Wikipedia talk:Featured articles with citation problems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Inotes
2 Seattle, Washington
3 BC Rail
4 Moving articles off the list
5 Resolved issues
6 Problem articles
7 Missed one
8 Quatermass and the Pit
9 Superman
10 A. E. J. Collins
11 Auditing the list
- 11.1 To be moved off?
12 Iowa class battleship
13 Nice list

[edit] Inotes

Thomas Pynchon uses Harvard-style references. Also, Technetium and Trigonometric function use the {{Inote}} template, so they have references — they're just invisible. Anville 21:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I removed all three. The Disco King 21:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Swift work. (-: A whole smorgasbord of articles use the Inote template, which was apparently a stopgap measure while cite.php was being developed. Changing them over will be a pain. . . and is there any way to get the overlap between the set of FAs and the set of Inote-using articles? I found these two by luck. Anville 21:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the only thing to be done is to manually go through...which would be a pain, since there seem to be over 500 articles using the inote template...I'll see what I can come up with. Cheers! The Disco King 17:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Omnipotence paradox also uses Harvard-style. . . I'm just checking articles that I worked on before to see how they've developed, because I don't have the heart to do a systematic search. Anville 18:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seattle, Washington

The Seattle article uses a variety of references (I'm currently going through and updating, so it'll be footnotes in the future), but it currently includes 39 inline citations, so it probably doesn't belong in the no inline citation list. Not everything has inline cites so depending how you want to work it, it either doesn't belong on either list or in the few inline citations list.

[edit] BC Rail

BC Rail is listed as an article with "No inline citations" but it does have {{inote}} citations viewable only in edit mode. Maintain 22:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

At any rate, it only has two footnotes, so it still needs to be on the list. Sandy 22:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

What? The article as it stands now has about 15 inline citations, which seems to meet the standards for removing from the list. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I've converted the inotes to inline citations, using cite.php. Now that they can be viewed, it can be noticed that several of the book sources have no page numbers noted, and the article is still severely undercited. There is a problem with a photo gallery in the 1990 - 2003 section. It doesn't show correctly in my browser even before the conversion, and the HTML code used there was eliminating cite.php references. I've temporarily commented out that image gallery, since it doesn't show on my browser anyway. I suspect Joelito will know how to fix it. Let me know if you want to keep this version, and if we can ask someone to look at the HTML in the photo gallery, but I don't think the article is nearly adequately cited, and it would be good to work on the one-sentence, listy-like paragraphs in the "Modelling BC Rail" Section. If we remove it from the list, it would probably need to go to FAR: better would be to address some of the citations without FAR. Sandy 17:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving articles off the list

Sandy posted on my talk: "What will be our criteria for removing articles that haven't gone through FAR from the Lacking citations list?"

This page isn't a proxy for FAR, but should list the citation problem articles only. I'd suggest that we move it off of the list if the inline cites are provided, regardless of other issues. If some other user wants to nom it, for some other reason, they can always do so.

As for the total number of citations needed to get it off, that should be case-by-case. Marskell 17:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Markskell. On that basis, I'll leave Chagas disease on the list, since it surpasses the criteria originally needed to establish the list, but is not yet fully cited. I moved Michael Woodruff down, because it is now fully cited; someone else moved Barack Obama down, which doesn't appear to be fully cited. I'll add fact tags to it, since that may be the easiest way to get it finished up. Sandy 18:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Barack Obama is now fully cited; User:HailFire filled in all my cite tags. Sandy 13:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resolved issues

I have added refs to 3 FAs:

Please remove them from the list. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You've been busy ! I'm sorry I haven't had time to review them in detail, and won't have time until later. On first pass, they look good to me: I'd like to hear from others. Sandy 12:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, this isn't a proxy for FAR so we don't have to judge the articles in sum. On my quick glance as well, the sourcing looks like it has improved to the point that these can be moved. Marskell 13:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty busy right now, but I've sorta kinda taken over managing the list for Marskell <grin> ... to lighten his workload. I'll move them down later if everyone agrees. Sandy 14:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What about your workload?! Anyhow, I moved them. Kudos on the great work Ambuj! Marskell 15:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, since I didn't give due time to Bishonen's article (below), obviously it is a problem. Damn orchard. Nie work Ambuj!! Can you get more editors to do same :-) Sandy 15:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I will try though it is unlikely that I will get more editors. One thing I have learnt from my Wiki-experience is that it is very difficult to sell dreams :( Anyways, it will continue to remain my pet project. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem articles

I presume it's realized how off-putting the cavalier term "citation problem articles" is to the authors responsible for creating these problems? Anyway, Restoration spectacular and John Vanbrugh don't suffer from citation problems and don't belong on this list. I would say they are if anything more reliably and checkably referenced than S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897, which I wrote more recently and decorated with 29 footnotes after the latest fashion. Bishonen | talk 12:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC).

I checked for inotes (none), and didn't find inline citations for either Restoration spectacular or John Vanbrugh ?? Sandy 12:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps by "citations" you mean some specific technical feature which isn't there, then? For example, a sentence like "However, the variety of them is so untidy that most theatre historians despair of defining them as a genre at all (see Hume, 205)" (in the lead section of Restoration spectacular), combined with an alphabetical References list in which Hume's book appears, has an inline cite. A very specific one, which makes it easy to check the information. This is in my own opinion better (=more reader-friendly) than the presently popular system of one huge mess of combined footnotes and references with confusingly non-consecutive footnote numbers in the text. What makes it better is that it provides an alphabetical list where the reader can easily check to see if a particular source has been used or not. I have no trouble imagining situations where I'd want to do that--it's not an unreasonable desire--and it's a laborious business in a long non-alphabetical list. Anyway, presumably I don't have to argue for a system that's standard in academic publishing in the humanities. Please note that there's not even necessarily a parenthesis; a sentence like "Downes is sceptical of earlier historians' claims of a lower middle-class background, and shows that an 18th-century suggestion that his father Giles Vanbrugh "may have been a sugar-baker" has been misunderstood" (in John Vanbrugh) also has an inline cite, since the book by Downes is in the References list. It doesn't have a page reference because it doesn't need one, having a good index. It's an important principle, and again one that's current in academic publishing, that the critical apparatus shouldn'tt clutter the text with unnecessarily paraphernalia, but contain only what is practically useful: the sugar-baker discussion in the book by Kerry Downes is extremely easy to locate and verify. Since the rationale of this list is that "the lack of in-line citations makes true verification difficult" in the articles listed, I presume there is no problem as long as true verification is easy?

Secondly, I should mention that only statements with some slight uniqueness or possibility for disagreement have inline cites. Facts that are in the common domain, that all the sources state and nobody contests, don't have them. Bishonen | talk 14:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC).

I'm sorry, Bishonen, I had only made a passing glance at the article: I mentioned in other talk page entries here that I was in a hurry and had only made a passing glance. I didn't realize the article did have inlines: I only checked for inotes and ref tags. I will look more closely when I have more time. I do think it's possible to use cite.php in a way that doesn't create the problem you mentioned, but that's personal preference. Sandy 14:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

So, some people prefer a notational system? Oh, goodie! We should all have preferences. However, published articles use parenthetical reference in the sciences and humanities, and to say something like "no citations" to articles that possess citations but in a format outside of the monopoly holders' preference is absurd.

I do not allow my students to cite every fact, because all that does is present a facade of learning and research and satisfy those with a beaurocrat's idee fixe. Those things not available from three or more sources, those things likely to be controversial, those things that are new findings, need citation. Esse non videre. It is a mile from "original research" to not cite common information. Furthermore, all authors, in encyclopedias, dictionaries, and journals, are responsible for providing an unique synthesis of information and critical insight.

This absurdity of trying to declassify articles can be read only as a procrustean banditry or a profound misunderstanding of scholarship. Geogre 15:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

<rant>There were five hundred and twenty fucking three articles on this list when it started, representing more than half of the FAs. Sandy (amongst others) others has put in enormous work to try and take care of them. I presume it's realized how off-putting it has to have that work denigrated. No one read all of them to check for idosyncratic referencing; if you believe your article doesn't belong, move it down. If you have a problem with the in-line citation requirement, raise it here or talk to Raul. If you have a better plan to raise the quality of our FAs beyond the WP:FAR any suggestion appreciated.</rant> Marskell 15:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

We have no problem with "inline citation" except that some people seem to think it means only whatever their favorite fashion is. What bothers me, and this is my own canned rant, is that we're getting people going at articles with a strainer, as if applying one preference or another had anything to do with scholarship or quality. Letting the superficial take precedence over the substantive is never going to be something I like. Parenthetical references are "inline citations." Footnotes are "inline citations." Getting a fetish for exactly how references are achieved is a bad, bad mistake. And, while I know that you believe that sorting out all the past FA's is a great goal, I don't share that enthusiasm when it's predicated on looking for conformity to clothing instead of quality of the body. I don't know how important FAR/C is, if it's going to work solely by "does not conform to my favorites" or "does not have whatever we just now said was necessary." The fact that we don't grandfather articles is bizarre. If someone wants to find low quality FA's, I'm all for it. If they want to construct a list of 500 articles that don't wear an earring in the left ear, I'm not going to be a fan. Geogre 18:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

First, lack of inline citations often (but not always) co-relates to other issues. Many of the articles here are "Brilliant prose" relics that are nowhere near FA standard in many respects. As said elsewhere, this a tool—that's all. There's nothing canonical or (certainly!) punative about it. You'll just find here articles that are, in the main, not as good as the rest of the FAs. Ignore it if you like.

Also, I don't know where your second person is directed. I would say that there is something to be said for uniformity and something to be said against it (sorry for the Clinton answer). Beyond a given order of magnitude (e.g., in the hundreds) an individual editor is going to have to rely on broad strokes to evaluate articles. This was compiled by Disco King based on 20 or 10 inline citations only, not accounting for Inote or Harvard referencing. That's all I know about it as a body. It has it uses. Above, an editor notes three India related articles for which they've improved the sourcing. Great—if this list aided them in doing so, it has a use.

Finally, on the larger issue of how, when, and in what format, to "where appropriate, [use] inline citations", really, talk to Raul. As far as I understand it, it is not a fad or a current mania to demand them regularly—it has stood for a year and it is an expectation deployed on all FACs and FARs. No one is asking for "every fact"; this supposed demand is a stupid meme deployed all over the place. I realize parenthetical references are "inline citations" (synonymous terms, really).

None of the above is meant to alter my apology for posting a rant that offended Bishonen (below). Marskell 22:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't get upset on my behalf, Marskell: we can't have any more upset editors 'round these parts :-) It was my fault for not answering Bishonen more carefully; heck, I gotta pack and hit the road here. I'm sorry for not taking more time on Bishonen's article, which might have avoided this upset. Sandy 15:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy. I thought you and I were having a mutually civil discussion. If I sounded so offensive as Marskell implies, I'm sorry. Marskell, if talking to me like that is your plan for attracting me to the WP:FAR policy discussion, it's not working. I disagree that my referencing is idiosyncratic. I don't have a problem with the in-line citation requirement; I do use inline citations. The reason I raised the question here rather than removing the articles myself is that I thought it more proper (somebody without an investment in the articles should be the one to check if they belong on the list), and also that the project page says "leave a note on the talk page and someone will investigate". That referred specifically to the iNote system, but I took away from it the impression that removals were (properly) not up to me. I put a little work into those fucking articles too. Bishonen | talk 16:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC).

ah, heck, I'm out the door. Now, how am I supposed to enjoy my trip? Again, sorry for causing this problem by not closely enough examining Bishonen's articles. Marskell knows I've been particularly overworked lately, and that it's not a great time to criticize my oversight: it's admirable when a friend comes to one's defense in down times. Many editors, Marskell foremost, have worked hard not to delist articles, rather to improve them to current standards. He helped implement the new FAR procedure to specifically provide a better means of not just declassifying articles if they aren't at current standards, and has worked hard to that aim. I'm certain no incivility was intended: just defense of a friend who has a sick relative and has been working too hard on Wikibusiness. (Actually, I do prefer to move the articles down myself, as I've set up such a complex classification system in the list :-)) Best to all, Sandy 16:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry. I read quickly, thought "why are people jumping on Sandy?", and posted without due diligence. Any offence is my fault. Marskell 21:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

A better title for the page might be "featured articles with few inline citations," since the number of citations appears to have been the standard for generating the page. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Iron Maiden need re-classification on this list. Right now it says it has "no inline citations" but now it does. LuciferMorgan 23:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It's under review at WP:FAR: it will be delisted or retain status at the end of the review period. Sandy 23:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missed one

T-34 is coming up for main page in Feb, and has almost no citations - it was somehow missed on the list. If I add it now, that messes up the tallies - what to do? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've contacted Raul. Ack. It was somehow missed on the list because it was passed after the list was compiled; we're almost certainly going to see this problem again. I'd hold-off before changing the tallies. Marskell 20:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

oh, for gosh sakes - I was had again. Would you think by now I'd remember to check for inline vs. cite.php citations? It has many problems, but it does have inlines. Sheesh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quatermass and the Pit

This article now has 112 inline citations, sourced from 61 different references. I would like to ask whether there is a consensus that it can now be removed from this list? Many thanks. Angmering 20:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur that the article meets 1c and should be removed from the citations list without FAR, considered a keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove away. Again, this isn't a proxy for FAR, so articles don't actually need to have passed there before being moved (though it's nice when they correspond). Marskell 20:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought - if an article has sufficient problems that someone thinks it should be FAR'd for another reason, that's separate from this list. So I'll move it to Keep in the tallies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It meets 1c. LuciferMorgan 21:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Superman

You're probably waiting until the FARC closes, but I just want to ping your attention to Superman. Steve block Talk 21:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I move them automatically when FAR/FARC closes :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought you might. I just hope it passes now. :-) Steve block Talk 21:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If we get no more response, default would be to keep - we don't defeature articles based on no input. Stay calm :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A. E. J. Collins

Right - it had some refs, and I have just added more (more specific cites from the same sources, actually). What does this need to be removed from this list? -- ALoan (Talk) 21:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Meets 1c for me - a few more voices for consensus? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Save for one or two statements, seems to meet 1c. LuciferMorgan 22:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to slap some {{fact}}s on, so I can deal with them, or can you live with "by and large good enough" rather than perfection? -- ALoan (Talk) 23:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No objections, moved off list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

ALoan's reply to myself seemed a little derogatory. I didn't even object to the article being moved off the list either. Do you have something against me ALoan? LuciferMorgan 02:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please accept my apologies: I have nothing against you personally at all, and am rather ashamed that you might think that I did. (It would be fair to say that we disagree about the necessity for every single fact in an article to be cited - Palladian architecture would be a case in point, I think, but I hope we can agree to disagree without getting personal). Perhaps my request was too flippant, for which, again, I apologise.

You said that the article meets 1c apart from 1 or 2 statements, and I was not sure whether that meant that you thought the article was satisfactory as it stands or not, so was merely asking whether you would like to identify the few specific instances where you think further citation is necessary, or were happy enough with its present imperfect state. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No worries: I accept your apologies. I apologise also, and hope you can accept mine. I can understand the tension so to speak, since we've disagreed on not only Palladian architecture, but Operation Downfall and some of Emsworth's articles. I don't think every fact as such should be cited, though I do so just in case - some editors are more stringent than others. Even though there's one or two statements I felt could do with citation, the concern isn't valid enough to warrant it staying on the list. Here's one that particularly sticks out;

"After leaving school, he never wanted to be reminded of his famous innings; nevertheless, he has been remembered well beyond his own lifetime."

I think the fact he didn't want reminding, and the fact he's been remembered well beyond his own lifetime both need citations. Now that we've come to some kind of understanding, I hope we can speak on better terms. This enters me into my next line of conversation. Looking at the list of nominated FAs by Wikipedians [1], I notice you've nominated a few in your time. I also notice some don't have citations, and was wondering if you'd be interested in addressing this sometime? It's up to you; I have no intentions of nominating them presently, but thought it'd be great to work them up. I'm willing to pitch in by reviewing the articles etc., and thought it'd be nice to address the criteria concerns without FAR. LuciferMorgan 22:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no need to apologies, old bean - we are all here to write the best encyclopedia we can, right?

Anyway, now you have asked, I think Angmering has done the business on A. E. J. Collins again :) Any more concerns?

Yes, several of the articles that I nominated at FAC are not sufficiently cited (1755 Lisbon earthquake, League of Nations, National parks of England and Wales and Speed of light are all listed here), and some of the articles that I have saved from FARC before (such as Rainbow) are not sufficiently cited either. Almost all of these were "discoveries" (written by other editors) rather than articles that I wrote myself; while I was happy to guide them through FAC, I am not particularly motivated to go back now and add inline citations. In fact, the only one of these that I consider to be "my" article is National parks of England and Wales (see my featured wishlist). Rainbow is a case in point - it will fail FAR shortly. Sigh.

Perhaps I ought to borrow some books from a library and sort them out, but I have only just finished Jack Sheppard, want to finish adding citations to Jonathan Wild, and Mary Seacole is on the very back back burner. And energies keep being diverted by various sorts of monkey business, redlinks, etc. It all takes time, and I am only one person. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well the fact that he was remembered long after his lifetime is covered, but I couldn't find anything to cite the "didn't want to be reminded" bit. Is it in one of your original sources? Angmering 14:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It's off this list, so perhaps you all can wrap that up on the article talk page, as well as other work needed on other articles on respective user or article talk pages? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Auditing the list

I've started to go through those listed as having none, and moving those that have a few down a section. If it only has one or two lonely inline cites, I leave it, but five or more and it gets moved. (This doesn't mean the refs are formatted properly, or sufficient.) This is just shuffling deck chairs, of course. Afterwards, I'll go through the "few" list and post to talk those that I think can be removed completely.

[edit] To be moved off?

(Not a vote as to whether it would pass all FAR criteria, but a general observation about whether cites have improved enough to have it moved off). A concurring opinion and it can go:

Chagas disease (unfortunately they haven't used a template; lots of referencing work done). Marskell 14:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- No. I've been plugging away at it over time, and prodding the Medicine group to work on it, but it is still massively undercited for a medical article, and has other problems as well. If the backlog ever clears out, it's on my list to FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Had another look - since I last worked on it (September), only one ref has been added. Lots of work, no change in citation problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    - My concern is that we are then making FAR decisions by proxy. "Has other problems as well", isn't actually supposed to be relevant to this list. You know what I mean? We should probably change the intro description of the list, at least. Marskell 19:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
      - I'll leave it up to you; Chagas is still hugely undercited, but it does have more than a few citations. At any rate, I've got it on my list of articles that need FAR, so I'll remember to bring it if things ever clear out enough and I get a chance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought this list was whether the articles meet criterion 1. c. or not, irrelevant of other concerns. LuciferMorgan 22:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it was never that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's not that, it's frankly rather stupid - the page is called "Featured articles with citation problems". If it isn't that, the page should be renamed. If it was never that, perhaps FAs lacking 1a should've been added at the time, or frankly every other criteria. LuciferMorgan 23:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Read the description on the page - it is what it is, no more, no less. It's 1c, not 1a, because it was developed at the time that it was decided inline citations were needed on FAs; that is, when the standard changed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

So you're agreeing with what I said in the first place then - that this list primarily has only articles which fail 1.c (of course they have others, well some do). LuciferMorgan 01:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No (see Marskell's response below). It was an approximate list at a given point in time of articles that may not meet 1c. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, even though T-34 has Harvard style cites, there aren't many of them and I'd personally contend that it should be placed on this list. There are too many statements in the article that need checking - in comparison to the amount of cites I mean. LuciferMorgan 22:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The list was historical, based on articles that were lacking citations at a specific point in time. If we add articles with other citation issues now, the list does become a proxy for FAR, and we'll be comparing apples and oranges. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

First, I must say that "frankly rather stupid" was frankly not necessary. That 80% of 150 removals have come from the list proves it's utility in bringing problematic FAs to one browsable location. Articles were "included here if they have fewer than 10 footnotes." That's it. This approximates but is not equivalent to 1c; Australian Green Tree Frog and the recently passed Common scold have both been deemed sufficiently cited with fewer. To put it another way, a rough numeric metric was necessary to devise this, but let's never assume that 1c is a matter of counting footnotes. Two note:

I don't think we should add new ones. This amounts to Sandy, Lucifer, and Tim deciding what's sufficiently cited and will only lead to acrimony. FAR is the place to decide if articles meet criteria.
Let's, however, not remove any simply because they've got 11 footnotes; this will encourage footnote counting. So we'll leave Chagas up if Sandy is still concerned with it, and continue to treat them case-by-case. Marskell 08:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good; Chagas is still a very long ways from adequately cited, and counting its footnotes is misleading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)