talk page - which, if I am not mistaken, you have not edited yet.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. The removal of the phrase Polish victory was done originally by Albrecht (see [1]), a member of the Military History project. In his edit summary he claims it is not common practice to assign victory labels, not even to those wars that have a clearer outcome. Because his edit was undone by Lysy, I simply chose to adhere to an outsider's view. This looks like POV pushing to me. Errabee 23:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought you've just removed the "victory" word from the article yourself ? Does it look like POV pushing to you, too ? --Lysy^talk 23:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

As I stated, I simply reapplied a change from an uninvolved editor, who removed the Polish victory phrase from the infobox. Any attempt to do otherwise, looks like POV-pushing to me. Errabee 00:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I am also a member of this WikiProject, as is Halibutt who restored the mention of the result. If Albrecht would like to direct us to a wiki policy on not listing results, instead of edit summaries, it would be appreciated, especially as both of our references support Soviet defeat / Polish victory variant. Claiming a result contrary to our references seems like POV pushing to me.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I do remember that all faults aside, on the FA day, the artice did have a Peace of Riga outcome and had it ever since until yesterday Halibutt decided to resume this for whatever reasons. --Irpen 23:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems like your memory needs some refreshing. Article was featured on May 25 2006. Selected revisions from the week preceeding it: 17:44, May 23, 2006: Polish victory, 20:40, May 22, 2006: Polish victory; 15:28, May 18, 2006: Polish victory, and month (05:48, April 6, 2006: Polish victory). Then on a day before the main page featuring, we get the result changed ([2]). The fact that the new result survived few months and is disupted now does not lend it any credibility, it may be a simple mistake, especially as the references we have are for Soviet defeat / Polish victory.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am very sorry, Piotrus, but your statement that the new result might be a simple mistake is very flawed. If you look at the comment, you see it was done to comply with the internal guidelines of the MilHist workgroup. And the same user who changed the result on May 25th, changed it also today with exactly the same rationale. As is evident by the reference provided, any side can claim sources to argue whether it was a Polish victory or it was indecisive. All this calls for the simple mention of the peace treaty, and people can then decide themselves. Errabee 00:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Which guidelines? Please provide us with a link and a quotation to justify this. As is evident by the references provided ([3], [4]), Polish victory was rather evident.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to ask Albrecht for the guidelines. If he says those guidelines exist, I tend to believe him. As for the sources: why do you not address the concerns? Your answers simply restates your original statement. The very first reference provided in Polish-Soviet War states the following: The question of victory is not universally agreed on. Russian and Polish historians tend to assign victory to their respective countries. Outside assessments vary, mostly between calling the result a Polish victory and inconclusive. Lenin in his secret report to the IXth Conference of the Bolshevik Party on September 20, 1920, called the outcome of the war "In a word, a gigantic, unheard-of defeat" (see The Unknown Lenin, ed. Richard Pipes, Yale University Press, ISBN 0-300-06919-7 Document 59, Google Print, p. 106). Norman Davies called the war a "military defeat" for the Soviets (see following reference). Claiming Polish victory is very clearly POV, no matter how many sources you provide. Errabee 01:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for quoting that footnote, which I wrote some time ago (interestingly, a year ago Irpen supported the 'minor Polish victory' with footnotes version, I created the footnote as requested, but now it is not enough...). Anyway, since you ask about the sources, as anybody can see we have sources for Soviet defeat / Polish victory, the assertions for Russian historians claiming victory is not sourced (I expected Irpen or sb else would, but nobody bothered in over a year); and the footnote states (or understadees) that outide (i.e. English) sources mostly call the result a Polish victory (i.e. 2:0 acccording to our sources). Therefore as you can clearly see the references not only support the 'Polish victory' version, but they would further suggest we drop any mension of unsourced claims that the result is disputed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That footnote is perfectly fine, Piotrus. I probably won't be the first one commending you on the NPOV writing of that footnote. The only problem is that when the result is stated as a Polish victory, it constitutes a contradiction. You can't have it both ways. So either the footnote has to go, which will result in a severe response from the pro-Russian editors, or the Polish victory has to go. Errabee 03:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• The article in the form it was featured can be most softly called a propaganda spin. After that I added plenty of references and dozens of edits trying to NPOV it but it still fails to meet NPOV. It is becoming even less so as the sourced info is persistently removed, together with the sources themselves, and hours of work on adding sourced info is fastly undone by quick and disrepectful reverts. Why am I trying to improve it? Because it bears a prestigious FA label and I want it to be a FA quality, neutral and complete. However, I find reaching this goal impossible and the FA label needs to be put down. When, and if, the neutrality is achieved through participation of more editors with the background different from its main authors, it may be voted for a FA status one more time.--Irpen
  • I prefer to think that the original reviewers knew what they were doing, and your claims of POVishness, rarely accompanied by any sources, are not likely to change my opnion until you present sources to back your statements with.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Just count how many sources of those present there are added by me and you will see plenty. Some of them are getting removed by fast and fierce reverts and I am giving up. --Irpen 23:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Any specific reliable source that you have in mind ? --Lysy^talk 23:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Lysy, this is called a No true Scotsman argument. If you decide which sources are reliable and which are not, by definition you will always be right. Only it does not work that way. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
          • No, Grafikm, Lysy is simply asking Irpen to cite a particular example a reliable source has been removed. Now please give us such an example or stop accusing other editors of 'fast and fierece reverts of sources'. Start by showin a source, then we can debate it's reliability.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
            • I did. Check the article's talk page. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
              • I seem to be unable to find your edit mentioning any edit diffs on that point, could you be so kind and point it out in an edit diff for me?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I am uninvolved in this article, and haveno opinion as to whether the Soviets of Polish won this war. However, any article in the middle of a NPOV dispute does not exemplify the very best of Wikipedia, and as such, should have its featured status revoked until disputes are resolved. Furthermore, the very fact that such disputes are pouring over onto this page says a bit about their scale. --Zantastik talk 22:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This is a featured article review, not FARC. People don't call for removal here, but highlight the problems of an article and suggest a method of action an editor could take to address the concerns. LuciferMorgan 23:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. The problem that this article faces is a NPOV dispute, a flaw that will doom any featured article unless it is dealt with. --Zantastik talk 23:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The template is no longer there. But in the end this is a controversial topic, and template may resurface in the future no matter what we do. Being controversial and subject from time to time to content disputes and tagging is however not a deFAcing criteria. POVed groups (of which I am a part there) may push for some chages from time to time, but the consensus of more neutral editors have decided during FAC that the article, on average, is neutral enough.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The article was FAed a year and a half ago when the requirement for FA were even more lax than they are now. Most importantly, however, is not a single editor from Russia or Ukraine took part at this discussion at the time. You can always say that this was "their" fault but now the situation changed. Several Russian and Ukrainian editors express their dissatisfaction both with the article and with how their attempts to NPOV it are met (whole scale reverts of hours of work by you have become routine). No way the article in a year ago shape would have been FAed now, as it was even further from NPOV than it is today. --Irpen 03:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

That's your POV; I don't think you can speak for all Russian and Ukrainians editors. And anyway, Wiki is not supposed to be some place of straw poll contest between particular nationalities, actually I would think that we should acknowledge that involved parties are much more POVed than non-involved and see what more neutral editors have to say.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

That would have been perfect provided we had some uninvolved parties with the background on the subject to judge the article for an objectivity. Most non-Poles, non-Russians, non-Ukrainians don't know anything about those events. They see the article with nice inline refs, pics, no spelling errors, i-wiki links, etc, and this all seems fine. I would not be of much help to judge the neutrality of some South American war article. I welcome attention of non-involved users but unless we get a supply of such users with sufficient background (172, where are you?), the only way to achieve the balance it to get a compromise between people from different involved nations. They likely have some clue of what happened. --Irpen 03:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

That's an excellent point, and I'm certainly an example of one of the legion of non-Ukranian, Polish or Russian editors who looks at this article just like that. This article might very well need a Request for Comment in order to get some outside eyes in here (I'm not really able to contribute much myself on this matter, due to my ignorance of it) --Zantastik talk 05:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

While for non-specialist it may be difficult to judge content, judging neutrality is much easier. Further, there are quite a few specialist in various obscure subjects in all countries, especially western ones, hence the richness of English language literature about such subject (consider, for example, Norman Davies, one of undisputed experts on the PSW subject). I believe that those specialists are much more neutral then editors (or even professional historians) from involved countries, who while may have more content knowledge then your average non-specialist from different country will also tend to be much less neutral. Therefore I prefer to see sources and editors from non-involved countries contributing to the article as much as possible.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The article became overly long. Maybe some sections could be shortened and the existing content forked into separate articles ? --Lysy^talk 23:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. A summary of the problems with this article was never provided, so I'll attempt one.

• It appears that the POV concerns have died down, although they were noted on the original FAC nom. Can editors please let us know if POV is still a concern?
• The article mixes reference styles and has some uncited statements, as well as broad swatches of unreferenced text. (I fixed the footnotes to conform with WP:FN with Gimmetrow's new ref fixer.)
• Doesn't conform with WP:LAYOUT.
• The article is very long, and appears to be a candidate for summary style. The article is 98KB overall, with 60 KB of prose, but that number is an understatement because of the extensive prose in the footnotes.
• A whole lot of text is referenced to a professor's lecture notes, which may not be a "peer-reviewed" source? University of Kansas, lecture notes by professor Anna M. Cienciala, 2004. Last accessed on 2 June 2006. I'd like to hear what the MilHist say about the sources.

I din't examine the prose: that's just a sample of some things that could be addressed: can some of the MilHist group let us know if this article needs to move to FARC or not? Sandy 18:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Got to say, I think it needs some copyediting. Articles (a vs the) need improvement.

Buckshot06 05:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are stability (1e) POV (1d), and MoS concerns (2). Marskell 22:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Frankly, while the POV concerns are notable, they are not significant enough in this particular case to bring down the article's stature. I also have to say that I am disappointed with the very fact that there is a dispute: this was a significant Polish victory. It essentially meant that Lenin could not spread the Revolution like he wanted. Poland was practically the only major bulwark against the Red Army before it marched to the heart of Central Europe and did a good job at preventing the latter from accomplishing that feat.UberCryxic 17:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I detailed (above) issues other than POV which need to be addressed. Sandy (Talk) 15:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Still has numerous citation needed tags, uses mixed reference styles, has broad patches of unreferenced text, and is very long and could benefit from Summary Style. Is work progressing ?? Sandy (Talk) 23:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I have replaced four out of five request for citations with citations; the one that remains is a minor quote that can be removed without harming the article. I do agree that the article can benefit from some more referencens, but it has 64 for inline ones at the moment - more than quite a lot of other FAs.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and move on to some more serious issues. //Halibutt 07:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Further comment Almost three weeks ago, I mentioned that the article uses mixed reference styles (still uncorrected), doesn't conform to WP:LAYOUT (still not corrected), has 60KB of prose and could benefit from summary style, and has some uncited text. We are now beyond a month revivew, and these items haven't been addressed. I'll give it the weekend before voting to Remove. Sandy (Talk) 15:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Seems like you've not to notice my reply above. The article has no citation requested tag; what changes would you recommend to layout? As far as I can tell it conforms to the layout guidelines. As for lenght, I believe comprehensivity is more important than being short, although if you have suggestions what can be moved of to subarticles (note we already have those), by all means, please be specific.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It looks like you've addressed the mixed referencing styles; I fixed the layout and corrected the footnote punctuation with Gimmetrow's new ref fixer script. I do not want to tell an experienced and knowledgeable editor where to cut the size of his article: I will be a "Keep" if you can get the prose size from the current 60KB (which IMO is a burden to the reader) to around 50KB, by making more aggressive use of summary style. Regards, Sandy (Talk) 16:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I did shave a few kb's by splitting of the Controversies of the Polish-Soviet War section, which was added after the FAC voting, and removing some minor details, but I am afraid it's still few kb's over 50kb prose.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Some of those in the Notes section aren't even inline cites, and also how hard that specific section is to read with the unnecessary text is quite atrocious. Sections of text still remain uncited too. LuciferMorgan 17:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • First of all, there is no notes section. Second, assuming you mean references, there are quotations of text, used usually in case the reference is to non-English source which the editors have translated. If there are any specific uncited parts of text you'd like referenced, please add fact templates; I have added refs to all facts that other editors requested.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment So you're telling me for a simple inline citation I have to wade through sentences upon sentences of text? If you have a comment to make, make it in the body of the text. LuciferMorgan 23:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Further comment I just added some fact templates - when you've finished with them leave a message on my talk page so I can then add more fact templates for the facts I want confirmed - most are concerning specific numerical numbers. Thanks for taking the time to help this article. LuciferMorgan 00:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. It may take me some days to go over them, I hope there are no deadlines on the FARC and I (and other editors) will have time to go over the citation requests. I will do my best to find sources for them.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Status: No deadlines if you're working. Just let people know when you feel you're done. Marskell 08:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep No major problems to keep it from FA status. Heavily cited, fairly well-written. Let's move on. --MPD01605 (T / C) 02:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Remove—1a. Here are examples from the lead.
  • The title wrongly uses a hyphen; an en dash is used in the article text.
  • In the second sentence, there are several problems (upper-case here), including wrong use of em dashes: "The war was a result of conflicting expansionist attempts — by Poland, whose statehood had just been re-established following the Partitions of Poland in the late 18th century, to secure territories which she had lost at the time of partitions or earlier — and by the Soviets, who aimed at control of the same territories, which had been part of Imperial Russia until the turbulent events of the Great War." Try this: "The war was a result of conflicting expansionist attempts: by Poland, whose statehood had just been re-established following the Partitions of Poland in the late 18th century, to secure territories she had lost at the time of partitions OR? earlier; and by the Soviets, who aimed TO control THE same territories, which had been part of Imperial Russia until the Great War." In any case, consider not using spaces around em dashes—where the text column is small, adjacent to maps and infoboxes, they cause problems. And the sentence is rather too long.
  • "having won the conflict with West Ukrainian People's Republic"—no, THE West ...
  • Poor sentence structure, e,g., "Meanwhile, the Bolsheviks began to gain the upper hand in the Russian Civil War and advance westward towards the disputed territories and by the end of 1919 a clear front had formed." "To" might be inserted before "advance", as well.

Someone has already complained about the writing, in the review process above, yet 1a is absent from the list of concerns here. Tony 03:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment If Tony feels criterion 1. a. isn't met, then it's up to those who wish to save it to address his concerns. And as for moving on as MPD01605 said, no frankly. There's specific opinions and numbers still uncited in the article which need addressing. Look at the actual article, and not just how many cites an article has - that's lazy reviewing as far as I'm concerned. LuciferMorgan 13:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• The dash doesn't seem very serious, if somebody actually understands which one to use, please do so (the article has recently been moved because of it; to me it's honestly a 'mystery'). As for copyedit, there are no English native speakers working on the article, and to my knowledge there is no wikiproject offering copyedit; thus I cannot address this issue easily (it took me over a week to find a copyeditor for my newest FAC, and I had to ask over 10 people on the talk pages before one person replied). As for referenced, we have added citation to most of those you requested; the few that remain are not critical and I think they will be cited (or removed) soon.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm very sure you'll fill the cites, and commend you for doing so. As for finding copyeditors, well you have my sympathy. They're hard to come by aren't they? LuciferMorgan 03:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I am trying my hand at copyediting this article. Please allow me some time to complete it. However, I believe the article could benefit from the use of summary style. Moving less relevant content to daughter articles. Joelito (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment. This is obviously very comprehensive, and well-cited and I'm inclined toward keep. The prose remains so-so, however, and I'm concerned about criteria 4—there is a great deal of repetition and over-explanation. One example for the people involved in the page: cites 17 through 21 have lengthy quotes re the Międzymorze. Can those be moved to that page and away from here? I just paused my editing because my head began to ache trying to figure out where cites end and regular prose begins.
  • I know this has been up six weeks, but there's no harm in trying to tighten up the page further. Marskell 08:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I have recently added some of those cites to Międzymorze - feel free to remove text from citations in PSW and/or move more of them there. Such citations I feel more often belong on Wikiquote or quote sections than on Wikipedia.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I'll note when I am finished the surgery. Marskell 06:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Since the article is in more capable hands I will not copyedit it any further. Joelito (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. This review has gone on for seven weeks now, there are still cite needed tags, the lead is too long, there are prose problems per Tony's analysis, and the article still needs to make better use of Summary style. Enough time has been allowed to address these issues, and progress seems stalled. Sandy (Talk) 20:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • There are no longer any cite needed tags (I removed unverifiable information). The lead consists of three paras, it fits requirements of WP:LEAD. Prose has been copyedit by several editors. As for summary style, please elaborate on talk of the article which sections you'd like to see further summarized.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I believe most objections have been addressed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The work has not stalled and Tony's specifics have been addressed with the exception of the hyphen in the title (does anyone else notice that hyphens and en dashes look exactly the same in edit mode?). It's big, so editing takes time. After a mid-level edit (basically eliminating redundancy) I think criterion 4 will be satisfied; then I'd like to go back for the micro stuff (uniform date format, use of dashes). Piotrus, note I've added three fact requests today to uncited paras—it's a bit robotic just placing them on the end of paras like this, but the level of sourcing does weaken somewhat in the last half. Marskell 07:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Replaced all but one with refs, that one may take more digging. The work is going on :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Unfortunately, I will not be able to edit this further for the timebeing, but I am satisfied that any remaining concerns do not rise to remove, having gone over much. When the article gets past the prelude to the actual war, it moves fairly briskly; in the prelude and related I've cut about 5 k (much of it buried notes) and I think criterion 4 is met in the early sections now. The LEAD is an appropriate length relative to the body. Yes, it's long, but "comprehensiveness not length" cuts both ways, and if you exclude the mass of notes I'd guess this tips in around 70k, which is acceptable.

• Finally, I know it's a pain in the ass, but can you do one thing Piotrus: de-link all of the dates that are not attached to a year and/or are not seminal to this topic and choose a uniform format (1 January or January 1—I prefer the latter, but it must be consistent, in any case). Marskell 07:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Considering Marskell's work, as soon as Piotrus finishes the date de-linking, I'll change to Keep. Sandy (Talk) 09:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed status

[edit] Definition of planet

[edit] Review commentary

Original nom User:Serendipodous. Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. Sandy 20:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This article has been fundamentally redrafted since the announcement on the 24th of August of a formal definition of "planet" by the IAU, and is very much a different article from when it was featured. Also, the controversy surrounding the formal definition has meant that this article has been accused of bias. Serendipodous 17:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. After quick read through the article it no longer has the feel of a FA. It seems (Again after a quick read I will post more later) that it is about either B or GA class. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 17:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Without reading the article in depth, I would say that this article should not be featured because the subject material is still rapidly changing at the moment. The debate did not end with the last IAU meeting. Featured article status should be reserved for subjects that are not in a state of flux. George J. Bendo 20:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly recommend that the article remains featured. It should not suffer under the overenthousiasm of some editors after IAU 2006, and I don't see how the recent changes have made the article as a whole (except the related sections, which could be rapidly cleaned up) any worse. Nick Mks 16:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. There are numerous statements lacking inline citations. I didn't tag them in the article, as there are many, but will give examples if someone is working on them. Sandy 23:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are stability (1e), POV (1d), and citations (1c). Marskell 11:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I am definitely in the "there is no reason this can't still be an FA camp." If we disallow something because of a recent event, we're overturning one of Wiki's strengths. Beginning near the top, can references be tracked down for the history section? Marskell 10:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of tracking down a PhD topic, so I'm not really in a position to do the research, but I think the best thing to do would be to find unabridged English translations of both Galileo's "The Starry Messenger" and Huygens's "Systema Saturnum" to determine if the Galiean moons and Titan are indeed referred to as "planets" (as I recall, Galileo called them stars.) As for locating that "terminological distinction", other than trolling through Ptolemy's Almagest or the works of Aristotle I'm not sure how we could cite it. I've cited and expanded the "semantics" paragraph, so that it no longer reads like someone's personal opinion. The first three paragraphs of the "minor planets" section are all cited by the same source [cite 2], so I've redrafted the citations to make sense of that. I've also provided what I think is a citation for an uncited bit of OR I did. As for "Hydrostatic equilibrium," I've attempted to contac the guy who wrote the material twice, but he hasn't got back to me. Serendipodous 10:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. I want to add 1a to the concerns—it wouldn't pass FAC at the moment. Let's look at the ungainly, repetitive opening para:

The definition of "planet" has for some time been the subject of intense debate. Despite the term having existed for thousands of years, no definition of "planet" by an official body of scientists existed before the early 21st century. Until the beginning of the 1990s, there was little need for a definition, as astronomers had only a single sample within the solar system to work from, and the sample was small enough for its many irregularities to be dealt with individually.

• • The second sentence is ungrammatical. Try "Despite the existence of the term for thousands of years,...". Avoid "exists" again by saying: "... there was no need for a definition ...". This exposes the sameness of this sentence and the next one. The last clause better as: " because astronomers had only a single sample in the solar system, which was small enough for ...".

• • Then casting our eyes down to the second para, we see "discovery" three times, one of them "new discovery" ("old discovery"?).

I'll reconsider if the whole article is copy-edited. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tony1 (talk • contribs). 02:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Remove.
  • Were all of those Secondary sources used as references in the article, or are some of them Further reading or External links?
  • There are two main articles under "Extrasolar planets and brown dwarfs": is that the correct usage of the main template?
  • History is not well cited.
  • Echo Tony's concerns about copy edit: I noticed "our Moon" in the lead, which doesn't seem encyclopedic (Earth's Moon?) Sandy (Talk) 14:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holy Prepuce

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Muriel Guttrop, Religion, Catholicism. Sandy 23:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Have one brief look and see for yourselves that this is hardly an FA on any of the criteria! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Lead too short, not referenced, and some strange editorializing throughout the prose: "Thus modern, and probably medieval, ideas of what Jesus' foreskin would be like were, and are, wide of the mark.[citation needed]" !! Sandy 00:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Short lead. Poor references. No inline citations. A stubbby section. Not FA quality.--Yannismarou 08:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - The lead section is too short as editors have commented, and also the article lacks inline citations (1. c.). LuciferMorgan 17:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Move to FARC. One edit since nominated. Sandy 04:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns lead, referencing and tone (editioralzing). Joelito (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Remove - No inline citations (1. c. violation), and inadequate lead. LuciferMorgan 09:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove as per previously stated concerns. It's a shame, as this lemma features in The History Boys, recently released as a film to great acclaim. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Per all above.--Yannismarou 18:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Per above Jay32183 20:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per above. Badbilltucker 23:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psychosis

[edit] Review commentary

This article was promoted during the "Brilliant prose" days: there is no original or main editor. Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychopathology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine.

Psychosis does not have adequate inline citations (1c), does not have an adequate lead which summarizes the article (2a), has one-sentence and stubby paragraphs and many weasle words (1a), does not conform to suggested headings per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles) and does not conform to WP:GTL (2), does not appear comprehensive per sections missing from MCOTW guidelines and the brevity of important sections (1b), is very listy, and doesn't appear to rely on the best possible sources for a medical article. It is not up to current FA standards. Sandy 22:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Where can we find the MCOTW guidelines? I suggest defeaturing or immediate emergency surgery.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 09:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

They are linked above (sorry, they changed the name to incorporate Manual of Style rather than Medical Collaboration of the Week). The FAR process allows for two weeks of review, and then if the article has not been brought to standard, another two weeks of FARC. You might also want to look at Asperger syndrome, which recently went through FARC and was mostly brought to standard. Sandy 12:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remove featured status. Reams of unsupported statements. Too little on the anthropological significance of psychosis (were psychotics seen as "possessed" in the past?) Flow is chaotic (no attempt at systemising the information). JFW | T@lk 21:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

And then there's the unqualified assertion that CBT, of all things, is recommended for psychotic people. The only I've ever read that said that simply tacked it on at the conclusion-end, which everyone noticed (it's some British psychiatry journal somewhere).--Rmky87 14:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Move to FARC for further work. Substantial improvement has been made during FAR (see diff), but the article is still far from meeting FA standards. It doesn't yet conform with WP:MEDMOS, and most of the text remains uncited. Perhaps the medical editors can let us know if they consider the rest of the work doable. Sandy 16:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are inline citations (1c), failure to meet MoS (2), comprehensiveness (1b), and writing quality (1a). Marskell 08:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Needs further citations, and needs removal of weasly statements. LuciferMorgan 20:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove unless someone quickly begins to work on the article, which is massively undercited, contains weasle words, and doesn't conform to WP:MEDMOS. Sandy 14:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove, works appears to have stopped, large sections remain unsourced and the whole thing probably needs someone with at least a passing knowledge of the field to assess it. The lead is too short as well. --Peta 05:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. In some sections I see no citations and in others I see in one sentence three citations in a row+stubby sections.--Yannismarou 08:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • • Comment I just noticed Rmky87 (talk • contribs) has done a lot of work on the article: I left a message asking if he's aiming for a save, and if we should hold off on the votes. Sandy 01:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I am, and I'm a she. I don't know if I can, though. This is the first time in ages that I've felt up to adding content in the form of *gasp* meaningful sentences instead of, well, chickenshit, honestly and I don't know how long it will last (suffice it to say that I just couldn't get an appointment sooner than Tuesday of Thanksgiving week, you can probably guess what for).--Rmky87 02:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm so sorry for the mistake, Rmky87. Normally I would use s/he, but when I asked Jfdwolff (talk • contribs) about the work on the Psychosis article, he mentioned you and another editor, saying "[t]hose boys can be relied upon to fix psychosis." Sandy 02:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
          • That's quite all right.--Rmky87 12:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment What's a good example of an article with a "Notable cases" section? I want to know what we're aiming for here.--Rmky87 19:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Check out Asperger syndrome. Joelito (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    • AS won't help: have a look at Tourette syndrome and Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome, as recommended at WP:MEDMOS. Sandy 22:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you.--Rmky87 21:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• You wouldn't happen to know anyone with access to those psychosis and leprosy citations, would you? They're in the American Journal of Psychiatry, and they're the only ones I could find that didn't make it clear that dapsone was the causative agent. The 1959 one had enough abstract to make it clear that leprosy was supposed to be the one stressor at play. The one from 1974 has a PDF that I can't get to. I don't know what it's saying about the 1959 paper.--Rmky87 21:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't have access: you could ask someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. By the way, you don't have to have a Social Impact or a Notable cases section: you can delete those stubs rather than try to fill them with something. Sandy (Talk) 22:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    • • Well, if anyone wants to write the "social impact" section, and they have the creative capacity to do so, start here and click on "Related Articles".--Rmky87 00:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note Progress has stalled in this one. Where do we stand? Joelito (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I've had limited internet access, and have much catching up to do. I have not changed my Remove vote, as there are still unreferenced sections, and in spite of multiple requests, I haven't been able to entice one of the WikiPhysicians or members of the Psychology project to review the article. There are still concerns about the article: in spite of Rmky87's commendable effort to greatly improve the article, I remain a reluctant remove. It's too bad no one from the Psychology or Medicine WikiProjects will review, as this article could be close to a keep. Sandy (Talk) 16:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • There are still referencing problems and quite a few stubby sections and sub-sections.--Yannismarou 12:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Hi there, I'm the main editor for the psychosis article, and when I get some time. I'll be happy to make the appropriate references as this seems to be the main issue. - Vaughan 06:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Louis Armstrong

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Phil Sandifer, Biography, and Jazz. Sandy 13:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Only one inline citation at the very end, which is a news article about a stadium named after him. Even the note about his birthdate doesn't supply a reference, which it definitely needs. Otherwise seems like a good article. Mlm42 09:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Most definitely needs inline citations (1. c.), especially the section concerning his legacy. I think he left a substantial legacy, but the article right now doesn't use factual evidence to prove this, nor calls on the expertise of music historians. All this needs addressing. LuciferMorgan 17:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Agre with Lucifer, further, there is lots of short paras in need of merging (bad style) and it is strange to see a 'Filmography' list, but no 'Discography' or 'Songs of...' - it appears not be comprehensive.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Move to FARC. During the review period, about a dozen minor edits: here's the diff. Issues have not been addressed. Sandy 17:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are lack of citations (1c) and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell 10:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Lack of inline citations (1. c. violation), and incomprehensive (1. b.) as it doesn't deal with Armstrong's legacy. LuciferMorgan 16:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Inadequate citations. I also think that the lead is short.--Yannismarou 18:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Per above. Appears work is not being done to improve. Jay32183 17:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Louis XIV of France

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Biography and France notice board. Sandy 13:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

MilHist informed. Sandy 22:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

This article has no references, only a section of "further reading", and a misplaced template. Judgesurreal777 03:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Commment. Brilliant prose relic. Reference or remove.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Agree with User:Piotrus.
• Comment. This could be a great article. But it has no references and inline citations. Anybody interested in fixing it? Is the Military project informed?--Yannismarou 08:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes. I missed them, but I see it has been listed there. Sandy 22:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Lacks inline citations (1. c. violation), while the "Depictions in Entertainment" needs a vast rewrite and transformation from its poor list format into 'compelling' prose. LuciferMorgan 17:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Move to FARC. After the review period, here's the diff: some minor copyediting, images moved around, but no references added. Sandy 17:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are lack of citations (1c) and prose quality (1a). Marskell 10:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Remove per comments above. It's just not good enough.UberCryxic 00:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Reluctant remove, because of the lack of citations.--Yannismarou 18:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attila the Hun

[edit] Review commentary

Posted to WP:WPBIO and WP:MILHIST --plange 22:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC) Also notified Classical Greece and Rome and Middle Ages. Sandy 22:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Lacks inline citations per 1c --plange 22:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Besides the general need for citations, numerous direct quotes with no cite, and some weasle words that require attention. Sandy 23:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Attila in Music section needs either clean up or removal. I've made a start, but it's late. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. My knowledge of the subject is limited to what it says in Heather's Fall of the Roman Empire, but there are a few parts of the article which may be original research. First, regarding Merovech. The footnote is vague. If this is an exciting new interpretation of primary source material, whose is it ? The part on meaning of Attila's name seems similar. Lastly, who is Michael Babcock, and is his work on Attila's death taken seriously ? [Answers: a philologist and probably not.] Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Probably why there are so many weasle words. Sandy 13:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment As a lot of reviewers have commented, weasel words which seem like original research need to be addressed. A lot of required inline citations are missing too (1. c. violation). I think the prose may need tightening up also (1. a.) - Tony will be able to give a more comprehensive review regarding the possible 1. a. concern if he has the time. LuciferMorgan 22:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Needs many more inline citations.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Move to FARC: diff since nom shows no change, article still uncited. Sandy 03:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are lack of citations (1c) and prose (1a). Marskell 08:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Not extensively cited.UberCryxic 23:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove The citing is abyssmal, the section on Attila in Music is misplaced, and having FA status is probably only serving to damp down the possibility of fixing it up, since everyone thinks it must be fine. For that matter, it isn't actually cited at all: Those aren't cites, they're commentary.Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Article no longer featured

[edit] A Hard Day's Night (song)

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at User talk:Johnleemk, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs. Sandy 20:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm nominating this article for the same reasons I nominated 'A Day in the Life' and 'She Loves You'. These are as follows;

1) This article needs sufficient inline citations (1. c.). ALL direct quotations need to cite their sources, an example of this is quotes attributed to Beatles members.

2) A section dealing with the critical reaction of the song from esteemed critics / magazines past and present would also help the article (1. b.), and since this is a Beatles song there must be a hefty trove of possible references to use. Other non-Beatles song articles have found these, so this article shouldn't find a problem. The "Other recordings" section needs a proper intro, and all the sentences in the section need to be tied together to make a cohesive article (1. a.) which will address the disjointed prose. The chart success, or lack of, alongside the differences between versions, is a possible avenue to explore. LuciferMorgan 14:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The Beatles and the Papacy have really been taking a beating here recently :(. Marskell 09:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the new lists by Project will encourage reviewers to focus on some other areas. Sandy 13:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If they were kept up to FA standard they wouldn't take such a beating. Also, I find it saddening no Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles members have even replied apart from kingboyk - if someone addressed the concerns I'd be happier than anyone to keep them from FARC. I was hoping these Beatles FA reviews would instill a Beatles fan editor with the passion to address the FA concerns, but not yet. Along with the reasons just outlined, I also want people to get the correct impression of the FA star, and the Beatles articles I assume attract a lot of viewers. I'm sorry if people think I have hidden intentions - I actually like the Beatles, Lennon being my fave of the lot. LuciferMorgan 16:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC

Yes, I've noticed an indifferent response too and I'm sorry about it, but there's nothing I can do; I can't force people to respond and I can't write the entire enyclopedia myself**. (Or, to quote a wonderful song by Mr George Harrison, (not that he was the first to say this of course but I'm working on a theme here!) "You can take a horse to the water, but you can't make him drink"). **I'll try, if somebody wishes to hire me :)

I am a little worried that we'll end up with no Beatles FAs at all, but standards are standards and we have to move with the times. But, look, I'll go to the project and scream some more. This one definitely is saveable, it just needs a few folks to dig out their Beatle books. I can but ask. --kingboyk 20:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment - A fine example of a song article, but it lacks sufficient references. A true shame, really...the article is definitely FA quality. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 22:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - If the article lacks sufficient references, it fails criterion 1. c. of "What is a featured article?", thus making the article definitely not FA quality at present. LuciferMorgan 15:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I was actually applauding you Kingboyk, maybe you misunderstood what I was saying. I do appreciate yourself making the time to comment. LuciferMorgan 19:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No, I didn't take any personal offence (whatever made you think I did? :)), and your point about the WikiProject response was valid. Anyway, I went to the Project and hollered but it doesn't seem to have worked. Sorry about that. --kingboyk 16:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - It's ok they haven't responded. I think when someone has the time, they'll attempt to address the FA issues and renominate for FA, which will be nice to see. My idea for the Beatles Wikiproject is to recruit inline citers whose contribution to the Wikiproject is adding citations (just an idea). LuciferMorgan 19:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Here's a reason it's not yet ready to be a featured article: The notation (sheet music excerpt) is wrong. The tonic chord is G but the melody is in C. If the song is in G, which the article indicates, then it is the melody that needs to be changed. Play it on a piano if you don't believe me. Someone should contact the fellow who put it up there - or find a notation that is right. I am new to the site and cannot do it. Jdm003 06:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• • I completely agree. I happened across that error a while ago and being new to Wikipedia just added a "correction" in the article itself; Hyacinth (properly) removed my correction to the talk page, where it has not sparked any discussion. Seeing Hyacinth as an editor/arbitrator etc., I put a more lengthy discussion on his talk page (User_talk:Hyacinth#Serious_Errors_in_Source_Material), but he must be away for a while and has not answered. I don't have the time to be a Wikipedian, so I leave it to others to make the necessary improvements, but leaving such a serious error in a candidate for featured article status for this long is not a good situation. AlanH212 12:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This is featured article removal candidate, which means this article's status may be removed if it doesn't meet current criteria. LuciferMorgan 08:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are insufficient citations (1c), comprehensiveness (1b), and overall writing quality (1a). Marskell 08:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Remove As the criteria concerns I raised in my FAR nomination remain unaddressed. LuciferMorgan 16:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - This FAR/C has been open 4 weeks when tomorrow arrives, and none of my concerns have been addressed. I call for a quick consensus, and a closure for this FARC. LuciferMorgan 18:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove The article is still filled with {{fact}} tags. Jay32183 18:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turquoise

[edit] Review commentary

Talk messages left at User talk:OldakQuill and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocks and minerals. Sandy 20:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Although there are a number of references provided, there isn't a single inline citation. Mlm42 14:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Indeed it needs inline citations (1. c.). LuciferMorgan 15:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Nice article, well-structured, with good references. I cannot judge the prose, because I haven't read it in detail. But it is begging for citations.--Yannismarou 16:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Move to FARC. A few edits by FAR regulars, still overall uncited. Sandy 03:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is insufficient inline citations (1c). Marskell 08:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. I started work on this, but I can't find enough online to cite the article, and I don't have any of the books listed in the references. Yomangani^talk 00:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Not enough citations.UberCryxic 18:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Per all above.--Yannismarou 08:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Who came up with the inline silliness? The article as it stands is perfectly credible. Dr Zak 18:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Since the issue is verifiability, not credibility, the article has insufficient inline citations. Jay32183 19:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The article is verifiable from the references. Who came up with the idea that every single uncontentious fact should be accompanied by a footnote? Certainly bleeding-edge research or contentious statements must be backed up with a source - but footnoting uncontroversial stuff like this?! It's just faux-scholarly. Dr Zak 20:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I noticed the phrase "is proven" without a citation. In what experiment was it proven and by whom was the experiment conducted. An inline citation would answer the question without cluttering the article. FAR editors generally don't add {{fact}} tags to entire articles without requests from editors attempting to save the article. I'm sure some one will add them if you say, "Hold on, I'd like to save the article, but I'd like to know what facts require citaions." There's still time left before an official decision is made. Jay32183 21:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
      • This is exactly what I meant by "uncontentious fact". Any mineralogy text will tell you what the crystal system is and no one will doubt it. Now explicitly annotating this basic fact with a footnote (as opposed to a broad references section) gives a problem: you are giving undue prominence to the textbook of your choice. Dr Zak 22:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
        • "Is proven" is no different than "studies show" which is specifically on the list of weasel words. The fact is not uncontentious, I contested it. Without a citation I am free to delete it. If the article doesn't need anymore citations then it is full of weasel words and should still be removed. Jay32183 23:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Once you take a class in crystallography you would agree that assignment of a mineral to the crystal class is mostly uncontentious. Webster (2000) will list it. Now how about the sane guideline that the Wikiproject physics came up with, it's here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Physics/Citation_guidelines_proposal. Seriously, I can't see any contentious statements that need to be backed up by inline citation here. Which ones to you take offence at? Dr Zak 02:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
            • I am a geoscientist and I find this article not up to the standards of geoscience articles. The reason I haven't added fact tags already is that there is so much without citation, entire sections are uncited. I do not currently have the time or resources to fix the article. The article needs to be accessible to non-experts, people who have not taken geoscience courses need to be able to handle the article. I have not stated that things are untrue, that's not the issue. Inline citations are required by Wikipedia and are actually standard within geoscience publications. Jay32183 02:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
              • You seem to be saying that inline citations work to make an article "accessible" to non-specialists. Well, I think that anything uncontentious to a specialist should be relegated to a generic "references" section and only recent or contentious points should be annotated with inline notes. Anything else is not scholarship; it merely gives a veneer of scholarship. Dr Zak 18:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
                • Have you read WP:REF? Your current argument is in direct contradiction with "To ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by any reader or editor."(emphasis added by me). The other points on when to cite sources are a useful read as well. Jay32183 19:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
                  • If you read the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Back_to_basics you will find that consensus for your viewpoint (that each assertion needs an inline reference) is nowhere near as unanimous as you claim. Especially those people that edit science topics disagree. And even if a textbook is given as reference anyone can still borrow it from the library and cross-check. Dr Zak 20:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
                    • So are you ignoring that people seem to agree that when a good faith request for citations has been made then they should be added? Six editors, including myself, have requested more citations during the FAR and FARC. Jay32183 22:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
                      • People saying "not enough citations" when there is a section of references sound thoughtless. Maybe when they way "citations" they mean "inline citations", but then they should state why inline citations are preferable to a general references section. I have made my case against, someone should make the case in favor. Hint: you don't make a case by pointing to a guideline that hasn't half as much support as you assert. Dr Zak 20:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
                        • There is an existing policy. Until it is changed it will be followed. There is no reason to change it other than editors being lazy. It is a standard acedemic practice not unique to Wikipedia. Wikipedia has in fact been several decades behind the times on implementing inline citations. The standard acedemic practice is an inline citation anytime you make reference to the work of someone else that is not "common knowlege". Common knowlege does not mean what is accepted by specialists. Wikipedia does not allow original research, therefore everything comes from some one else's work. Add citations or you are committing plagarism or including original research. Jay32183 01:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove, inadequate inline citations. Sandy (Talk) 03:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ackermann function

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at User talk:Pakaran, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science. Sandy 15:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Became a featured article way back in March 2004, reviewd in Oct 04 Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Ackermann function. I don't think it meets current FA standards. In particular the introduction does not establish context in simple terms which the layman could understand. --Salix alba (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• The subsection Ackermann_function#Ackermann_numbers could use some help from someone good at LaTEX towards the end where it shows the fourth ackerman number. Currently it only uses HTML to express this. Kaimiddleton 20:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• This has been done --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• I have to agree that this is not at all up to FA standards. There is the issue of readability by the layman of course, although for this kind of article I think it's unwise to insist too much on that goal. Still, I don't think anyone can seriously say that the prose is compelling or brilliant (even with the right amount of background). I'm also worried about the comprehensiveness of the article. A number of things could be expanded on. For instance it would not be evident to most that we should care that there are non-primitive-recursive functions and there should be some better intuitive notion of primitive recursive (unfortunately, the article about it is not really helping). Also, I may be wrong but what's Gödel got to do with any of this? It looks like gratuitous name-dropping. Pascal.Tesson 06:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• The lead is problematic. Short and complicated.
• In the lead again computability theory directs to a disambiguation page. This is inacceptable for the lead of a FA.
• And I see very very few inline citations.

I think all three issues can be worked.--Yannismarou 14:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that the extended discussion of On The Infinite and the discussion of the Busy Beaver function are not relevant to this article.

• The link to computability theory is shorthand for linking to both Recursion theory and Computability theory (computer science). Replacing it with a link to either one alone would be incorrect. Perhaps someday there will be a single correct article to link to, but that day is not here yet. CMummert 17:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oops. I just dabbed it. --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Though I will say that Computability theory (computer science) seems much more complete than Recursion theory, and they both have links to the other. --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are LEAD (2a), citations (1c), and accessibility and quality of writing (1a). Marskell 10:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Remove no activity since listing, problems remain. --Peta 05:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Not even up to GA standards, and no real work has been done for a while.--Dark Kubrick 19:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - Fails criterion 1. c. LuciferMorgan 08:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of the Netherlands

Article is no longer a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History. Sandy 00:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Additional messages at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for Dutch wikipedians and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. Sandy 21:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

History of the Netherlands was promoted during the "Brilliant prose" days, does not seem to have a main editor or author, and does not have inline citations. Inline citations are a requirement for current FAs. Sandy 23:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Needs inline citations (1. c.), and needs to support critical statements made with proper sources. LuciferMorgan 11:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Per Sandy and LuciferMorgan. I also think the lead need some work.--Yannismarou 16:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Move to FARC. This article needs considerable work. Some of the facts are wrong and it doesn't shows a grasp of the state of research (e.g. Israel's exhaustive work). The Burgundian period is especially perfunctory (No mention of Holland's status within the Reichkreis which helped explain the turn to the Valois). Eusebeus 11:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Move to FARC. Not a single edit since nominated, other than mine. Sandy 17:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Move. Tone is all wrong. Daniel Case 02:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are inline citations, lead, comprehensiveness. Joelito (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Remove - Insufficient inline citations (1. c.). Only Sandy has tried improving the article, but his/her time is so wrapped up and being torn between FARs one can't really expect him/her to do the work. LuciferMorgan 17:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. I've done what I can, but no knowledgeable editor has appeared, no significant progress has been made, the article has insufficient citations, prose problems, the lead is poorly written, and accuracy concerns were raised (above). Sandy 14:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Sandy spoke for me!--Yannismarou 08:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per all above.UberCryxic 17:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Came across this one while doing interwiki work. Based on the inapproriate tone alone, I would not support it as an FAC now. Anyone wishing to improve it back should be skilled enough in Dutch to translate that article and use it as an example. Daniel Case 17:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miles Davis

Article is no longer a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/to do, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Missouri, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. Sandy 19:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Promoted in brilliant prose days. No inline citations. Not brilliantly written. The article seems short for this subject. Pipes years in music contrary to the guideline at WP:ALBUM. Doesn't exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Punctured Bicycle 02:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Needs inline citations (1.c.). Also, it fails to discuss Miles Davis' legacy which means it isn't comprehensive. LuciferMorgan 10:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. It is important to discuss the legacy of such an influential and revered artist. Punctured Bicycle 18:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I think the article does a pretty good job of going through Miles's career, it's good work. Since they decided to go YouTube, which I like, I am going to supplement it chronologically with three added videos from later periods of Miles' work which are also available, and see what the authors of the article and whomever else, says. If someone wants to get into Miles' legacy, draft a section and nail it down. I, for one, hope it makes it. Thanks. Tvccs 17:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Mixes references styles, needs to be cited. Sandy 23:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Incomplete and unbalanced. The text implies that he might not even have studied at Juilliard! No mention of the grounding in music theory he learned there or how that influenced later work, neglects to mention that Birth of the Cool is widely regarded as the first example of cool jazz. Devotes inordinate space to fusion jazz, which is arguably the least important of his musical innovations. No mention of Davis's idiosyncratic playing style. Fails to reference controversial assertions such as, The period is characterized as a colorful time by Davis in his memoirs, where wealthy Caucasian women would ostensibly lavish him with sex and drugs. In reality, he had become completely dependent upon cocaine and heroin, spending nearly all of his time propped up on a couch in his apartment watching television, leaving only to score. The entire article has only one line citation. Miles Davis deserves a featured article. If my copy of his autobiography were handy I'd add line citations myself. Help this, please. Durova 16:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Move to FARC - problems not addressed, see diff. Sandy 20:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are writing quality (1a), comprehensiveness (1b), and lack of citations (1c). Marskell 11:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Remove - Lacks inline citations (1. c. violation), and fails to discuss Miles Davis' legacy (1. b. violation. LuciferMorgan 19:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Has never been through FA process. Has not improved. Punctured Bicycle 04:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove does not meet current criteria. --Peta 05:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Doesn't meet FA standards, lacks citations, comprehensiveness a concern. Sandy 14:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Per all above.--Yannismarou 08:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Telephone exchange

Article is no longer a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Message left at User talk:66.96.28.244 Teglin 19:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Technology. Sandy 17:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Citations are used sparingly, most information is not verifiable.

2. Sections of the article are not encyclopedic content. "Number plan trivia" includes unnessesary information on numbering plans not directly related to telephone exchanges. This section needs to be more concise, or moved to a new article on numbering plans.

3. The article neglects major facts and details, see 1(b). As referenced in the talk page, the article does not address several major functions of a central office. Information pertaining to central offices is not current.

4. Prose is inconsistent and does not meet wikipedia standards in some sections.

Teglin 01:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree with Teglin. 1. c. and 1. b. criteria aren't met by this article, which needs to be addressed. LuciferMorgan 17:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Per above. 1c criterion definitely not met.--Yannismarou 09:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• And I know noticed the presence of some stubby sections ("Electronic switches") and the prose problems (many one-sentence paragraphs, which indicate an incoherent writing).--Yannismarou 14:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, no improvement since FAR initiated, see diff. Sandy 20:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• 1(d); The article don't represent a worldvide view. _→AzaToth 22:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns citations, accuracy, and prose. Joelito (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remove per 1(d). _→AzaToth 22:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Referencing problems and some stubby sections.--Yannismarou 16:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Issues not addressed, very few changes, inadequately cited, prose needs work. Sandy 17:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove no activity following listing. --Peta 05:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] War elephant

Article is no longer a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Notification placed at Template:WPMILHIST Announcements. Marskell 15:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be an ancient FA:

• Lead section is inadequate and too short.
• Poorly sectioned.
• Poor referencing.
• It's not sure if war elephants fought against Alexander the Great in the battle of Gaugamela...
• ...but they certainly fought in the Battle of Ipsus - nothing about it.
• Shang China may have primitively used elephants for military purposes as early as c.2500BC. but Shang China began to rule in ca. 1600 BC...

Probably more errors, I hope the article will be improved. Gdarin | talk 16:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

We should point out the difference between African Forest Elephants (Egypt, Carthage ->the Barcid import also some Indian war elephants -> Suru, last surviving elephant of Hannibal for example) ->Battle of Raphia and Indian Elephants. In crossbow are some images from the cham using elephants and double-bow crossbows. I doubt this animal was used to a great extend by the Shang, they did have no natural ressource of elephants. Is it possible that this should refer to some evidence from southern China during the Shang time (lots of things mixed up)? Wandalstouring 17:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The opening paragraph alone is badly written with poor grammar and erratic punctuation. Why does the history section come to an abrupt end in the 16th century? I don’t know much bout war elephants but I know they were often used in India against the British eg: Arcot 1751, and used for a hundred years after that! Under referenced. No citations. This is only a B-class article and far from the recent standards now required for FA status. Raymond Palmer 19:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If we can work out all questions that need research, I can help with Histoire Militaire des Éléphants, depuis les temps les plus reculés jusqu'à l'introduction des armes à feu; (introduction of mobile artillery was the end of elephant attacks in India, because they were too easy to stop) avec des observations critiques sur quelques-uns des plus célèbres faits d'armes de l'antiquité.;

par le Chevalier P. Armandi, ancien Colonel d'artillerie (it is a 500 page volume in French); 1843 Paris, London, Francfort-S.-M.Wandalstouring 16:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

An article with many problems:

• Lead section short.
• No inline citations.
• See also section too long. Some links should be incorporated in the main prose.
• Section "Battles" looks like a long list. Prose is recommended.--Yannismarou 18:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Needs inline citations LuciferMorgan 23:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

List of issues that need sourcing:

• please add here
  • I checked the article to provide some samples, but I'm not sure doing so will be helpful. The entire article is uncited. I can pick any random section, and find numerous statements which need cites, so I'm confused about the question (and since it's unsigned, I don't know who asked it). If more specific input is needed, I'll help, but the entire article is uncited - there is one inline citation. Sandy 17:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Move to FARC - no improvements since nom - where are our MilHist editors? diff since nom. Sandy 17:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns LEAD (2a), sectioning (2), referencing and accuracy of information (1c). Marskell 07:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Question - There doesn't seem to be anybody working on this, but I think it may be salvageable. Before I start trying to fix it up, how do people feel about the list of notable battles involving war elephants? I can't see an easy way to work all those into the text, so if this is going to be an objection to leaving it as an FA, I'd prefer to work on something else and stick this on my "FA restoration list" to look at later. Yomangani^talk 16:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that is an appropriate use of a list. It could probably be neatened up a bit, but I don't think it should stop the article from being considered featured, if everything else is fixed. Jay32183 19:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you check with the MilHist group: they may have guidelines on lists such as this one? Sandy 12:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I haven't been able to find enough references to properly cite this article, so the list problem is academic for me. I'll order some books and come back to it sometime if it is demoted, as apart from a bit of tidying, the lack of inline citations seems to be the main sticking point here. Yomangani^talk 10:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

FAR tag added to article talk page. Sandy 17:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Still no movement, additional talk message left at WikiProject India. Sandy 13:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. Zero work being done; no inline citations; insufficient lead; insufficient sectioning. Marskell 08:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Lack of inline citations (1. c. violation). LuciferMorgan 15:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Poor elephants, no one cares, no one is working on the article, uncited, poor lead, and questions (above) about accuracy. Sandy 19:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - I have a book on order which should cover most of this, but it won't arrive in time for me to work on it in FARC, and I don't like to cite everything from a single source anyway. I'll probably list in WP:1FAPQ for sometime next year unless somebody fixes it up in the meantime. Yomangani^talk 00:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Just not good enough.UberCryxic 18:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per above.--Peta 05:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Short lead. Listy sections. No citations. A huge "See also" section.--Yannismarou 08:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• I know I have a few articles on the use of elephants in warfare in my collection of elephantania. I'll dig them out over the weekend and see if they can help address the issues raised above. -- Arvind 00:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• I dont usually talk here or know how to talk in this section of wikipedia; but their is alot of evidence for the Shang and their use elephants. Simply look up "Shang Elephants" In Google, and a variety of different reliable sites indicate that Elephants once lived around the Yellow River in c.1000Bc under Shang rule, and their is a shang kings tomb buried along side a pet elephant.

[edit] BZFlag

Article is no longer a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at User talk:Lan56 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games. Sandy 00:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about this article's current standing as a featured article as representative of Wikipedia's best. It was apparently nominated and elected as FA back in February of 2005 (see review candidate page).

There is an extreme lack of references. There are four expanded URLs listed in the references section, which, I suppose, are to encompass the information in the listed headers. There are also numbered Wikipedia:External links acting as citation - there are three links in the (very short) introduction and one in the Developers subsection. Many statistics and questionable subjective statements are left uncited.

For example, "This new mode added a requirement of strategy and skill, which was sufficient to keep interest." and "In 1997, the release of version 1.7d came with a groundbreaking new feature". The prose is not brilliant by any means, the subsections are very small, and several links have no relevance in the article (rectangular, yellow, red, green, blue, purple) There are also tables of both the version history and map creation, as well as lists of flags found within the game, that are not presented in an encylopedic manner and appear to exist only to take up space. ~ Hibana 22:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No inline citations. Poor references. Some listy and stubby sections. I also think that the lay-out needs some more work.--Yannismarou 17:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Move to FARC, poorly referenced, needs work as indicated by Yannismarou, no one is working on improvements. Sandy 23:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), sectioning (2), and prose (1a). Marskell 10:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. No work has gone into the article, and it still contains all of the problems that caused this nomination. JimmyBlackwing 22:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Doesn't meet FA standards. --Tristam 04:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Inline citation issues (1. c. violation) and listy sections (1. a. violation). LuciferMorgan 13:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Lack of references + long lists of irrelevant and WP:NOT-type information. -- Steel 13:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Day in the Life

Article is no longer a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at User talk:Johnleemk and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles. LuciferMorgan 19:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm nominating this Beatles song article to undergo FAR for mostly the same reasons I nominated "She Loves You" - in fact I feel there's a few other old Beatles song FAs which should undergo FAR for the same reasons, which I'll do at regular intervals (to give time for editors to address my concerns). If helpful work is being done to the articles I'm sure admins can keep the FARs open anyway. The Beatles are a great band, but a lot of their old FAs haven't kept up to the requirements of FA articles. The Beatles are a popular group and properly attract a lot of people to Wikipedia, so I don't think they should have misconceptions about the FA star. This article needs sufficient inline citations (1. c.). ALL direct quotations need to cite their sources, an example of this is quotes attributed to Beatles members. Other statements need proper citations also, an example being this line in the "Controversy" section;

"It has been claimed that the BBC's ban has not officially been lifted, but like other former BBC bans it has clearly fallen into abeyance, because the Corporation has played the song quite frequently in recent years."

Claimed? By who?

Another example;

"An urban legend was perpetuated that the intent was an officially sanctioned ban on the listed songs, but this has been denied by Clear Channel Communications."

Denied? A citation of Clear Channel Communications statement please?

A section dealing with the critical reaction of the song from esteemed critics / magazines past and present would also help the article, and since this is a Beatles song there must be a hefty trove of possible references to use. Other non-Beatles song articles have found these, so this article shouldn't find a problem. The "Cover Versions" section is way too listy and lets down the article. This section needs a proper intro, and all the sentences in the section need to be tied together to make a cohesive article (1. a.) which will address the disjointed prose. The chart success, or lack of, alongside the differences between versions, is a possible avenue to explore. LuciferMorgan 17:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• There isn't any need to point out the need for inline citations when we're all well aware of them. However, the fact is that practically all of the article content at time of featuring (much of which is still in the article today) used the web references listed in the collated references section (excluding the Beatles message board cited, which isn't a reliable source by any means). I'm not disputing the need for inline citations, but they aren't critical for articles which rely mainly on a limited number of web sources - inline citations are mainly useful for citing print sources because of the need to refer to a specific page/article in a publication. The same doesn't apply to web sources unless you're using a few dozen (or more) of them, in which case things would get messy. For instance, almost all quotations in the article are from the same webpage - a Beatles quote database. Our purposes could be served just as well by remarking in the references section that "All quotations unless otherwise stated are from source so and so."

Anyhow, most Beatles song articles have the same issues - no inline citations (even though in many cases, I would say they aren't exactly critical because most of these articles rely on web sources) and degradation because nobody frequently pruned these articles of fancrufty crap like inane lists of cover versions. Johnleemk | Talk 08:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I stand by what I said in my nomination. Also I would like to point out when someone nominates an article for FAR they have to say why - so there IS every need to point out the necessity of inline citations. By the way, I make enough comments on FAR's and FARC's to know.

And anyhow, I would say inline citations ARE critical if they have the FA star - if other FA's are required to have inline citations, I don't see why the Beatles should be an exception. Criterion 1. c. of "What is a featured article?" isn't met by this nominated article - I suggest Johnleemk makes himself familiar with the text when saying inline citations aren't needed in FA's (even when directly quoting as well?). Other FA's cite from books (I suggest using www,print.google.com), so why can't this one?

As for the fancrufty stuff in the article which nobody has taken out, where was the Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles? The "Cover versions" section could have been made into readable prose which all ties together anyway. The bottom line is FA criteria standards are significantly higher than when this was nominated, and once this initially achieved FA all the contributors rested on their laurels. LuciferMorgan 16:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• cough* I suggest you reread what I said: "I'm not disputing the need for inline citations". The point I'm making is that they're not critical for this article. An article which would have about 30 footnotes pointing to the same half a dozen notes is desirable, but not critical. As for print sources, I suggest you heed your own advice and look at the FA guidelines and/or WP:CITE. Web sources are just as acceptable as print ones as long as they meet WP:RS. Some other editors have cited books for the article, but as I do not own them, I cannot add inline citations for them.

I'm not active in the Wikiproject, so I can't answer your question, but the issue at hand is whether coverage of the cover versions would be encyclopedic. Every song, especially one by a band such as the Beatles, has a lot of cover versions, so we need to be selective in discussing only the most notable ones. The cover version list in the article did nothing to indicate notability for these cover versions; simply because a famous person sang a song (or sampled a few seconds of it, as appears to be the case for a number of covers listed) doesn't mean it's worth mentioning in an article (otherwise Yesterday (song) would be hundreds of kilobytes big). Yes, readable prose could be produced. But would this be prose worthy of inclusion? I don't think so. There aren't any cover versions of "A Day in the Life" that are so iconic/well-known that an article excluding them would not be comprehensive. Johnleemk | Talk 12:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

A quote from "What is a featured article?" criterion 1. c. - "Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations (see verifiability and reliable sources); this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations." I have looked at FA guidelines, and have time and time again during FAR. This is why my concerns are actionable. Articles actually fail to gain FA status nowadays due to lack of inline citations, and they lose their status based on this also.

www.print.google.com is where you can view a limited number of pages from a book. Web sources are indeed just as acceptable, though you said there is "a limited number" so I pointed out that this isn't reasoning for the article's 1. c. weaknesses and how to get around this. The editors who placed these DIRECT quotes in without citing the name of the interviewer, the magazine/newspaper and publication dates need to address the problem. I think readable prose on "Cover versions" is worthy of inclusion in a summary fashion. LuciferMorgan 16:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to miss the point that we're vehemently agreeing with one another WRT inline citations. I never said we shouldn't be adding inline citations to this article; what I said was that the lack of inline citations is not a major problem because it doesn't substantially detract from the article. You don't need to act as if I'm a dinosaur when it comes to inline citations or as if I haven't read the relevant guidelines.

Practically all the direct quotes are from the same (web) source. The reason for this is that this source collated the quotes from other sources. Also, as long as the number of sources provide a wide spectrum of views about the article's topic, I don't think the article would fail to meet the referencing requirements for FA. (And I don't think the reliability of the sources is in dispute, since a number of their authors also authored books which are in the top Google Print results for the song title.) And I agree readable prose is worthy for inclusion, but the question is what do we put in the readable prose? If none of the cover versions stand out, how are we to select them for inclusion? (This seems to be the case, btw; none of the sources I've reviewed mention cover versions, unlike with other, more-covered Beatles songs such as "Something" or "Yesterday", where writing a cover version section can be quite easily done.) Do we choose by what we favour/prefer? I'd suggest that contravenes NPOV. Johnleemk | Talk 14:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to say the prose isn't in dispute on my behalf, with the exception of the "Cover versions" section which has now been removed. Notability should be decided by what the music critics have commented upon, even if small. If one complains there's none, I'd like to say this is the Beatles. In other words the person isn't looking hard enough. On another note, whoever said we choose what we favour? I didn't. This would reach GA in my eyes, though for an FA it falls short (check All You Need Is Love (The JAMs song) for what meets current FA criteria as far as song articles go).

Fair enough you feel inline citations isn't a major problem, but I feel it is a major problem though for an FA - as for the "dinosaur" comment, feel free to have your own interpretations of what I'm saying. I've said it a 100 times, and I'll say it another 100 times until my message gets through, 1. c. of "What is a featured article?" is a requirement which isn't met by this article, not a guideline. Requirement. Feel free to "act" as if I've said something totally different, no doubt you will.

These web sources should have have cited their sources for direct quotes, and so should this article - the interviewer, the name of the magazine/newspaper, the date of issue, everything. One source isn't acceptable for inline citations, as this provides only the view of the author in question.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by LuciferMorgan (talk • contribs) .

I'd add that The JAMs' "All You Need Is Love" was a small-scale independent release by a band who were at the time "underground" (6500 copies were pressed plus however many of the picture sleeve 12"; I don't know how many of the latter but I'd have an educated guess at no more than 10,000). "A Day in the Life" is one of the most acclaimed songs in rock history by the band who have generated more column inches than just about anybody in the twentieth century.

I keep saying to WP:BEATLES folks "get the books out and start citing" but unfortunately it just doesn't happen. I wish I could take a lead but - besides being too busy - all my books are boxed away at the moment.

There's other sources though: most libraries in the English speaking world will have at least one book with at least some coverage of the band, and many will have one or more biographies; they'll also have archives of old newspapers. Universities often subscribe to ProQuest or similar, an online newspaper archive. There's simply no shortage of reliable, citeable material on The Beatles or this song. The argument "but we've relied on web sources so we don't need citations" just doesn't cut it for Featured Articles; we (I can say "we" because besides being pretty much a one-man WP:KLF at the moment I'm also the founder of WP:BEATLES - how ironic!) shouldn't be relying on these sources in the first place. Most of The Beatles articles (although not all) just aren't anywhere near FA standard sadly, and mostly for this reason. --kingboyk 17:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC) (edit conflict)

(deindent) Are there critics who have commented? Undoubtedly. Have these critics anything to say about cover versions? If they have, these comments are rather hard to find. AMG, which nearly always has something to say about at least one cover version, is silent in this regard, as is every other source. The fact is, none of the cover versions of this song have made enough of an impact to be worthy of comment in a comprehensive encyclopaedia article; as I said, half of the ostensible cover versions originally listed were just sampling the song, so they don't even count as covers. And as for the implication that I'm strawmanning, I was attempting to explore possibilities for including a discussion of covers; however, as I noted, the only grounds we have for selecting what covers to, well, cover, are our own personal preferences, because critics are silent about cover versions.

You are taking the literal approach to reading the rules. The mischief rule, which looks at the purpose we implemented inlien citations for, indicates that inline citations, although (as always) desirable, are not critical because there are other ways of meeting the intent of our policies concerning referencing. For instance, practically all quotations are from the same secondary source, so one could fulfill the intent of policy (which is to identify the precise source for each statement an article makes) by simply noting that "Unless otherwise stated, all quotations are from source X." As for one source alone being unacceptable, this fails to account for the fact that our lone source itself is based on a number of identified sources - it merely collates the material desired (in this case quotations) from the sources and places them in one document. As for your demand that we cite the primary source for each quotation - that's not practical very often. (The one exception would be the famous David Sheff interview with Lennon published in the January 1981 issue of Playboy, and even then, I don't see how you expect editors to dig up the specific page number for quotations from a magazine issue over a quarter of a century old, especially when the only way for most people to get their hands on this interview is in web form.) Secondary sources should be (and unless we've recently changed the policy in question) and are acceptable for things like this; if we can get the primary source, it's a bonus, but secondary sources ought to be fine. Johnleemk | Talk 17:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Secondary sources are fine but they should be reliable and that means preferably books.

• Rogers, Joyce A. (1996). Amuse Yourself!. Retrieved Sept. 8, 2004. --- Amuse Yourself, Joyce A. Rogers: reliable source??? redlinked blog site?

• The Beatles Studio. Retrieved Sept. 8, 2004. --- Beatles.com.hk, presumably unofficial tribute site. Who's the author and what's their pedigree?

• Marcos' Beatles Page. Retrieved Sept. 8, 2004. --- Geocities. Say no more.

• Ottawa Beatles Site. Retrieved Sept. 9, 2004.
• The Ultimate Beatles Experience. Retrieved Sept. 8, 2004.
• beatles-discography.com. Retrieved Sept. 8, 2004.

• Lewisohn, Mark, The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions, Hamlyn, 1998 --- Now we're talking. The "bible" written by arguably the foremost Beatles expert.

• The Beatles Anthology, Chronicle, 2000 --- Not bad, but uses need to be cited (with page numbers) as this might be a primary source. We need the ISBNs too.

--kingboyk 17:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine using the secondary sources for now if they're reliable as kingboyk, and if this is the case, but if Wikipedians can gradually find the primary sources feel free to replace the secondary sources. One secondary source though I feel is unacceptable as the author has their own feelings regarding the songs which comes through in texts. Hopefully somebody will be able to work on this FA sometime. LuciferMorgan 18:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that secondary sources from reliable authors are the preferred sources on Wikipedia. See WP:RS: "secondary sources are the stock material on which Wikipedia articles depend for their references." --kingboyk 18:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I don't think this applies to direct quotations from actual music interviews, though secondary sources would be used mostly for critical reactions and so on. LuciferMorgan 22:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Move to FARC, lacking citations throughout, hopefully they will be addressed with additional FARC period. Sandy 23:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Featured article criteria concerns are insufficient citaions (1c) and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell 10:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. I don't see any improvements. Pooooor sources. Insufficient inline citations. Some stubby paragraphs. I hope some people will work on the article and I'll have to change my vote.--Yannismarou 16:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. Per my original issues highlighted in FAR, which yet to have been addressed. I hope some people work on this article like Yannismarou does. LuciferMorgan 19:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. Issues not addressed in a month of review. Sandy 17:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per all above. No one is making a serious effort to improve this.UberCryxic 18:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bishōjo game

Article is no longer a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at User talk:Shibboleth, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan. Sandy 00:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Does not meet current featured article quality standards, having no inline citations whatsoever. In addition, a large amount of original research is present, as well as strong violation of WP:NPOV on several occasions. While of minor note in comparison, the prose does not reach standards of "compelling, even brilliant." JimmyBlackwing 09:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Needs inline citations (1. c.), and the "Related Terms" section needs an overhaul (1. a.). The bullet style format creates disjointed prose, so the paragraphs need to be all tied together in a cohesive style. LuciferMorgan 10:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• The "Bishojo games in the West" section is too large for what the article admits is fairly unknown in Western countries. It reflects a slight bias of the creator of the articles. ColourBurst 03:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Agree with all you've said. —Nightstallion (?) 10:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), original research, prose, and NPOV. Joelito (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. No effort has gone into the article's improvement, with all of the previously-cited problems remaining. JimmyBlackwing 08:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove No inline citations (1. c. violation) and nobody has tackled the "Related Terms" section (1. a. violation). LuciferMorgan 13:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abraham Lincoln

Article is no longer a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

• Comment The lead appears to be more of an opinion piece and in direct contradiction to his views on slavery as explained later in the article.

Messages left at User talk:Sarge Baldy, Template talk:WPMILHIST Announcements, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Illinois, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kentucky, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Political figures, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. Sandy 00:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't meet current criteria - whole sections lack inline citations and there's even direct quotes with no cites. --plange 16:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment More inline citations are needed amongst the article's sections. ALL direct quotations need inline citations, a major violation of 1. c. LuciferMorgan 18:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Lead needs some love too... RN 08:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I added some detailed refs (although they could perhaps be better formatted). Now all (long) direct quotes are directly sourced. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 01:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'll work on the lead. It should be at least two paragraphs, explain his slavery views a bit more in-depth (though obviously not over-detailed), touch on his upbringing and law career and mention his legacy beyond "icon and martyr". Anything I'm missing? Stilgar135 19:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This Wikipedia entry is typical of the whitewash of the actions of America's version of Joe Stalin. He had northerners who opposed the war on their southern brothers shot down in the streets of NYC by federal troops. While it's true he approved all the northern generals and their tactics, I see no mention of Lincoln's policy of waging war on the CIVILIANS of the South. It was not only Sherman who indiscriminately burned towns, stole or killed livestock, burned wheat and flour, destroyed mills and even ripped up fences. These were war crimes even in the age of Lincoln.

Lincoln's most lasting legacy was probably the federal contract - the spending of huge sums of confiscated tax dollars on "internal projects" like the railroads. Previously, these had been handled through private companies - but with Lincoln, the means of rewarding his industrialist backers with juicy federal contracts came into its own. The new federal railroads were even built on ice and snow, in full knowledge they would collapse in the spring melt. The contractors counted on being paid for rework - just as they were paid per mile of track laid (no matter that the tracks weren't anything like the most direct possible route.)

Almost completely ignored is one of the main reasons for the outbreak of the War of Northern Aggression: Lincoln imposed huge tariffs on imported goods. The agrarian South had long imported good from England and a much lower cost than they could buy the same goods from the North. Lincoln raised the tariffs to put British goods beyond the price of the Southerners and force them to buy northern goods. For the South, that was never an option. The costs would have financially ruined those saddled with the higher costs.

From imprisoning people who disagreed with him (one preacher was even jailed for failing to offer a prayer in support of Lincoln and his war!), to creating a system for wasting federal dollars on sweetheart contracts, to gutting significant portions of the Constitution, to grand-standing on the slavery issue (Lincoln is on record as saying he didn't care one way or the other), to causing the deaths of more Americans than any other person in history (over half a million dead), "Honest" Abe ("Honest" was an ironic term of derision, much as you might say, "Honest" Bill Clinton), was quite possibly the single most destructive force to America in our history, setting in motion disasterous consequences which are still with us today.

I highly recommend the book, "The Real Lincoln" for anyone who wants to get a better view of this EVIL, self-centered power-monger from the mid-19th century. It contains direct cites for all of the above.

Not to derail this page, but The Real Lincoln is an awful book regardless of its author's intent. DiLorenzo may be 100% right, but that doesn't change the fact that he contradicts himself, plays fast and loose with the facts, and has no idea how to make an effective argument. I'm sure there are at least a few good anti-Lincoln books out there, but that sure isn't one of them. Stilgar135 02:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

He couldn't possibly be 100% right. See my comments below. Durova 16:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is insufficient citations (1c). Marskell 07:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, no concerns substantial enough to warrant defeaturing. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - still whole sections lacking inline citations, a violation of 1c --plange 22:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As someone who holds a degree in history from an Ivy League university I can state with assurance that the anti-Lincoln diatribe posted above is fringe scholarship. For example, its claim that the South seceded in response to Lincoln's tariff policies is preposterous: seven states had already seceded before the first day of Lincoln's presidency. Those accusations are the sole edit of an anonymous IP address. Durova 16:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment - that diatribe has nothing to do with this FAR however... It was posted by an anonymous IP. This article was nominated for FAR due to its lack of inline citations -- can you help get those added? --plange 16:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What facts do you think require inline citations, beyond what is present? Christopher Parham (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Definitely any place where there's a quote, or asserting a stance of his, like "ridiculed religion". Plus one style needs to be picked, right now there's a mixture of <ref>/CMS and Harvard style for inline citations. --plange 18:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remove for now. Per Plange. Whole sections and sub-sections of this article have not even one inline citation! It still needs referencing, but it can be saved.--Yannismarou 14:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Entirely uncited and unstable. Sandy 16:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Had a good look at this one because of its importance. It's very patchy, both in terms of writing quality and citations (the lack of the latter is enough to defeature). The early life section contains unsourced speculation ("he may have witnessed a slave auction that left an indelible impression on him for the rest of his life" is a gem), while the lead is just...off. Hard to place exactly, but "overthrow" and "destroying" slavery as verb choices, are examples. There's also some repetition and an imperfect TOC (the style of Homefront jars, for instance). There's certainly copious material here—not a bad read, but not an FA. Marskell 13:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - Insufficient inline citations (1. c. violation). LuciferMorgan 13:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sudoku

Article is no longer a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Board and table games. Marskell 15:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This article certainly does not exemplify the high standards of featured articles on Wikipedia.

With regards to 1a, stubby paragraphs abound, certainly not an FA characteristic. Stubby "paragraphs" include:

• The attraction of the puzzle is that the rules are simple, yet the line of reasoning required to solve the puzzle may be complex. The level of difficulty can be selected to suit the audience. The puzzles are often available free from published sources and may be custom-made using software.
• Later in 2005, the BBC launched SUDO-Q, a game show combining Sudoku (albeit only the 4×4 and 6×6 variants) with a general knowledge quiz.
• During February 7th's episode of The Daily Show, correspondent Jason Jones suggested that to ease the conflict over the Jyllands-Posten Muhammed caricatures, newspapers should be stripped down to only featuring Sudoku puzzles.

However, most offensively, the article does not cite a single source until halfway through (1c). The first ref or external link does not occur until the Construction section. Even then, some of the more technical sections, such as how computer solutions are completed, do not have any references whatsoever. This article is not a good representation of the work that is featured article quality on Wikipedia. In addition, this article had a very poor traffic on its FAC and did not really look all that good when it was promoted in the first place. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 01:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Commnent: The entire "Solution Methods" section needs to be justified, as Wikipedia is not a how-to. Given that, it needs citations throughout. The output grid in the "Mathematics of Sudoku" section is not source code, so there doesn't seem to be any reason why it should be in (ugly) verbatim formatting. Similarly, SVG diagrams would be somewhat preferable to the GIFs and PNGs currently in use. One of those images, Cross-hatching.gif, is using an obsolete fair use tag, which is a matter for some concern. Looks like it's a version of Sudoku-by-L2G-20050714.gif, which seems legit, though. Note that I went ahead and created an SVG version at Sudoku-by-L2G-20050714.svg‎. Don't have time to do the final touches now, though. -Stellmach 21:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Never mind my comment about the formatting in the "Mathematics of Sudoku" section, as that algorithm is pretty obviously original research in the first place and has been removed. - Stellmach 01:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Question: Come to look at it, is the liscencing statement on the image Sudoku-nrc.png in order? It seems to be basically a copy of a layout from a Dutch newspaper, so what right does the uploader have to duplicate it? I find this suspicious. -Stellmach 14:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Now has some cites, still has some stubbiness. Sandy 21:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), and structure and stub paragraphs (2). Marskell 18:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remove per above issues, as they are completely unresolved. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 03:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. The article is still undercited, and the prose is not compelling. Here is a sample paragraph from History:

• In 1997, retired Hong Kong judge Wayne Gould, 59, a New Zealander, saw a partly completed puzzle in a Japanese bookshop. Over six years he developed a computer program to produce puzzles quickly.[20] Knowing that British newspapers have a long history of publishing crosswords and other puzzles, he promoted Sudoku to The Times in Britain, which launched it on 12 November 2004 (calling it Su Doku). It was rapidly introduced by The Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail and The Independent. By April and May 2005 the puzzle became a national phenomenon and was introduced to several other national British newspapers including The Guardian, The Sun (where it was labelled Sun Doku), and The Daily Mirror.[citation needed] Sandy 14:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Remove—as per Sandy. "Various other grid sizes have also been enumerated" is a gem of an example that I saw at random. Why are both hyphens and en dashes used for ranges (should be en dashes: 1–9, not 1-9). Insert spaces—ideally small ones, but normal are OK—around the "times" symbols, for which ex is used, regrettably (3 × 3, not 3x3). Tony 15:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joshua A. Norton

Article is no longer a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Political figures, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. Sandy 00:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I stumbled across this page by chance and couldn't quite believe it's an FA. Of course, it's one of our older ones.

Although interesting, I'm not sure the prose is brilliant. It degenerates into a list and trivia by the end of the article, including a ridiculous section on the dead Norton posting to Usenet via a spiritual medium! The article is referenced but such a chatty piece really needs inline citations.

A decent enough article, perhaps a GA, but up to modern FA standards? My feeling is no. --kingboyk 15:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'd agree with kingboyk's comments (though the 'perhaps a GA' comment I feel is being generous given the current expected standards for GA's and FA's). The "In popular culture" section is almost a trivia section in disguise, creating disjointed prose which needs to be addressed (1. a.) by tying the paragraphs together so the whole section is properly co-ordinated. This is an example which needs inline citations (1. c.), or otherwise can be considered original research;

"During the latter years of Norton's reign, he was the subject of considerable rumor and speculation."

In brief, criteria 1. a. and 1. c. need to be addressed in this article. LuciferMorgan 01:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Per nominator. Inline citations desperately needed. Section "In popular culture" looks like a loooooong trivia section.--Yannismarou 18:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• The [April, 2004 version of the article] that appeared on the front page was not bad. There has been a lot of change since then, and not all of it positive. Simply editing out the trivia and accumulated cruft would go a long ways towards restoring this article.--Paul 23:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've started restoring this article. Trivia has been moved to a daughter article, I'm changing to in-line cites & I've stared editing out some accumulated cruft.--Paul 14:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

A very good ongoing effort, with good progress being made by Paul, but it still needs more citations: shall we move it to FARC now that two weeks have elapsed, or will work be completed soon? FARC would allow at least two more weeks to complete work. Sandy 21:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Without some help, completion isn't going to be soon. I have addressed the "triva" concerns of earlier commentators; existing references were converted to in-line, and a few new references have been added, though more are required. I am planning a trip to the SF Library where (after looking in the catalog) I know I will have access to most of the listed secondary sources. I like the irreverent and informal tone of this article, and will do some prose polishing to return it to its former glory. I hope it can be rescued as a FA. Trips to the library are weekend projects.--Paul 22:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are structure (trivia and lists) (2), and insufficient citations (1c). Marskell 09:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• You should probably look at the article before you summarize the FA concerns. It no longer contains trivia or lists.--Paul 11:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

A late reply: Paul, I never deduce when moving down what has been taken care of, because that would game the system in favour of my evaluation. I just relist in summary what the nominator said, and the reviewers can then judge for themselves. Marskell 10:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Remove - still lacks inline citations -there's even quotes with no cites --plange 22:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Per Plange. And in section "Imperial career" there are too many quotes interrupting the prose. It needs rewriting.--Yannismarou 14:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per plange and Yannismarou. Sandy 16:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Note on closure: Paul did some good work on this, but by his own admission requires more than the available time to get it to standard. A fair bit of work remains. Marskell 10:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Go (board game)

Article is no longer a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

I find that this article falls short of many FA criteria, most important one being insufficient referencing. I raised my concerns on the talk page of the article nearly two weeks back, but did not find any progress.

Quantifying the concerns, the major concerns regarding this article are as follows:

1. Article lacks enough references.
2. Article has over-whelmingly large external links section.
3. Section "Go variants" has a lot of stub-sections (very short sub-sections).
4. The article can also lose a bit in size, as a lot of trivia is present in sections like "Other board games sometimes compared with Go".

— Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Board and table games. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd add that the "Other board games sometimes compared with Go" thing seems like not only trivia, but a real magnet for off-the-cuff original "research". -Stellmach 13:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Go_Variants now exists as a seperate page, there remains a seperate link in this article which lists games that can be played with Go equipment. Hopefully this may resolve some of the problems mentioned above. What exactly needs to be referenced? -Zinc Belief

I note that the "chess" article, like this one, contains only five references, and more than thirty external links. Yet that article is not on the FAR list. Is some anti-go POV at work here? kibi 17:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that the article is insufficiently referenced (I would object on these grounds to a GA nomination, in fact). I also think it is clear that it contains far, far too many external links, most of which do not fall under the guidelines expressed in WP:EL. The external links section is over 100 lines and nearly 12 kilobytes in size; this is exactly what is discouraged by the proscriptions against "link farms" in articles. I would add to these concerns that there are a number of stylistic problems, particularly relating to the use of capital letters and redundancy and capitalization in headings. For example, "go" is not a proper noun, so why is it capitalized? I think the article could benefit from significant copy editing. As for the number of references in chess, well, I think that's a problem there too. That's not really relevant here, though. —ptk✰fgs 19:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There are indeed far too many links. I may see if I can page off these later. However what exactly should be referenced? If somebody could point out some sections it would help in improving the article. As for Go being capitalised, I am sure you can find out why that is the case if you do some research :) - ZincBelief

I can't find anything. If the name is always capitalized (and this does not seem the be the case), that makes it significantly different from other board games whose names are common nouns, and should be expressed and referenced in the article. —ptk✰fgs 19:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Eight references added, some of which (such as The Go Player's Almanac) support many facts thourghout the article. Are the reference-seekers satisfied? kibi 01:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please remember not to compare to another FA, which might also need to be FAR'd. The External Links seem to be a link farm. The article has external jumps, which should be corrected. The footnotes contain NY Times references, which should be expanded to a bibliographic or footnote format. The footnotes do not use correct punctuation (see WP:FN). Without looking yet at other issues, I checked the article for inline citations - a few examples (there are others) of uncited statements from a random section in the middle of the article are:

Go had reached Japan from China by the 7th century, and gained popularity at the imperial court in the 8th century.

In 1603, Tokugawa Ieyasu created Japan's first unified national government. Almost immediately, he appointed the then best player in Japan, Honinbo Sansa, head of a newly founded Go academy (the Honinbo school, the first of several competing schools founded about the same time).

The government discontinued its support for the Go academies in 1868 as a result of the fall of the Tokugawa shogunate.

(POV, OR ??) It is a perfect information, deterministic, strategy game, putting it in the same class as chess, checkers (draughts), and reversi (othello).

(Weasle words, screaming for a citation) It is commonly said that no go game has ever been played twice, and this may well be true:

Those are just some samples. Move to FARC for further work. Sandy 17:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), organizations and size (2 and 4). Marskell 20:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak remove. A lot of improvements have been made since the FAR started, but the article is still short of FA standards with large parts of the article unreferenced and stubby sections. The problem with external links is resolved, IMO. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Many listy sections that should be turned into prose. Some stubby sections and an obvious problem with referencing.--Yannismarou 16:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Weasle words, undercited, possible OR or POV, listy and stubby, and although I somewhat cleaned them up, External links/Further reading seems to have become a link farm/advertising for books for sale section. Sandy 15:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove grammatical problems, particularly the unexplained and repeated capitalization of "go", a common noun like chess, draughts, and backgammon. thin on references. otherwise an excellent article. EL's still a bit heavy, but are a significant improvement over the situation prior to FAR. Possible non-free images — is Jago open-source? What is its license? Is it okay to use screenshots of this software to show go positions? Or should they be marked 'fair use' only for discussion of Jago? I have no problem with the number of books listed per se, but if their info is so valuable that they need to be listed here, they could probably be worked in as references for some of the unsourced statements. —ptk✰fgs 02:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• I don't understand why Ptkfgs is offering unreasearched opinions on a FARC review. Why not look up Jago's website to find this out? Why not look up every national Go website and find that it is the accepted custom to Capitalise the common noun Go. Is there some particular reason wikipedia shouldn't reflect normal practice, if so I would like to hear why? The perception that this is a problem is totally bizarre. If you want to troll please go somewhere else. FARC comments are also supposed to cite instances of problems, as detailed in the guidelines, which none of the reviewers so far have done. Pity. What specifically would people like referenced and why? Which sections are stubby? Why should listy sections be turned into prose, and what are these listy sections? I feel this FARC commentary is frankly woeful. Sorry.

Capitalized common nouns are a rare exception. The explanation that's been added is good, but it's one of the things I'd like to see a reference for. As for what else needs to be referenced? Well, I would start with the second sentence of the article, and then move on to referencing basically every claim in the first paragraph of "origin of the name". Then I'd look for references on the "internal tensions" paragraph the "nature of the game" section. I really don't think I need to list 70 different claims that need referencing. The article in general misses FA criteron 1(c). Sorry you feel this is woeful. —ptk✰fgs 00:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If you just read the article you can find a reference for the second sentence. I think you do need to list references if you want to make a review. That applies to everyone by the way. Otherwise you're not doing a proper review. I think FA status should be reapplied pending a proper review.

I haven't seen a proper review yet.

There's nothing "good" about the explanation that "go is sometimes capitalized to differentiate from the common verb." If that made sense, then bridge would also be capitalized when it refers to the game. Why is this important? Go is an ancient game with deep cultural roots. It is not just some game that somebody invented and copyrighted. Capitalizing go treivializes it. BTW, the AGA web site is one site that does not capitalize go (although there are errors there.) It is not capitalized in the The American Go E-Journal either. And those that do are just plain wrong, as the example of "bridge" should make clear. Readers who cannot differentiate between a noun and a verb should seek remedial education. kibi 13:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC) 13:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually the policy on the USGO site is totally inconsistent, so I am not impressed with your argument there. You can find numerous instances of both go and Go there. The E-Journal's editor clearly prefers to use go. The IGF site uses Go. The BGA site uses Go. Canada uses Go. EGF uses Go. France uses Go. Belgium uses Go. Australia uses Go. Ireland is inconsistent. Anyway this is just one issue, an unresolved dispute. What about the other areas? Anything which has been requested to be changed has been changed. The unspecified problems are still unspecified. Unless reviewers specify what they dislike about the article I don't see how they expect people to change it. When you review and find problems you are supposed to specify what they are, if you are not prepared to do that, then don't review an article.

The process is described as Articles are listed as FARCs only after undergoing a review. 'Reviewers may declare "keep" or "remove", supported by substantive comments that focus on the outstanding deficiencies in relation to the FA criteria. Reviewers who declare "remove" should be prepared to return towards the end of the process to strike out their objections if they have been addressed. If, after a period of review, the deficiencies have not been addressed and there is no obvious momentum to do so, the FA status is removed. If consensus has emerged that the changes have brought the article back to standard, the review is closed.'

Now after objections were raised the article started to be edited and improved. A clear sign of obvious momentum. In my opinion, it is not acceptable to just say Weasle words, undercited,- that is a not a substantive comment. I only see superficial comments, with the possible acception of the unresolved dispute over Capitalisation. Is it acceptable to capitalise go to improve readability, or do we want an encyclopedia that adheres to strict grammatical rules at that expense?

We can examine the original problems

1. Article lacks enough references.
2. Article has over-whelmingly large external links section.
3. Section "Go variants" has a lot of stub-sections (very short sub-sections).
4. The article can also lose a bit in size, as a lot of trivia is present in sections like "Other board games sometimes compared with Go".

1. References where added, although no indication of what needed to be referenced was given.
2. external links section was trimmed as some reviewers indicated
3. Section Go Variants was hived off into a seperate article
4. the article can also lose a bit in size, well it did. Other board games sometimes compared with Go is no longer there.

I really do object to how this review process has ended. I will request arbitration if this is not adressed.--ZincBelief 10:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poetry of the United States

Article is no longer a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Message left at Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry. Marskell 09:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Message left at Wikipedia:WikiProject United States. Joelito (talk) 01:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Achieved FA status in the early days before line citations were expected. Unfortunately, has no line citations at all. Appears to cover its subject in a comprehensive and NPOV manner, but probably an A or B class article by today's standards due to lack of references. Comments? Durova 01:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• The lead is most unsatisfactory (2a)—wanders, glitches in the prose, nothing about what linked American poets stylistically or in terms of theme. Tony 15:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, you have a problem when your second sentence begins "Unsurprisingly,..." Zero edits since nom, and it's also one of the old ones with no initial FAC to track down the initial nominator. Marskell 10:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Not a single edit since nomination: move to FARC. Sandy 17:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are lack of citations (1c), comprehensiveness (1b), and general prose issues (1a). Marskell 20:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delist, for all of the above. The lead makes some very general statements that are not explained in the body. –Outriggr § 08:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Lack of inline citations (1. c.), and what Tony explained in the FAR. LuciferMorgan 10:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Per LuciferMorgan.--Yannismarou 14:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Unfortunately there appear to be no active editors to bring this up to current FA standards. No improvement since FAR. Durova 16:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)