Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/archive/April to June 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Newer nominations are at the top.

Contents 1 Kept status 1.1 Anschluss 1.2 Vowel 1.3 Calvin and Hobbes 1.4 Humphrey Bogart 1.5 World War I 1.6 Mahatma Gandhi 1.7 Nuclear weapon 1.8 Goa 1.9 Java programming language 1.10 Max Weber 1.11 Oxyrhynchus 1.12 Not The Nine O'Clock News 1.13 Air Force One 1.14 Iraqi insurgency 1.15 Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. 1.16 Helium 2 Removed status April 2.1 Peloponnesian War 2.2 History of Germany 2.3 Origins of the American Civil War 3 Removed status May 3.1 Doom 3.2 Hubble Space Telescope 3.3 Buckinghamshire 3.4 Have I Got News For You 4 Removed status June 4.1 Aryan invasion theory 4.2 Assassination 4.3 Computer security 4.4 Copyright

[edit] Kept status

[edit] Anschluss

Article is still a featured article.

nominated for removal on June 26

Reason: The article has several problems:

• It has pov-issues, which a featured article should not have. Therefore this version cannot be considered stable, which is another requirement for featured standard. The article reads like the author is trying to prove a point, namely calling the Anschluß annexation - which is something no Austrian publishing house would print. This problem is apparent in the intro and lateron there is a complete section called "the word" which the author probably made up (no sources). Also, the author carefully avoids any mention of the official standpoint of the austrian government (accepting moral responsibility), calls the Anschluss 'invasion' and so on.
• It is 50 percent off topic. The first half does deal with the Anschluss and needs some work, lacks essential info (see f. i. talk, request by StanZegel). The second half is a bad article on current austrian politics. (Maybe splitting is a solution).
• The article has references and footnotes but the references lack quality. Most of the text seems to be based on one article in the Wiener Zeitung, a viennese daily. For an article on history, historians should be quoted, not journalists. A section called 'The appeal of Nazism to Austrians' absolutely needs sources, and in this case I mean inline notes. --Fenice 06:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Remove or Revert to newly-FA'd version I don't agree that the article is off topic, the "current Austrian politics" seem relevant to the Anschluss. ,The POV-ing is a major problem, however. Borisblue 30 June 2005 02:52 (UTC)
    • Strong Keep after rereading the article, its FAC, and the Peer Review, I have come to the conclusion that this has indeed gone through the FAC process rigorously, and is deserving of FAC status. I don't get the impression that the article is trying to prove a point, and if it is missing the perspective of the Austrian Govt then by all means add it. The two other objections are baseless. Firstly, the relevance of the current austrian politics half is clear; i don't see how the article can remain comprehensive if it is removed. Secondly, WHAT exactly is wrong with using journalists as reference? They are a primary source, perhaps even MORE credible than works of historians (secondary source) Borisblue 6 July 2005 02:07 (UTC)
      • Rigorous process? On the contrary: it was exceptionally lenient. If you have read the peer-review, I am sure you have noticed there wasn't one. These are just the authors talking among themselves. You have read the FAC: Some articles get reviewed by as many as 10 people, this article had four support votes (one of them by Martg76, who made only minor contributions, so I think it is fair to count her support-vote). Also, the Anschluss article is undoubtedly not up to the standards because featured article criteria officially do include NPOV, see here: Wikipedia:What is a featured article. You do acknowledge that the official stance of the government should be added (that is the acceptance of moral responsibility): as you have seen this article has been on here for quite a while... and it has not been added. (How stable do you think it was going to be if it were added?) Concerning the relevance of the extensive current-politics-section while leaving out important aspects of the historical event (text on first ballot, for instance): as I mentioned on the talk page of Anschluss: you can always argue that historical events are relevant to the present. Your inherent argument, I assume, is probably that the Schussel blunder from several years ago justifies half the article being on current politics. The main issue in current politics though goes much farther (denial of the existence of death camps), so why not move this section to death camp. The section on the victim theory in this article should be about one screen long. You have obviously read somewhere that journalists are a primary source. This may be true in certain cases, in this instance if the authors were to dig up papers of the time of the Anschluss and quote them - fine (for those who didn't look closely; the article in question is from 1998, the Anschluss was in 1938). To claim that the Wiener Zeitung is a better source for this article than historians is quite strange, I really don't know what to say to that. I don't agree anyway. (Do you know the Wiener Zeitung? All I can tell you about it is that I have personally never read it and I cannot report any hearsay on it because it is a running gag among Austrian academia that no-one can comment on the quality of the journalism in the Wiener Zeitung because no one reads the reports in it. (The Wiener Zeitung is a paper that exists mainly for the publication of Austrian laws.)) By the way: it can be assumed that historians do base their works also on journalistic reports (of the relevant time of course). --Fenice 6 July 2005 06:06 (UTC)
        • I think the question we all are asking is why didn't you, or any of the editors who feel the same way bring this up during the FAC or peer review? Peer review was started may 18, last comment on the FAC was June 17, A MONTH to bring up your concerns. If it was such blatantly POV even from the time even before the FAC, why was the tag only put up 2 weeks ago? Really smells like bad faith to me Borisblue 6 July 2005 09:05 (UTC)
          • Borisblue, you explicitely claimed that you read the FAC and the peer review - I did not participate in that, check again. And please read my comment if you respond to it: I already hinted at the fact that only the authors participated in peer review. The tag was put up a few days late because it is common practise to see if there is not a consensual way of dealing with the problem - some editors try to solve the problem by just fixing it. The attempt to fix the problem was met by the start of a revert war by user themanwithoutapast.--Fenice 6 July 2005 10:10 (UTC)
            • I know you didn't participate. I just doubt whether my initial impressions of this article being major POV were correct. I was just wondering why, if this POV issue is such a big problem it wasn't screened during the process? Surely somebody would have found it out if it was on PR and FAC for a month plus, unless the POV missing is not a very commonly held one? And are you referring to this diff? your version actually isn't any more NPOV than the revert, I'm afriad, where at least the revert acknowledges Anschluss can mean both "connection" AND "annexation". I've edited the defintion a little to be more acceptable. Borisblue 6 July 2005 13:31 (UTC)
              • Going through the history I've come across this paragraph, it's from the old FAC'd edition (June 18 or therabouts) but i think is still in the current revision:

                The Anschluss can be misunderstood as simply a military annexation of an unwilling Austria, but this lends itself to confusion with other German military occupations of European countries. It also tends to conceal the culpability of many Austrians in Nazi crimes, most of all the Shoah, by perpetuating the myth of Austria as the first victim of Hitler's expansionism. Despite the subversion of Austrian political process by Hitler's sympathizers and associates in Austria, Austrian acceptance of direct government by Hitler's Berlin is a very different phenomenon from the administration of other collaborationist countries.

                So it does give space to the POV that Anschluss is a willing union. I retract my earlier statement that this article has major POV problems, i now think it is in fact NPOV Borisblue 6 July 2005 13:58 (UTC)

                • This is still in the text. Nice piece of text, despite lots of weasel terms, but the word military is crucial. In the context of the rest of the text working around the relevant core issues (Austria wasn't annexed, it joined jubilatingly, there are video documents of this) this reads like a npov-alibi. In relation to the size of the article I don't think it does the job. --Fenice 6 July 2005 14:37 (UTC)
                  • How about On the morning of 12 March the 8th Army of the German Wehrmacht crossed the German-Austrian border. They did not face resistance by the Austrian Army — on the contrary, the German troops were greeted by cheering Austrians? I think facts were represented here quite accurately. Borisblue 6 July 2005 14:51 (UTC)
                    • There are some good phrases in it. But look at this, which is in the lead section: Although the Anschluss constituted a military invasion by the Wehrmacht, no fighting took place... And I don't think it could be npoved by adding another ethymology-section that says that invasion really derives from latin invadere and really honestly only means walking in...
                      • I've changed it. Borisblue 8 July 2005 01:02 (UTC)
                        • Your wording takes off the tip, but it still doesn't do the job at describing the military-parade-character of the events.--Fenice 8 July 2005 12:27 (UTC)
              • I don't know how many thousands of active Wikipedian there are on this project. The number of declared Austrians among them is very small (there is a list somewhere - most are not active any more) and also the number of undeclared Austrians is probably small (the country has but 9 million inhabitants and there is a German Wikipedia for their needs, and also there is a language barrier to join controversial discussions in a foreign language). The number of people belonging to both groups and passing FAC was obviously zero or maybe not representative or attentative. It is a specific country-related problem not everyone can judge or is even interested in. The public stance of the Austrian government is that Austria was not annexed, and that the country carries part of the responsibility. It is this official standpoint and an accurate account of historical events that matters. (Most of the rest is contentious). There is no need for the pc mention that it could be viewed as an annexation (other than in a context clearly stating it was not). The article carefully avoids describing what actually happened (cheering), and it avoids the correct translation of the word Anschluss (joining, cf. Langenscheidt), but claims in the text that Austria was annexed. To me, leaving out 'annexation' altogether, is one viable alternative. The other option is to really take up the question and state that it was not an annexation. Or link to the little Heldenplatz-movie every time it is mentioned, but the image is very small and you cannot actually tell that people are cheering Hitler. Like this quote from the text: ...when around 200,000 Austrians gathered on the Heldenplatz (Hero's Square) to hear Hitler proclaim the Austrian Anschluss (Video: Hitler proclaims Austria's inclusion in the Reich (2MB)). --Fenice 6 July 2005 14:28 (UTC)
                • Fair point, I didn't consider that there might be only a small number of Austrian wikipedians. But anschluss=annexation is also a commonly held point of view, GoogleAnschluss for instance and the second webpage on the list, after wikipedia is titled "The "Anschluss" - Annexation of Austria by Germany" (this is an austrian site btw). I still believe my edit on the definition is the most accurate. You have to at least mention that a lot of people take anschluss to mean annexation.Borisblue 6 July 2005 14:43 (UTC)
                  • I know that it is one of the commonly held views in Austria, both the annexation claim and the invasion theory. You are dealing with a nation of people whose Grand Dads were Nazis. No matter what the official position of the government, at the Heuriger people will tell you many of the things in the text. This is the definition of hearsay. And it is perfectly explainable if you consider the psychological background (guilt at best). But it is inappropriate in an encyclopedic history article. The fifth link in your goolge-link provides this .edu link. There is no talk of annexion. They use the word Anschluss and unification. If you do use the word annexion in the text it needs to be made perfectly clear that it wasn't. I think you may have gotten the misleading impression that the meaning of annexation is a common meaning of the German word anschluss. It is not. Anschluss means joining, and it can also mean union in a political sense. The meaning was twisted later, at the development of the victim theory, to make up for the guilt, see also cycle of violence. It is quite common for any kind of criminal to turn the tables or to defer guilt to the victim or the environment.--Fenice 6 July 2005 16:32 (UTC)
                    • The lead does say that "annexation" is not a literal definition. Besides if it's a commonly held view then doesn't it deserve to be here? Read WP:NPOV. Besides, encarta also defines it as annexation here: [1]Borisblue 8 July 2005 10:41 (UTC)
                      • If it isn't a literal definition then why give it to the reader in the first place? And why in the first sentence? Commonly held views are usually included at the bottom, and it is marked which group claims this. Like: you cannot start a stone-age article by saying, actually the stone age does not exist because God created Adam and Eve about 4000 years ago. Or starting an article on Abortion by: The Catholic Church thinks abortion is a sin. And omitting everything else. Like the literal translation, joining, in this case. As I have said several times, if you by all means cannot resist the temptation to put in annexation, then you absolutely clearly and factually acurately need to state that it was not, elaborate on why it was not.--Fenice 8 July 2005 12:36 (UTC)
                      • Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I do not aim to give a dictionary defintion of the word "anschluss", but rather the meaning of it in context of 1938. Both Encarta AND Britannica write that in the first paragraph, so why should we omit it?Borisblue 8 July 2005 16:17 (UTC)
                • Oh, please do add the movie, btw if it's copyright status is OK. We need more multimedia in wikipedia. Borisblue 6 July 2005 14:51 (UTC)
                  • The quote with the video-link is from the text of Anschluss and the link is in there twice, the video is copyright protected, I checked earlier.--Fenice 6 July 2005 16:32 (UTC)
          • What do you consider bad faith? Can you express yourself more clearly? I eliminate that - I don't want to provoke further attacks.--Fenice 6 July 2005 10:32 (UTC)
            • Eliminated "attack". I just want to say I'd feel more comfortable about this FARC if it wasn't nominated by the same person who brought up those POV issues. Also, I'd think it would be better wikiquette if you had contacted User:themanwithoutapast first, since he nominated the article for FAC. I didn't want it to seem like an accusation, though sorry.Borisblue 6 July 2005 13:31 (UTC)
          • Also, I am just curious: what is your background, what research did you do on current Austrian politics? --Fenice 6 July 2005 10:18 (UTC)
            • My interest in this article is about WW2 history rather than austrian politics. I've done no research in current austrian politics. The entire current politics section could have been made up for all i know. All I'm saying is, if the stuff there is true, then it is indeed relevant; i don't think i need to be an expert in Austrian politics to see that. Borisblue 6 July 2005 13:31 (UTC)
• This article was promoted 2 weeks ago. To quote the top fo the page -- Do not list articles that have recently been promoted—such complaints should have been brought up during the candidate period. →Raul654 06:47, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• I'll take note of the formalities then. When does this period expire - when can I renominate it?--Fenice 07:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Because so much POV was added after the promotion, I'm not sure a new-kid-on-the-block immunity is appropriate for this article. I support removal (so it can be recast, perhaps starting with a translation of the German Wiki, and retaining some of the helpful graphics additions).--StanZegel 13:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Why not roll it back to the Featured version? Nathan256 29 June 2005 14:30 (UTC)

• Great idea! If that was only 2 weeks ago, it shouldn't cause too many problems Borisblue 30 June 2005 02:48 (UTC)
• I support this motion too! -- Rune Welsh ταλκ July 1, 2005 14:05 (UTC)
• I also support this idea. As the feature article discussion header says, " If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute." Obviously the people who inserted the POV issues disregarded this notice. The simple and correct thing to do is roll back the article.--Alabamaboy 1 July 2005 22:21 (UTC)

I did take notice that there are formal problems for the removal before, Alabamaboy, see further up this page, and that even an article with nazism problems cannot be removed from the FA-list for a certain time period. I also did not insert any POV-issues, Alabamaboy, they were already there. (Rolling back to the time four people voted for this does not eliminate the POV.)--Fenice 1 July 2005 22:33 (UTC)

Concerning the edits some people think should be rolled back: these are minor issues compared to the underlying general downplaying of the nazitime. The rewrite of the Haider section (not that it belongs in this article in any arguable way) by Mart76 was acutally a good one.--Fenice 1 July 2005 22:55 (UTC)

The simple and correct thing to do, to quote Alabama Boy, is to acknowledge that we have a problem Wikipedia policy cannot solve.--Fenice 1 July 2005 22:57 (UTC)

• Comment: Reverting to the originally featured version would be counter-productive, since almost all substantial edits since then were intended to mitigate the POV problems the article arguably has. Martg76 2 July 2005 10:06 (UTC)
• Comment: Apologies for not having gotten back sooner, but I hadn't realised the conversation was continuing here and therefore didn't have it on my watchlist. Having written a healthy chunk of what is under contention, I take all of the points raised, although some with a grain of salt. Some of the objections can be rebutted or at least argued, others simply need to be addressed. Let's get that show on the road. As we have been told by an admin that we cannot have the article removed, I would prefer it we could move this conversation to the article talk page and concentrate on fixing the article. As no one has conceded to the argument that existing policy is insufficient and should therefore allow for removal, how about we at least get back to a substantial discussion of how to clean up the article? By the time Fenice is allowed to renominate here, we might as easily have an article that makes removal moot. If the policies need to be improved to reduce these cases going forward, some of them may become clearer in the clean-up discussion and work. Buffyg 7 July 2005 01:01 (UTC)
  • Make no mistake about this, the page is still alive. Also there may be some problems with user:themanwithoutapast who resorts to reverting and not discussing, which may pose a problem in npoving the article.--Fenice 7 July 2005 08:21 (UTC)
    • If there's a problem with the article being reverted, isn't the article rather than the FARC page the place to raise this? There are in any case ways to deal with problems of that sort. I promise you my good faith in working out the edits. We've been told several times that discussion in this forum is a dead letter, why not focus on remedying the immediate problem, which is that we have an article that is substantially disputed? If there are policies implications, I tend to think it more productive to argue for remedy of the policies rather than the exceptional status of this candidacy, which does not appear to have a receptive audience. Please mistake me: the criteria I'm arguing are the likely outcomes based on available evidence rather than the virtues, and the available evidence is that the virtues you're arguing are precluded from short-term consideration. You can argue those virtues elsewhere, but why not make them moot for purposes of the article when that is an immediately available course of action? Buffyg 7 July 2005 08:31 (UTC)
      • The point is: where a pov-warrior resorts to just reverting all wikipedia-policies fail and the possibility of npoving the article tends towards zero. (You can have the article protected. Great.) You are wrong, there are currently no ways to deal with problems of that sort. I have made that experience before. And unfortunately in this case we are not dealing with someone who is (appears so harmless now compared to the nazism problem) simply replacing content with bible verses.--Fenice 7 July 2005 08:46 (UTC)
        • Please don't exaggerate, User:Themanwithoutapast made ONE edit since the article got featured, and that was this one [2]. Hardly makes him a POV warrior does it? And besides, I actually think that the revert was better balanced and more NPOV than Fenice's version. Borisblue 8 July 2005 01:10 (UTC)
          • Well I congratulate this person on actually making a single edit. Great. We'll be done with the article in about 500 weeks then. Claiming it's an annexation and not being able to argue that it was, is pov. Reverting in this case is unacceptable, there are policies and guidelines for that. No wonder he doesn't join the discussion because his pov really is hard to argue for. Your 'better balanced' refers to a pc remark to accomodate nazis and disguising the truth on top of that. If you absolutely have to maintain that there is the remote and twisted possillity that the word could be translated by annexation (when are you going to present sources for this claim. Which dictionary translates Anschluss to Annexation?), if you have to have your point and include the word annexation, you have to elaborate on whether this is historically acurate, which it is not. Leaving it out altogether would be the best solution. Instead, some more factual, historical detail could be added.--Fenice 8 July 2005 09:23 (UTC)
            • Well, I have already given you my justification for my claim, and here's another one: [encarta] defines it as annexation. As I said further up, see[3] and the second link listed (after wikipedia) is titled "The "Anschluss" - Annexation of Austria by Germany"; and you can see thata large number of websites on the Anschluss define it as annexation. It is clear that in this context it CAN be translated as annexation, which is what the lead now says. I find it ridiculous that you accuse a user of being a POV warrior simply because he reverted ONE edit. Especially if the edited version is no more NPOV than the revert. Borisblue 8 July 2005 10:41 (UTC)
              • I've sourced the claim on the article too, so I'll remove the NPOV tag unless you have further objections. And please don't complain that encarta isn't a dictionary; we all agree that the literal meaning is union; the dispute here is its meaning in context, which a dictionary is unlikely to carry. Encarta is also an extremely authorative encyclopedia. Borisblue 8 July 2005 11:45 (UTC)
• Here is another link to show why the article appears so imbalanced to me in its content, the German entry: de:Wikipedia: Anschluss (Österreich). Most literature in Austria, just like this one, presents the event exactly opposite way from what our entry does: There is usually extensive coverage of the events leading up to the Anschluss, starting at about 1933. This first part usually takes up more than half of the article/book. --Fenice 7 July 2005 08:37 (UTC)
  • Relevance? You are talking about an article that is about a third as long. Where material isn't covered, please say as much. If you have objections to further content, please argue the merits of the content rather than saying that it shouldn't get more than a screen or takes up half the article. Buffyg 7 July 2005 08:44 (UTC)

• I disagree - balance, and that is length of one section compared to another, is absolutely relevant to a featured article, and a big issue regularly discussed there, see WP:FAC. Many of the points I make on the FARC-grounds I would not raise if this article were just a simple article floating in the wikipedia orcus.--Fenice 7 July 2005 08:49 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I agree, the section covering events before the Anschluss in the english edition is LONGER than the German one. (Four [paragraphs to three). What information exactly is it missing? Borisblue 8 July 2005 01:02 (UTC)

• The German article is about one fourth of the length of the English one.--Fenice 8 July 2005 09:27 (UTC)

• What information is missing? If we have nothing to add, then we shouldn't add anything. Borisblue 8 July 2005 17:16 (UTC)

Keep. Having a NPOV label is never good, but this is a very interesting article, and I would prefer to see someone work through the problems. If a full re-write is required, and it comes up less than a feature-worthy piece, then I will support removal. Harro5 July 7, 2005 23:11 (UTC)

• Read the article. I actually think it is already NPOV as it is, after my edits Borisblue 8 July 2005 10:59 (UTC)

Just don't count on me to renominate this later. I cannot wait to get this unimprovable bit of writing off my watchlist.--Fenice 8 July 2005 09:30 (UTC)

Is it an unimprovable article or one that you REFUSE to improve? Umm, since putting the NPOV template up you haven't done A THING to improve the article! All you have done is give easily fixable complaints on POV, most of which I have since fixed.[4] Since you consider yourself the Austria expert here, I find it strange that you couldn't handlde your own objections yourself.Borisblue 8 July 2005 10:59 (UTC)

Yes, you understood correctly: it is unimprovable to me. Because I will not join themanwithoutapast in a revertwar, that is pointless, we can stop that here and now. (It is also not the way FARC usually works, (if you participate too much, you are viewed as an author and your vote doesn't count), but this goes for the article itself, even if it weren't featured.) It is unimprovable to others at this time because there are simply no 'human resources' here on this project to do that. I mean, dealing with Nazi-articles isn't my favorite way to pass my time and obviously nobody elses. This is an extremely difficult subject and an exceptionally bad article. I am offended by it as an Austrian, and many others probably also are. I will take it off my watchlist, others might never return to Wikipedia. Neonazis will love it and may even think it needs 'improval'. And if the points were easily fixable, as you say, they'd be fixed don't you think? I will type at least the main point in again, (the rest is listed above) which is the POV point: the article claims there was an annexation going on. It says, which is baseless, that Anschluß translates to Annexation. The article I presume does that because it is impossible to say: look here, reader, the events we are describing really are an annexation. So since there is no base for this in reality, the author resorts to claiming that if you search hard enough (and in what antiquated soft-cover dictionary would that be?) you might actually find one dictionary that translates Anschluss to Annexation. I do not deny that someone in this world who writes manuals for cheap products may have made a bad German-English dictionary that includes this translation. What dictionary are you using (you can claim it is incomplete) I'm just wondering? You claim you have rewritten the part in question, and it is not just any part, it is the lead section. The intro is unchanged, you added two missing words. The section 'the word' is glaring as ever.

Most of the other issues on the FARC-grounds, bad sources if any, imbalance, need for expansion, are also still existent.--Fenice 8 July 2005 12:19 (UTC)

I forgot to answer one thing above, somewhere in the middle of the text, about the pov in the lead section. I don't think encarta is a good source, and I could cite sources for that. (And to most users of Wikipedia the link is probably just a link to a subscription advertisement) I am wondering if we could at least put this directly in the text: Encarta claims that Austria was annexed by Germany. At least it has a source now. I guess even the Wiener zeitung is a better source than Encarta.--Fenice 8 July 2005 12:47 (UTC)

Britannica also calls anschluss annexation [5]

FARC policy says that you have to improve the article the best you can before you put it up for FARC as a last resort, something it is clear you haven't done. I also think you are advocating an uncommon POV, and hence your lack of support. I'm a bit puzzled.If this article is so offensive, why are you the only Austrian here complaining? You are the only person who thinks this article is seriously flawed, the rest of us, even those who voted with you at worst just think there are POV problems which are easily solved. And I'm sure I have solved them. I'm sorry to say I feel your demands are unreasonable, and if your standards are applied wikipedia-wide we would only have about 5 FAs. This article is extremely well-written; I'm certain most fair-minded wikipedians will agree with me that this is indeed one of WP's best work, and thus you'll be lucky to get a majority here to vote remove, let alone get the cosensus you need. This FARC will fail, so maybe it would be better for you to withdraw this nomination and offer constructive suggestions to improve this article, rather than go through this pointless process. Borisblue 8 July 2005 15:30 (UTC)

Well, I can only repeat myself again: the suggestions are listed above and were not adressed. See, as an illustration, your ever so funny response to the balance problem: the section covering events before the Anschluss in the english edition is LONGER than the German one. (Four [paragraphs to three). Note that the English article is about four times longer than the German version. I agree, that not all FAs are optimal, but then they are just not on the Nazi-time. The subject is important in this case, and for me the reason to list it. Articles like Anschluss may well be what someone measures Wikipedia on. (There are other FAs that have pov-problems right now, which I did not list and won't list - because these authors are discussing.). To further adress your attacks: FARC-policy certainly doesn't require anyone to go into a revert war. We both agree that FARC might fail, what a shame.--Fenice 8 July 2005 15:54 (UTC)

You were asked twice what information should be added, and you didn't respond. And there is no revert war going on. Your POV-biased edit got rightly reverted once, and you're trying to use this to gain sympathy. I've neutralised the POV four times and I haven't been reverted yet. Borisblue 8 July 2005 16:03 (UTC)

Umm no, we disagree on that last point; the FARC will fail. So please, stop arguing against a definition that both Encarta and Enc. Britannica affirm.

Well let's see if it gets reverted. Suspense is mounting. And: stop arguing is a very nice way of dealing with objections. --Fenice 8 July 2005 16:18 (UTC)

So you want to argue some more? Have you discovered that Britannica is controled by the Nazis or something? I'm just saying please admit defeat now that I have shown authoritive sources call anschluss annexation.Borisblue 8 July 2005 16:23 (UTC)

• Comment I've removed the NPOV tag, having dealt with most of the POV issues. My only concern being, IMHO adquately addressed, I've changed my vote to "strong keep" above. Borisblue 8 July 2005 15:35 (UTC)
  • Comment the tag has been reinserted Borisblue 8 July 2005 17:18 (UTC)

You have reached your goal, (it was even quite clear from the very beginning that it could not be removed anyway) so you could stop your attacks, that is an option you know. I think your militancy is very embarrassing. We have all seen that the procedure will fail in this case, and that is not new, it was actually quite obvious from the start. On whether this is a good thing or not we don't agree. Again: no you have not shown that Austria was annexed, because that is impossible to show. You have also not offered a viable solution, that is mentioning annexation and demonstrating it wasn't one - which would be the obvious Wikipedia way to solve a dispute. Just to repeat the core point, not that there weren't tons of others to solve, see initial listing.--Fenice 8 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)

I like your viable solution. See if my version is OK with youBorisblue 8 July 2005 17:11 (UTC)

[edit] Vowel

Article is still a featured article.

This article does not meet featured article criteria on the following grounds:

• Unattributed statements: "Some linguists claim..." This statement is blatantly partisan and must have names added if it is true; if it is false it must be removed.
• There are no references. Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world and add references. There is no policy that says the reference criteria is not retroactive. It has been more than a year since that requirement was added, and more than a month since Taxman made a request for them.
• The section on vowels in written langauges is inadequate, incomplete, and uncomprehensive: How about Armenian, Burmese, or Greek; for Japanese there are too few characters? Why is there Russian instead of the Cyrillic?
• There is a paragraph on intonation. It says that it depends on syntax. How does this differ from phonation, and if it about syntax, why is it here?
• The section on vowel systems seems to not be comprehensive. Do those 3-vowel systems "spread out" with lots of allophony, or are they really that limited in distribution?

It is quite good an article, but it is most definitely not featured quality. It needs peer review badly. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral. It has some references now, added by User:Nohat. He appears to have used them properly. Remove. No references - Taxman ^Talk 15:38, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove - More than enough time given to fix. --mav 02:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - The main complain seems to be a lack of references. Some have been added now. The unattributed statement has been clarified. I will try to research the literature on Abkhaz to find out who made that proposal. If I can find nothing I will remove the (parenthetical) sentence altogether. The other complaints seem like very small nits insufficient to cause an article to be removed from being a featured article, especially considering that the sections discussing those points were added after this article became featured, meaning even without those sections the article was good enough to be considered featured. I note that entire books have been written on this topic, so it's not reasonable to expect that this article will discuss every possible question someone might have about vowels. Nohat 16:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a good article which, while it can still be improved (and is being improved, per above), does not warrant being removed.--Alabamaboy 17:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Calvin and Hobbes

Article is still a featured article.

Too much infodumping about single-strip gags, poor citation of sources, and little discussion of the strip's significance or its influence on later artists. I have tried to move the more peripheral (or less verifiable) information to subsidiary pages, like Calvin and Hobbes in translation. Still, there is more in "Recurring themes" than rightly belongs in the main article. There is probably a nice, strong FA within this page, struggling to get out. Anville 18:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's definitely nicer now, so I'm inclined to vote keep. Most of the watery material added since the FA vote is gone, and the citations are much better used. Anville 18:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Much improved. Alanyst added the references he had used, and added inline citations for them. I'm sure more can be done, and I hope he continues improving it, but that was my major beef. Actually isn't clear there is any use of references. - Taxman ^Talk 15:38, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. "Significance" and "influence" can be slippery and subjective; if it's a solid exposition of what's within the four corners of the strip, that should be good enough. The rest can be added. Monicasdude 19:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Remove its very good, but appears to be based almost entirely on Watterson's writings in the 10th Anniversary book. Peregrine981 03:01, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove - Agree with Anville and Taxman. Keep - much better now. --mav 02:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with Anville; it needs less length and more subarticles. Just too much bulk, and seems to lack organization. I also suspect it's been worn down a bit since the vote by additions and changes here and there that haven't necessarily helped the article, and it could probably use some determined reworking. Everyking 07:06, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep I still think it's a very good article; I've added a reference section, but it only contains the 10th anniversary book for the moment. The thing is, most of the references are there, except that they're placed in the "external links" section. Only needs a slight reworking IMHO Borisblue 30 June 2005 02:36 (UTC)

• Keep I've just gone through and taken out single-strip gags. This trimmed it from 67kb to 46kb. -- Norvy (talk) 1 July 2005 09:16 (UTC)

• Keep, thanks to Norvy. -- A Link to the Past July 2, 2005 08:10 (UTC)

• Keep. It has been improved. --Alabamaboy 6 July 2005 13:37 (UTC)

[edit] Humphrey Bogart

Article is still a featured article.

I think this is a very detailed article. Just a pity it has zero citations or references. The user Taxman made a request for references on the article's talk page almost two months ago, and has received no response. Extraordinary Machine 13:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral. Has some now. Remove, no references. - Taxman ^Talk 15:38, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • I wonder, should we suspend the de-featuring of articles for lack of references until a version of WikiMedia comes out that has a better footnotes system? We are just encouraging people to implement our current references and footnotes systems, which will have to be migrated to the new system later anyway. 205.217.105.2 16:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Well that doesn't even appear to be on the horizon, though I admit I haven't checked any feature roadmaps. It is one we often talk about around here, but I'm not sure the developers are aware of that. In any case, it's not likely to be too soo, and even if it were the work required to change footnoting isn't so onerous that it is worth reducing article quality in the meantime. - Taxman ^Talk June 28, 2005 14:50 (UTC)
• Remove - More than enough time given to fix. --mav 02:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • For who to fix? The article was written by an anon three years ago. There are no requests for references on the various anon talk page. Asking for references on this article in the above manner was almost certainly doomed to fail. Besides all the info in the article looks just like the stuff that would be verified in one of the biographies of Bogie that could be put as further reading. Do no t remove. Pcb21| Pete 07:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It could be, but hasn't been. If you've got a better method to get the 100 odd FA's that have no references to a higher standard I'm all ears. And it certainly is not doomed to failure, it worked for about 40 articles. - Taxman ^Talk 20:50, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • It will only have worked on the subset of articles for which the original author is still maintaining the article. Pcb21| Pete 17:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did take a look at the page's edit history before I submitted it as a FARC, but I think that as far as this discussion is concerned (i.e. whether the article stays featured or not), the age of this article doesn't really matter. The fact remains that the article does not contain any references, and thus does not meet the featured article criteria. Extraordinary Machine 18:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now contains references. Pcb21| Pete 17:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• keep, good article, give Taxman more time to fix references--Fenice 15:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I have neither the familiarity with the subject matter nor the available references to cite this properly. But apparently neither has anyone else, since it has none. - Taxman ^Talk 20:50, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

• • Sorry, I confused you with the writer. The article actually has references now.--Fenice 06:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, as Pete. Filiocht | Blarneyman 15:13, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, very good article, references don't seem to be needed, nothing is disputed Sam Spade 23:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Remove, references are always necessary for a featured article. Spangineer (háblame) 15:48, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• • I have added references to the extent that I can credibly can. To bolster further I have added further reading.
    • Changed to neutral until inline citations are included and/or the entire article is verified. --Spangineer (háblame) 03:59, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - it now has imdb and ibdb references, Halliwell's and the "Time Out" Film Guide. I have also added "The Official Web site of Humphrey Bogart", which includes biographical details, as a reference. I suspect the two entries in "Further reading" are also actually references. Ok? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • To be completely above board, I added the further reading having scanned all the Humphrey Bogart books in a large bookshop in central London and picking those two as looking like the best. I strongly suspect they will also verify many of the things beyond the obvious like dates but am not guaranteeing that. Pcb21| Pete 17:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Your efforts are admirable, but to be honest, I don't think anybody should assume that the books you have selected will be able to verify all of the information. Also, some inline citations would be nice, particularly with the quotes from Bogart, Bacall, and anyone else. I think the nomination should still stand, and that the article should be demoted from FA status. It's good that you and others are trying to resolve this problem, but the article has a long way to go yet. Extraordinary Machine 28 June 2005 22:11 (UTC)

• Which parts of the article are so oddball that you don't think will be verified by the books (that presumably you have never seen?).
• Inline citations may well indded be nice, but their absence is not a reason for defeaturing. Pcb21| Pete 29 June 2005 06:04 (UTC)

• Well, I gathered from your previous messages that you hadn't gone through them thoroughly yet (or explored all of the Humphrey Bogart official website), but I apologise if I misinterpreted your comments. I'm changing my stance on this article to neutral, but only because I trust that you will examine the books you scanned in detail, and verify each fact and quote presented in the article accordingly. Extraordinary Machine 29 June 2005 17:35 (UTC)

• Perhaps I am being over-sensitive, but I detect a sliver of facetiousness in your response. Assuming good faith, I suppose it is worth saying that I doubt any FA has undergone that level of second-party validation. Pcb21| Pete 29 June 2005 23:38 (UTC)

• I wasn't trying to be facetious. In fact, I just looked at the article's edit history page, and I noticed that you said you know the references you listed verify most of the article. I didn't realise this before I wrote my previous response. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Extraordinary Machine 1 July 2005 18:09 (UTC)

• It's kinda borderline. It's a well-written article, but it would be unlikely to meet the Featured Article criteria today if it were up for FAC, due to the lack of inline citations. I realize that it is a lot of work to add inline citations, especially if the article was not sourced to begin with. Nathan256 29 June 2005 14:34 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, I notice that today's RMS Titanic featured article of the day only has eight inline notes. I say, Keep Humphrey Bogart unless someone can point out some mistaken facts in the article. Nathan256 29 June 2005 14:38 (UTC)

[edit] World War I

Article is still a featured article.

It has several problems.

• Virtually no citation, and very scanty suggested reading/sources
• Inequitable coverage of the war, favouring the beginning and ending
• Inadequate coverage of non-military aspects such as domestic politics, labour organisation, legal changes, finance, etc...
• Although coverage is generally balanced, there is still missing information about secondary parties, ie. Serbia, Turkey Peregrine981 15:45, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - it is good enough for me. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - Didn't this just reach FA status not that long ago? 205.217.105.2 21:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • No - I've had a look but can't locate the FAC discussion, so it must be some while ago; but it was FARCed only this February. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • This is an old school FA - it's been an FA for at least 14 months, probably longer. →Raul654 07:58, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Where is the FARC discussion? I don't see it in the archive. - Taxman ^Talk 15:49, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • It was "archived" by ContiE on 19 June, after my comment above - [6]. It has gone to Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates/archive/January_to_March_2005. I'll add a link to the archive page. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. Bottom line is I'd object if I saw this on FAC. Lot's of short paras. Timeline ('The spread of war') should be moved to Timeline of World War I. Aftermath section is a joke - 3 lines? That might have been impressive 2 or so years ago. Today it's a good article for Peer Review. It's close to FA, but not close enough. Take it down unless objections are adressed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep'; that is not the bottom line at all for me. Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:02, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If you see some things you don't like, go fix them. Add the things you think it needs. In general though, this is pretty good. - Taxman ^Talk 15:28, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment One of the main requirements for a featured articles is that it should be "Comprehensive: Covers the topic in its entirety; does not omit any major facts or details." However, this article omits large fields of knowledge, not simply a few facts or details. I have added much to this article, in fact there was absolutely no discussion of non-military aspects. However, I do not personally have an in depth personal knowlege of all such aspects, or of the progress of the war in the mid-east, balkans, italy, etc... I don't really buy the argument that it may not be featured quality, but it eventualy will be as an argument for keeping it. Peregrine981 02:59, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• keep - this is a pretty good article, none of the above are good reasons to take it off the list.--Fenice 15:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I've kept an eye on this article for a while, and I've never liked it much. It has improved quite a bit. At times it has been rather dismal. Still, I don't think this is quite up to the very high standards we like to hold ourselves to. WWI is a hugely important topic, and I think there's still significant room for improvement here. Everyking 07:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mahatma Gandhi

Article is still a featured article.

Very POV article. Ignores almost anything that might even be perceived as negative that could be said about Gandhi. See The Gandhi Nobody Knowsand Talk:Mahatma Gandhi for some of the information not delt with in the article.--Heathcliff 01:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - please cite specifics when nominating articles here. If you think the article is POV, please cite which areas need attention. You yourself say that you need to do a substantial amount of research before alterations, so nominating it here without doing your research and claiming POV is weird. kaal 23:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I just feel that the article as it is right now does not do justice either to the Mahatma himself or the status of being a "Featured article". It could be much wider and deeper. The article on Ayn Rand, for example, is richer in content and references.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 01:30, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Could do with a photo or two to add eye-catching interest, but other than that there is no reason to remove the status of FA from this important page. Harro5 10:11, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This seems to be a (rather superficial) content dispute and nominating the article here is not the way to build consensus. The extlink given by Heathcliff is a critique of the 1982 film, not so much of Gandhi himself; additionally, our article itself doesn't strike me as being uncritical or overly enthusiastic. — mark ✎ 00:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There are criticisms and negative viewpoints scattered throughout the article. Maybe it could do with a few more, but this doesnt warrant featured-article removal. And most of the stuff in the Grenier article are either scurrilous personal allegations or facts twisted out of context. Deepak 20:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Okay I supported the original FA nomination in the first place so this is biased, but I am not really seeing enough problems to remove it. JuntungWu 05:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Neutrality^talk 06:23, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear weapon

Article is still a featured article.

Almost all of the article's content has been moved to subarticles, and what's left is not so hot. The summaries could be improved, but it's definitely no longer as good as it was when it was featured, and featured standards have improved since then - for example, its references are not specific (or, for the most part, relevant to what's currently in the article). --Andrew 14:55, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I think the current article is actually not that bad, but the content has changed so radically from when it was originally a FAC that the original designation is meaningless. I would almost vote to remove its status so that, after the current set of changes is done, it could re-nominated as a FAC at some point. --Fastfission 19:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Support removal. Agree with Fastfisson's comments. — Matt Crypto 14:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support removal. I also agree with Fastfisson's remarks. --Zantastik 08:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If it was truly better before, why not revert back to its best state, and then add back anything that was actually an improvement since then. This could use cleanup, not removal. - Taxman 12:49, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Taxman. Better to do a little work on an article than to defeature it. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:50, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Taxman and Filiocht. — mark ✎ 00:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Goa

Article is still a featured article.

The History section is too long. It is almost the same length, if not longer, than the main article History of Goa. There are two different reference sections - is it necessary? Given this quality, I find it dubious that it can be featured on the main page.

Edit: Numerous NPOV added right when article was featured on main page. Unless these concerns on neutrality, accurateness, stability and referencing can be addressed, I maintain my remove vote. -Travisyoung 01:01, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

To put it in a more concise manner, I reiterate the concerns stated not only by me, but by several people in the talk page:

1. Not comprehensive. Does not mean it has to be exhaustive, but clearly some points have been omitted. See discussion below, and discussion in talk page for numerous examples.
2. Not accurate. The whole history section has little, if any, references. how can they be verified? Are facts supported by specifics?
3. Clearly the article has controversial issues, as seen in the talk page. These issues need to be addressed seriously and not single-handedly edited out.

I strongly feel that the article should go back to peer review, and the concerns of Lucio, Pedro, Federick be satisfied. After all, if it is to be featured on the Main Page again, we want readers to have an accurate picture of Goa. -Travisyoung 10:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I do not see how either objection corresponds to Featured Article criteria. 119 01:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Kaldari has reverted to a much shorter version at the same time I put up this objection [7]. I withdraw my objection. After reading Frederick's point-by-point arguments in Talk:Goa, I am no longer convinced this article is NPOV. -Travisyoung 01:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. information is to be given. This strange beaviour on the size of an article, is an illness of En wikipedia. I dont know how you consider great article those without information. -Pedro 02:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that "information is to be given". However, given the excessively long edit you Lucio has placed, it would have been more appropriate in the main article, History of Goa. -Travisyoung 09:07, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

me???? -Pedro 18:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. This article contains too many factual errors, obvious non-NPOV biases, and is clearly makes a case to minimise the negative impacts of Portuguese colonialism, while labelling the current rule as "Indian" colonialism. This point of view not only has few, if any, takers in Goa, among its diaspora or anywhere in the globe, but seems to be written by fringe elements, whose politics and prejudices are amply clear from their personal website postings. As a long-time supporter of Wikipedia, I am embarassed that such an extreme and un-substantiated point of view can not just make it to the Wikipedia, but actually get featured on the home-page. A number of the arguments verge on inter-religious hate speech. This needs to be countered and cross-checked, regardless of which set of fanatical viewpoints are behind it. -- Frederick Noronha, Freelance Journalist, Goa.

Easy to say, but back it up with reliable sources and we have something. The article's talk page is now more the place for that kind of detailed discussion. Take it point by point and specify where the article is incorrect in your view and what sources support your stance. - Taxman 22:11, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Frederick is right, Taxman. A lot of clear bias has crept in after its sucessful nomination to the FA status. I've cleaned up most of the text.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 05:50, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. POV matter has to be cleaned up first.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 08:21, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

If POV material exists, then why is the article of FA status? -Travisyoung 09:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I cannot speak with certainty on this particular instance, but after an article becomes an FA, it is perfectly possible for anyone to add POV material. All that is then needed is for someone to remove it. Filiocht | Blarneyman 09:17, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Comments brought up by Frederick deals with material which were present during the FAC process, not entirely the edits that were added by PedroLucio.-Travisyoung 09:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Me??? Did I edit that article??? -Pedro 18:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

One or two minor factual inaccuracies were there at the time of FA, but most of the addition of heavily biased matter was added by User:Lucio Mas. It is incorrect to brand the article as a POV at the time of submission. I have tempered the POV matter on the page based on Frederick's comments. Most of the text -- history sections that he as dealt with have been removed before I NPOVd the article. There are a one or two points which I disagree with Frederick, but they relate to factual accuracy clarifications which can be easily sorted out (such as tourism stats etc.). I've removed all the biased text added by Lucio.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 05:47, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

very interesting: removing POV by adding another POV. Without factual info, without accuracy (not only in tourism but in names and ethnicity - with gross POV, and only people that know nothing believe in it). He is clearly talking about his example. It is not the first time that some ppl are trying to hide independentist movments in Goa and European diaspora (I had the same discussion the past yr, when people were removing external links to independentist moviments and they were successful). Today, again. And that, is surely POV. Oh "coloniasnim"... oh the devil... give me a break! -Pedro 18:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

why this was removed? recently there was even a diplomatic problem because a famous Portuguese-Goan politician/parlamentarian/former Portuguese ambassor in Portugal issued this problem (I only knew that he was goan because of this). There are many Indians using Goan passports to acquire Portuguese nationality, everybody knows that because Indians are in appearance different from Goans. And, as a result, he was forbitten to enter in India because of this.
Many facts that he wrote are completly correct and were removed:
Despite the recognition by Revolutionary Portugal since 1974 of the Indian annexation of Goa as legitimate, Portuguese law creates an anomalous situation where Goans are recognized as being entitled to Portuguese citizenship and passports. Following the Occupation, many Goans, largely from the civil service, migrated to Portugal; this was aggravated by the deliberate policy of India to prefer Indian civil servants and the Hindi and Marathi languages, foreign to native Goans, for government employment, a practise that is still rigourously followed. More recently, many Goans, even though Indian citizens, have begun to apply out of nostalgia for Portuguese passports, but have been shocked by the response of India, which deems those Goans who accept Portuguese passports as being foreigners in their own country. This is explained by the fact that Indian law does not allow for dual citizenship with other countries. At the same time, Portugal has come under increasing pressure from the UK and other European states to not admit Goans, since cases have occurred of Indians possessing forged Goan documents to gain Portuguese citizenship in order to seek economic opportunities in the European Union.
BTW this wasnt in the history section.-Pedro 21:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The text you quoted is not encyclopedic to be reproduced verbatim. Much of the text represents a biased viewpoint on the Indian government. Is the information really necessary to be added? Pedro please cite some websites on any independence movements in Goa (not Lucio's blog) to substanciate claims of an overt/covert movement.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 08:12, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. but someone needs to tidy up. Filiocht | Blarneyman 09:17, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

The issues listed on the talk page require much more effort and time than just tidying up. It clearly shows the neeed for further discussion. Perhaps removing it from FA list and listing it on peer review would help, so that Lucio, Pedro, Frederick and Nichalp can discuss these further (since they are the main contributors to this discussion. -Travisyoung 04:14, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The bone of contention appears to be the interpretation of the history section. The section at the moment needs discussion to sort out issues but that does not necessarily entail that the rest of the article is a POV.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 08:12, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

It is not biased information it is true, and there maybe old news in the net. I'll see if i find something. BTW Velha Goa and Goa Velha means the same, but in the preferable old way is Goa Velha. Portuguese is not English. I just remembered that a significant part of this info is in [8] a link from the article itself. -Pedro 11:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Article needs a little clean up, otherwise it is in a good shape. If people really want to force their POV on an article, I would suggest that they talk and share references which support their POV first.--IMpbt 22:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Some more extensive searches show that, Window on Goa: A History and Guide by Maurice Hall supports the original sections on the history of Goa (a few pages are available to public through amazon's look inside feature).

• Keep. It seems like one or two people want to push their wishful thinking into the article without providing any credible evidence or references. -- Sundar (talk · contributions) 04:35, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

One or two people? My friend you can hide info from dumbs that know nothing. I have my own opinion and I investigate if I want to know something. I dont like to use google (I use it for something that i clearly dont know or I dont have info), the article itself has a clear proof in the link section. it seems it is like lucio says: hindu version. But, I admit, the article is very good, and it got better, more info on culture was added. I see no reason for it to lose the FA status. But it is an endangered culture, and many are trying to erase has much has they can. -Pedro 11:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• The efforts to delete the non-NPOV slant needs to be appreciated. Will try to key in some more comments via my noisy and slow dial-up in Goa! I agree with Pedro that all facts of history need to be maintained, and no aspect should be glossed over. What I don't agree with is the suggestion that bigotry, bias and somewhat-camouflaged hate speech can masquerade as "facts". For anyone who understands the South Asian reality (I will eschew the word 'Indian' for now, to avoid falling into the "Goa is not India" debate) it becomes clear that the interpretation and twist sought to be given is one that divides people on the lines of religion. Goa's Portuguese past (for 451 years in some areas) is a reality; and with every passing year after the departure of the Portuguese, it's probably going to be easier to get to terms with our former rulers. Nothing needs to be hidden. But let us, please, not degenerate into a "Catholic" and a "Hindu" version of Goa's history. fredericknoronha Frederick Noronha

[edit] Java programming language

Article is still a featured article.

More than half of the article consists of lists. Single-sentence sections. Poor structure. Comprehensiveness is questionable. Fredrik | talk 23:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please check again. I think it is much better now (not the greatest and likely not able to pass a current FAC, but IMO more than good enough for an old FA given the less rigorous standards back then). --mav 21:59, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

• Remove. Everyking 01:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Remove. — Matt Crypto 01:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This is not a set of lists, there is a good set of descriptive information at the start and by its nature the subject lends itself to code examples (which are present. The article is very much alive, and some of the text has rightly been devolved to other articles in places where the narrative had grown too lengthy, which can make those too lazy to follow links believe their favourite hobbyhorse is absent. I believe this still represents an exemplar, especially in the light of the way an active editorial group manages the regular (often subtle) attacks that people make to the article. --Webmink 07:15, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. no vote. Just as an aside, I was at Java's 10th birthday party a week ago. Gentgeen 07:18, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Yes, I see room for improvement. But it's a solid summary of an important topic. Tim Bray 07:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Remove. I myself have done quite a bit of work on this article. When I first discovered it, it was terrible, and even now it clearly doesn't meet the criteria. – Smyth\^talk 12:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  Keep, thanks to mav – Smyth\^talk 11:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. a real article. -Pedro 02:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

"real" and "featured" are not the same. Fredrik | talk 12:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

The article is a very good source of information! It deserves to be a featured article. You must be blind if you think the article are merely lists. You dont understand maybe cause you dont understand the subject. --Pedro 01:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Pedro: Where did I say that I don't understand the article? Maybe you are confusing "comprehensive" with "comprehensible"? (For the record, I've taken three university courses involving software engineering with Java.) I did neither say that the article is "merely" lists. But over 50% of it is: essentially everything from "Version history" and below.

I agree that the article is decently informative. However, featured articles should also be well-structured; they should present information in a logical order, and emphasize the important while weeding out the trivial. Lists have their uses, but they pretty much always fail at those two points.

For example, the "Extensions and related architectures" section, unsurprisingly, contains a list of extensions and related architectures. But it does not tell me why extensions are important to the Java platform as a whole, or which extensions are most important and why (there is in fact plenty to tell the reader here). Why does it duplicate information from the "APIs" section? The "Related free software" section is even worse (by the way, why is it so important to list free software as opposed to any software?).

This article is a structural mess. For example, what is the "Hello World" section doing between "Extensions ..." and "Related free software"? As for the single-sentence sections, they not only represent poor writing but are a good indication that the article is lacking structurally. In particular, a section called "Miscellaneous" containing a single sentence is a bad sign. To offer constructive feedback, that particular sentence should be integrated with a discussion of the language's type system. I also think the content of the "criticism" section would be better integrated with the relevant parts of the article instead of listed in one place, though others may disagree with me here.

Two more complaints are that "Input/Output" seems rather too specific to be a top-level section, and that the points given in "Overview" are not elaborated upon clearly enough. The problem with having two sentences of "history" should be obvious to anyone. I think this article also fails to address aspects such as actual industry adoption of the language and platform (and related criticism).

It is not good enough that an article contains 4000 words of information. The article should contain the selection of 4000 words that presents the largest amount of the most relevant information in the best possible way. This is not a good example of such an article.

Webmink: "The article is very much alive, and some of the text has rightly been devolved to other articles in places where the narrative had grown too lengthy, which can make those too lazy to follow links believe their favourite hobbyhorse is absent."

As I said before, articles should strive to contain the most general and important information about the subject, providing pointers to other articles that cover the specific and trivial. This article does not handle the distinction successfully. Also, when content is moved, it should not be replaced with a simple link, but an appropriately sized summary of what was moved. The "History" section is a nice example of this being handled incorrectly.

Now, if this article is so mcuh alive, why has it not been edited substantially since I nominated it for removal 10 days ago? Fredrik | talk 18:01, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you on "containing most of the info". And in fact this sub-articles is a serious problem in EN wikipedia which promissed to be good, but it is worse day by day. Featured articles in here are like websites (and the issue is not only a problem of this one). I'm constantly seeing good articles being dismantled, and people advicing to dismantle the rest. Do this people ever saw an encyclopedia? they are confusing it with a portal. If this should loose its status most articles in this wiki should also loose. -Pedro 22:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't get what are you trying to say. Fredrik has clearly listed out the points and unless you can provide counterpoints, your constant claim that "this is a serious program in EN wikipedia" is quite unactionable. -Travisyoung 04:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

As I said: I CONTINUE to think this article is much better than many featured articles. It is still informative and good for remembering JAVA. And I said, another issue, that En wikipedia is getting worse because of a strange behaviour of chopping down good articles (refering to the size of it and references now occupies mot of the articles) while others like the DE are getting better. Finnaly and again, there are much 'worser featured articles than this. keep keep keep. And get back some of the lost info to the article. -Pedro 15:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - now that I've put the history back in (it really pisses me off when people chop out sections without leaving an adequate summary) and performed a major reorg. If anything, it now just needs to go through peer review for a clean-up. --mav 21:57, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, much better now - thanks, mav! James F. (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - the article has been greatly improved and I find it very worthy of being a featured article. -CunningLinguist 05:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Max Weber

Article is still a featured article.

Embarassingly neglects to mention his concept of rationalization, which was the primary focus of his work and is reflected in each of his major writings. While this article does well to cover his contributions to other fields, it neglects to even allude to the real interests of his writings and his primary contribution to the field of sociology. Until a substantive overhaul is made to clarify this aspect of his studies, I do not feel this article warrants special recognition. Sarge Baldy 19:30, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't know anything about the topic, but that sounds like a pretty large claim, that the article missed coverage of the primary focus of his work. Do you have something to back up that that was Weber's primary focus? If so, that sounds like a serious deficiency and possibly worth defeaturing. - Taxman 22:52, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

The entirely unscientific Google test gives convincing results ;-) - Fredrik | talk 22:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Being a student of sociology myself, this appears to be fairly widely evident within the field. George Ritzer, himself having used rationalization in many of his own studies, notes in his text Sociological Theory that "There has been a growing realization in recent years that rationalization lies at the heart of Weber's substantive sociology", listing ten sources, including Rogers Brubaker's 1984 publication The Limits of Rationality: An Essay on the Social and Moral Thought of Max Weber, Lawrence Scaff's Fleeing the Iron Cage: Culture, Politics, and Modernity in the Thought of Max Weber, and Alan Sica's Weber, Irrationality and Social Order. He also quotes Stephen Kalberg's 1994 Max Weber's Comparative-Historical Sociology: "It is the case that Weber's interest in a broad and overarching theme — the 'specific and peculiar "rationalism" of Western culture' and its unique origins and development — stands at the center of his sociology." Also having read a number of Weber essays myself, the theme does appear clearly evident. If more sources are needed to underscore the point, I could list many others. Sarge Baldy 00:20, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Remove. Everyking 00:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I'd be OK with removal, but I hope Sarge Baldy will be able to bring the article back up to featured status. Hydriotaphia 02:08, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'll certainly see what I can do to help it, though I've never been all that great at making large structural changes to huge articles. Sarge Baldy 03:17, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Remove. Ambi 23:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, hopefully. I have added a note on rationalisation to the lead and a para to the article. While the old article (which, btw, is mostly my doing) did not use the term rationalisation (my mistake), the entire theory was mostly described anyway - it was simply missing a link to rationalisation article - and no suprise, since it was created by Sarge Baldy on 20:57, 25 Apr 2005. With the addition of the above inf and ilink I believe this is sufficiently covered. Feel free to expand this, but I believe Weber's article is sufficiently comprehensive for a FA. A sidenote: while writing the Weber article (almost a year ago now...) I am pretty sure I read many biographies, and none of them stressed the term 'rationalisation'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, migrating that paragraph in does fix things somewhat, and I guess it does allude to rationalization in other points, although calling it more specifically bureaucratisation.. although a big part of the concept, there's a lot more to it than that, including trends towards globalization, commercialism, rational capitalism, and so on. The article should try to tie the two concepts together somehow, so people get an idea of the basic aims of his studies, and that he was studying bureaucracies because they were an ideal example of that larger process and not because of a specific interest in them (in the same way Durkheim was interested in suicide as a way to look at the larger concept of social integration and regulation). Does that make sense at all? I just think it needs a bit more streamlining so it makes some consistent sense. Sarge Baldy 16:49, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

The article, being *just* under 40kb, could use expantion - but I think it is already good enough for a FA. Details on what needs to be added/expanded should go to the article talk page, this is not the place for it. Can we discard this FARC nomination now? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:31, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying it needs expansion, I'm saying it needs to be more consistent and clarity, so that the reader can understand the general direction of his sociological interests without having to know a lot of jargon. Right now it's a pretty bumpy read. If I'd thought adding that paragraph in would in any way fix the article, I would have just done so myself. It's more of a structural problem, and I think the article needs more substantial streamlining before it's ready to be a featured article. Sarge Baldy 14:30, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it would help if you could give more examples. With the exception of the few sentences about conservatives attacks, which you have showed on the talk page, I see no significant problems with the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

That was just a sidenote and not related to my point here. Though actually on closer examination it didn't look that bad, but it was missing a little information and was using more specific terminology than it should have been. Look over my changes here to see what I changed. Sarge Baldy 20:28, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Good changes. I am always happy to see this article futhter improved. But the question remaina - do you still think it is not good enough for FA and should be removed? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:25, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

No, like most articles it could use some additional work but I think my basic complaint is resolved. I just wanted to make sure the changes made sense to you before formally closing the request. Feel free to do so yourself as soon as you've read this reply. Sarge Baldy 19:11, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. just for the record I'll vote keep then. I don't think we should remove this since it has remove votes, so I'll add my say to balance it out. - Taxman 02:30, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm with Taxman on this one. Filiocht | Blarneyman 09:19, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oxyrhynchus

Article is still a featured article.

Not comprehensive; the recent major discoveries have made this out of date. Remove. Neutrality^talk 21:39, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Looks fairly comprehensive to me and probably includes just about as much as it can about the recent discoveries at the moment. Wikipedia is better than a paper encyclopedia at keeping things up to date, but that does not mean that it fails to be comprehensive if it does not have information on what happened last week. Indrian 21:57, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. No references. I'm going to stick with that stand on principal even if others disagree. It's been long enough. - Taxman 22:51, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep agree with Indrian. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:26, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep its good enough. Thechamelon 11:36, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove Everyking 12:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good enough. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. Sole reference, not comprehensive: e.g., in the "Finds at Oxyrhynchus" section no mention by what expedition, and when these texts etc. were found. 213.115.184.126 19:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move the link to the online news article on the recent finds in the reference section. It's as up-to-date as it'll ever get. Mgm|^(talk) 07:51, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it is good enough for me. Information on the recent discoveries will be added by-the-by I am sure. Rje 01:00, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• No Vote. If it had references, I would vote 'keep'. Decius 09:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: As with the Powell discussion above, the original author is Adam Carr. Pcb21| Pete 10:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. I agree with Taxman, should have references. Paul August ☎ 03:36, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and find references. This is not only a featuread article it is a jewel. -Pedro 02:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not The Nine O'Clock News

Article is still a featured article.

Again, almost entirely lists, almost no lead section and no references. - Taxman 16:28, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Remove - clearly the worst of the three, and not up to scratch. I have posted some comments on the talk page: it is not comprehensive either. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I've had a go at addressing the issues and won't vote now. I'm not sure what to do about the "list" point: would the "Memorable sketches" work any better if it was turned into prose? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • There's not enough context in many of the sketches to understand why they are funny, but I'm not sure that's even possible. The reall problem isn't that section anymore, its the disjointed nature and resulting complete lack of flow in the 'Commercial releases' section. I can't think how to fix it, but it is what really makes the article look bad. If that is shaped up a bit and another resource is added as a reference, and both are formatted properly, I'd make my nomination a keep vote I guess. - Taxman 15:04, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • I've tidied that section up a bit, turning it into some kind of prose, but the Video and DVD bit in particular needs some info on how well they did, etc; and some info on them from people who actually own them. - SoM 16:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support removal — Matt Crypto 18:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Remove Keep - SoM 20:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) 20:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Remove And besides, it doesn't have sources.. Thechamelon 23:06, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove very lightweight. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:28, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC) Keep after this rewrite. Filiocht | Blarneyman 14:26, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A model article, if not quite a typical FA. +sj + 05:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Air Force One

Article is still a featured article.

The page is really good, but it's totally inaccurate. The page refers to the U.S. Presidential Fleet (of 747s) as Air Force One, when that term is actually only a callsign. In fact, a lot of the time, those planes are not called Air Force One. (Over 50% of their flight time) CoolGuy 22:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First line: "Air Force One is the air traffic control callsign of any U.S. Air Force aircraft carrying the President of the United States". Are you sure that deleting featured status would not be an over-reaction? Wouldn't a few minor edits on your part to iron out any ambiguities on this point be more appropriate? Pcb21| Pete 06:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, based on the above. - Taxman 22:56, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Ok thanks for helping. I've fixed the page. I have a question though: if I have a question about an article or a Wikipedia policy, where is the best place to ask? Other than the discussion page of the article--which doesn't often get a reply. Let me know! CoolGuy 05:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Though it is not often admitted, comments on talk pages often get ignored (unless it is a popular page and you say something controversial). If you are just making quiet improvements or, whole-scale improvements on quiet articles, then the best advice is to just go ahead and do it - this is where the advice "be bold" is as true now as it ever was. If you really foul things up, it will be noticed but there is a natural tendency for people only to bother when it starts affected the "real" page. Pcb21| Pete 07:45, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The minor issue that led to this removal nomination has been easily resolved. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 06:32, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. This section can be removed. CoolGuy 06:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Iraqi insurgency

Article is still a featured article.

Nominated in September'04 for 'brilliant prose' and 'relevance to current events'. Brilliant prose is not enough, besides, I don't think it is brilliant anymore (text has way to many subsections and some short paras and lists, on talk 'to do list' sais 'General cleanup of text'), nor relevant ('to do list' sais 'Update article with newer info'), besides, many articles has been voted out at FAC for being current. Further, lead is too short (one para only), references are mixed with external links in one section and there are 24 external links in main article. This would never pass a FAC today, and I am amazed it even made it last year.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Remove I agree with the above points, the article is also pretty unstable. --nixie 13:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Not perfect, but good enough to retain, IMHO. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:14, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove Everyking 13:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Remove I agree with all points stated above say1988 01:56, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. --mav 11:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Possibly rethink all the subheadings, but otherwise this is a first-rate source for info on the insurgency. Harro5 21:31, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but with the qualifier (and this is gonna sound strange considering I have just voted "Keep" to it being in the FAC list) that it does not become a Featured Article Nominee. It is too changeable, controversial and maybe even long to be a Featured Article. It is, howeverm excellent. As stated before, an arch example of Wikipedia, through the collaboration of many, achieving roughly a consensus on a rapidly-changing but very important modern event. --Batmanand 21:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Remove Some keep votes likely result from lack of knowledge of the current WP:FAC standard level. The references do not include retrieval dates and the lead is innapropriate. This alone would lead this article to be recused. Phils 09:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It could do with a bit of updating and buffing, but the content on the whole is admirably comprehensive and fair. Mark¹ 07:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Remove -- ALoan (Talk) 17:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. When we change the FAC requirements (references, for example), it behooves us to bring the existing articles up to the new standard rather than demoting them. (Unsigned vote by User:TheoClarke.)
• Keep. The article is well written and deserving of feature article status. Referencing is a minor concern, but there are references and with a bit of dedication they could be brought into line with current referencing schemes. Complaints about the lead section are unfounded - there is nothing wrong with a short lead and some articles lend to themselves to short leads. Cedars 00:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well written and comprehensive. And personally I prefer short leads, but maybe that's just my short attention span :) Kaldari 16:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• {{sofixit}}. It's not perfect, but is probably the best summary of the issues that is online. We've outlined the problems, so someone that would like to make this really great has what they need. To remain featured, this one is good enough for me. Keep. - Taxman ^Talk 04:16, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove- besides the fact that the lead section is too short, the article as a whole seems unstable. Some parts read more like a commentary or newspaper article rather than an encyclopedia. Flcelloguy 20:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Clayton Powell, Jr.

Article is still a featured article.

Not comprehensive. Became a FA in January 2004. Neutrality^talk 19:05, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Remove. No lead section (any for that matter) and no references. - Taxman 20:15, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. I find it hard to believe this became a featured article in the first place. Indrian 20:18, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • In the past we used to care about content and not that much else. Now content is only a tiny part of getting an article feaured [added by Pcb21| ]
• Remove Neutral - actually one of the March 2004 featured articles (previously Brilliant Prose, presumably), so won't have gone through the now-rigorous FAC process. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Remove not even any sectioning, no discernable lead. Mgm|^(talk) 07:52, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove Everyking 08:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I put in the sections (and thereby created a lead section) to solve the trivial problems (why did none of you who bothered to write here, bother to do that?!). However it still leaves Neutrality's important question about comprehensiveness. Is anyone able to say whether it is comprehensive or not? Pcb21| Pete 08:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • I added some further reading in lieu of knowing what references were actually used. Further I noticed that the none of the objectors had contacted the original author (still an active wikipedian) to comment on the issues, so I did so. Pcb21| Pete 09:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Well done - at least these nominations are triggering improvements to the articles, which is clearly a good thing. Some of the objectors (viz. me) have been trying to deal with the (I have to say, entirely reasonable) objections - see Not The Nine O'Clock News below - but I know nothing about this chap, although I still suspect that this article is not as comprehensive as it could be. Hopefully, the original contributor will have the article, or this page, on his watchlist. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. A very good article on a very important political figure. Can anyone suggest a good reason why you would remove this article from featured status? This article is very comprehensive - covering everything? I couldn't say - ad shouldn't be removed just because someone thinks that the general consensus of what is a good article has changed. --Harro5 09:25, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Pete's version. Filiocht | Blarneyman 09:32, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep following Pete's work. This is a well written article, and one we should be proud of. I second the comment made by Harro5 above, I don't think well written articles like this should be listed here just because they do not conform with current featured article standards. I would not expect someone to be de-adminned, or have to go through RfA again, just because they were elected when standards were, arguably, lower. Rje 00:53, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. These little objections about lead sections, extra references, images, etc.,. should stop being used as de-feature fodder. If the prose and scope of an article is strong (as it is here), go in and do the modernizing touchup changes yourself. Half the time it will take you barely more effort than starting and defending a nom on this page. JDG 22:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Helium

Note - Helium was a "Refreshing Brilliant Prose" holdover. This nomination was a FAC started later to "rectify" the siltation. For this reason, this has been redesignated a FARC whose result was to keep it was a featured article. Raul654 16:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Co-nom with WikiProject Elements.

I would like to recertify this article. It is a holdover from the Brilliant prose days (see Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science) that was until very recently an almost certain candidate for de-featuring (not at all compressive and no references see [9]). So I greatly expanded it and added references. This expansion has created what is in effect a completely new article so it seems fit to put it through a proper FAC to see if it is FA quality now. So is this FA quality now? If this nomination fails, then the article should be de-featured. --mav 20:44, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Support, insofar as it is necessary to revalidate an article that is already featured. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Minor object. Now thats what I call a peremptory strike (before FARC) :) Uses section is mostly bulleted - try changing it to normal paragraphs (what goes around... ;p).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • That is the format specified in Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements. The FA criteria clearly state that I must follow those criteria. --mav 04:26, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The few bullet points that could be paragraphs in their own right are now broken-off from the list. This is all I can do (the reason why WikiProject Elements uses bullet lists in the uses section is to avoid one sentence paragraphs there). --mav 02:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • All right, I removed my objection. Treat my vote as support if there are no other objections. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. I think it's too early for a full and fair FA assessment. The article still is in a freshly-poured and thoroughly-stirred state, with a few minor, yet unnecessary wrinkles, and should have some time for the froth to settle. Femto 17:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What specifically still needs to be done? Feedback - I want feedback! :) --mav 19:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Support. It contains all you need to know and can't get much better after a much, much longer time. I still think that big texts are scary though, so this is (not really) on the condition that somebody promises it will contain an overview phase diagram in the near future. Femto 18:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object for now. I like the article but have some comments. I did some editing myself but was unable to solve the following: Ok, my objections have been addressed.

• The diagram at the top right corner lacks an explanation. Especially the figures above the periodic table need a guide. If such a guide exists, I was unable to find it. This my main objection, my other objections are just "wrinkles" as stated by Femto.
• From the intro: "The properties of its rare stable isotope called helium-3 are important..." this is too vague. What is important about these properties? The rest of the sentence could use some rephrasing as well.
• I don't know the validity of the source but "most production outside the U.S. coming from Canada and Poland" contradicts these numbers which suggest an important role for Algeria.
• Speaking about production, the two paragraphs at the beginning under the heading "Production and use" show only the history of production in the US. While the majority of Helium was and currently is produced (I have a tendency to use the word purified) in the US, other countries do have a contribution as well. Jan van Male 19:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • • That is the standard diagram for all element articles. I planed to have an explanation on the image description page anyway, so I'll add one via a template (since it will be the same for each element). The lead section is already a bit overloaded - I needed to at least mention that helium-3 is important and link to the article on that subject. There simply is no space to explain why it is important but I’ll see what I can quickly add parenthetically. The source info I have is a combination of incomplete data from 2001 and complete data from the late 1960s. Thanks for the link. I’ll use that to update the article. --mav 19:36, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • There is now a key template at Image:He-TableImage-BIG.png and Template:ChemElementTableImageKey is linked via the word 'Key' under the displayed thumb in the article. Everything else should also be fixed. --mav 02:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Great save. I'd much rather see this than nomination on WP:FARC. I'm not sure it needs recertification here except comments for improvment. The only thing I saw was the verbose inline citations are pretty cumbersome. In spite of that they are excellent, and that is much much better than not having them at all. However, perhaps they would be less intrusive if they were made into superscripts using the Wikipedia:Footnote3 autonumbering system. - Taxman 23:27, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ack! A hacked note system. I'd love to just have ^[1] work the same way but have the notes section generated automatically. Argh - having to write the same thing twice is a pain. But I'll give it a try... --mav 00:08, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not doing that again. I tried using that template system but the result was a complete mess (too many of my refs are exactly the same - same book and same page). Until a real ref system is developed I've commented the inline references out. In the interim, these will still be visible to editors looking at the source text, but not by readers. --mav 02:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Factual errors. In particular, the article seems confused about viscosity. It claims "(superfluidity and almost no viscosity are also notable behaviors)"; later it claims that "[non-superfluid liquid helium] has a very low viscosity" and that for superfluid helium "its viscosity is very near zero". Now, I don't know about non-superfluid helium, but a superfluid has exactly zero viscosity. I'll fix that, but I don't feel confident about the article's truthfulness. There are more sections I find highly doubtful, but perhaps they belong on the article's talk page. --Andrew 05:36, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC) OK, done one pass cleaning and raising objections on the talk page. There are a lot. --Andrew 06:57, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC) My objections are satisfied; a few minor quirks remain, but I am now happy. --Andrew 03:49, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • This article is fully referenced with inline citations noting book and page number. I've used some of the best sources available to write this article. Almost all the discrepancies are likely due to the different way the different sources I used described things and the different context they are used. Other issues may be due to poor sentence structure on my part. I'll take a look at your specific feedback and respond to that later. But in the mean time it would be nice if you assumed good faith on my part. --mav 13:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, I assume you intended to produce a correct article, and that your sources are not wrong (although possibly out of date). But there are many places where it looks like you misunderstood what they are saying, or at least, rewrote it in a way that's highly confusing. Anyway, this generic talk is basically irrelevant; if someone cleans up the problems I listed I'll be much happier. (I cleaned up the ones I could, but someone needs to hit the books for the rest). --Andrew 18:44, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
      • It looks like the major problem was that one of the references I used was bad - really bad in fact - and poisoned much of the article with mis-information and downright wrong facts. We have now fixed this. This also goes to show that print references should not be trusted blindly just because they are in print. --mav 12:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 16:00, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Not a vote, just a comment: the article is seeing significant attention (and, I think, improvements) from several users (including mav and myself); some of my objections are still unanswered, but I would like to urge people not to archive this too quickly, and to encourage people to take another look at the article in a few days (or now; help is welcome!). --Andrew 20:58, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think we've fixed all the major issues (and then some). The article is still not perfect, but then that is not a criteria for FAs. Please consider at least removing your objection (a support would be nice, but not needed). --mav 01:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • While there are still a few points that could use more information, I'm now happy with the article. I encourage people to go take another look at it now. --Andrew 03:49, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. --Andrew 03:49, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed status April

[edit] Peloponnesian War

Article is no longer a featured article

Inadequate in depth and comprehensiveness. References, but no clear use of sources, either primary or secondary. Not worthy, in my opinion, of featured article status. If and when I have time, I'll try to improve it; as it is, however, it's inadequate. Hydriotaphia 05:50, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Remove, inadequate. Everyking 07:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Remove, not comprehensive enough, resources vague. Neutrality^talk 07:15, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. PedanticallySpeaking 17:28, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Filiocht | Blarneyman 09:45, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove, no clear use of sources. Thechamelon 21:54, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of Germany

Article is no longer a featured article

42K long, and seemingly still growing; no lead section whatsoever (there used to be one, a certain user deleted it, then redeleted its reinstatement); idiosyncratic section length (huge chunks on the German Empire, suspiciously little on WW2 and subsequently -- especially odd as each section corresponds to a more detailed sub-article in any case, so none of the added detail is especially necessary in this particular article. This may conceivably be on its way to some marvellous rewrite, but in the short-term it looks to me to have nose-dived considerably. Alai 05:01, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Remove, strongly—the bar must be set very high for an article like this. Everyking 07:11, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Remove, for the same reasons listed by Alai. Regarding the lead section, many users have tried to add one in order to help this article to remain Featured, but it keeps getting deleted by a certain user. When alerted about the motives of keeping a lead, the aforementioned user was clear: "de-feature it, then." A pity. -- Shauri 18:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Have a look at Wikipedia:Lead section, there is a section about exactly this topic, stating that "History of" articles don't need a lead section. This is not really my opinion, but there seems to be no real consensus either way yet, so maybe a general discussion about this would be a good idea. --Conti|✉ 18:46, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, the guideline you direct to is ambiguous; it doesn't say "it doesn't apply", but "may not apply". Even if that's the case, that reference is not about what a "History of..." article needs (or doesn't need) to be Featured. Rather, it deals with what may generally be needed for this kind of articles, and the issue here is quite different: if an article with no lead whatsoever complies to current FA standards or not. As of now, all Featured "History of" articles (History of Greenland, History of Russia, History of Scotland, History of the Netherlands, etc.) do contain lead sections. And so did History of Germany when it became FA, but it doesn't anymore due to the insistence of this person; currently, there isn't even a link to Germany in the whole article, which the lead formerly had. -- Shauri 19:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Indeed. I'd say a short lead was highly desirable to address the "what do we mean by 'Germany'?" question, in particular (as the article covers more than the history of what's now the FRG). Perhaps it could be shorter (a consideration that seems to more urgently apply to some other section in this redraft). Alai 03:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Remove! (Personally) I think featured articles oughtn't to be as easy to modify as stub articles, and this illustrates my suspicions. Ruhrjung 16:56, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• It is with a heavy hard that I have to support this removal. Heimdal's (to name that certain person) mass modifications to the article have indeed reduced its quality. I would support its renomination to featured article, though, whenever the current problems are dealt with. Luis rib 11:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. Needs references too. - Taxman 13:49, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. Missing references and links. - Thechamelon 21:52, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Origins of the American Civil War

Article is no longer a featured article.

1. Lead is way to short. 2. No references. 3. Rather too much sections, and the article lenght (87kb) is rather large - perhaps sth should be moved to subsections (this is not an objection per se, I like large articles, just a note). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Remove. I tend to agree even though I nominated this article for FA before. Although there is a notes section that does have specific cites and an overview section that acts as an expanded lead. This is odd and non-standard. A full lead section is needed as well as a references section (keep the notes section though or make them all inline). And the whole thing should be broken up into at least a few different articles with summaries left here. Bryan Derksen and I started on this at Talk:Origins of the American Civil War/Origins of the American Civil War but never got around to finishing. I'd like to do that and then resubmit this as a FAC again. --mav 15:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. There's some resistance by other editors to adding a lead, which I don't have the inclination to fight over. Without a lead, I agree the article is not FA standard. Keep. I'll do you a lead. The references requirement is not retrospective, and this does have them anyway (albeit non-formatted). The sections aren't disproportionate to the length- they're not too small. Finally, the question of whether the information should be all on one page or divided up among different pages is a trivial housekeeping matter which I'm unable to get excited about either way. Mark¹ 01:55, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • How are they not restrospective? If so, the entire FARC would be usless. As our standards improve, we list here articles that either need to be brought up to them or removed. What was once a FA does not have a guaranteed future, and lack of references have been the downfall of many estabilished FAs, not only recent FACs. After a lead and references section are done I'll change my vote to abstain, not before. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:50, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As per Markalexander100. Filiocht | Talk 07:42, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Hydriotaphia 06:47, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. Everyking 07:11, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. KingTT 15:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed status May

[edit] Doom

Article is no longer a featured article

This article contains weasel words, editorializing, facts known to be erroneous, and facts without references. Further, it fails to distinguish important facts from trivia, which is essential for a high-quality encyclopedia article. It is incomplete, particularly concerning history. There are many loose statements which have not been put into context. Finally, the entire text needs to be restructured. (I have put up some comments on the talk page.)

I was partially responsible for getting this featured a little over a year ago, but my standards (and Wikipedia's) have improved considerably since then. I would like to see this de-featured so that I (and anyone else who wishes to help) can improve it to the point where it would pass critical peer review. De-featuring it might seem like an odd action, but I think a tangible goal (getting it featured again) will make work easier. Fredrik | talk 22:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not convinced this is entirely necessary. After all, isn't that what WP:PR is for? I agree it could use reworking, but I'm not sure I'd say it's fallen so far in comparison to other featured articles to warrant removing its featured status, when there are other ways to receive critical review. I'm not exactly opposed, I'm just not sure if it's entirely warranted. Sarge Baldy 22:39, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Just putting it on PR would be a good idea if the work could be done within a week or two, but with my usual article-writing speed it will more likely take six months ;-) I think it should be kept off the featured articles list until then. - Fredrik | talk 23:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Ok Remove then. Keep, unless there are some other criteria that it fails to meet. If all it needs is a good copyedit, then please go do that. Then list it on peer review to get suggestions of what other people see and do your best to implement those. That would be the best way to improve this article, not de-featuring in my opinion. - Taxman 22:49, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Besides neutrality, accuracy, verifiability, completeness, and presentation, I can't think of any featured article criteria that it fails. It's a bit more than just a copyedit; I think most of it should be rewritten. Fredrik | talk 23:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Remove. A commendable nomination, too, to come from an author. Everyking 00:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. agree with Everyking. Ambi 22:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. — Matt Crypto 01:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. this article is some way from the quality I expect of a Featured Article. Rje 15:30, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hubble Space Telescope

Article is no longer a featured article

Promoted way back in December 2003. I'd say a lot of the prose doesn't look very brilliant, and there's a lot of lists and tables. I think much more can be said about this mission, and I think some of the facts are dubious as well (no refs to check). I'm sure if this article was nominated on FAC now it wouldn't pass. Worldtraveller 16:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Remove. Yes the prose is very choppy with poor flow, but the lack of references troubles me most. - Taxman 22:56, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. add more cruft Everyking 00:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. — Matt Crypto 01:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. this was featured? or some idiot handicapped the article? -Pedro 02:36, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Buckinghamshire

Article is no longer a featured article

Well over half the article is lists, the rest is almost entirely focused on the history, so it is not comprehensive, and the article has no references. I'm really not trying to be topically focused here, just calling them as I see them. - Taxman 16:28, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Remove - On reflection, it ought to include, at least, a discusion of geography and major towns. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support removal — Matt Crypto 18:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Remove - SoM 20:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. I considered nominating this one myself a week or so ago. Definately not comprehensive. Indrian 21:58, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 18:20, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. This article is far from comprehensive, I am not too keen on the lists either. Rje 01:03, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Have I Got News For You

Article is no longer a featured article

Almost entirely lists, innadequate lead section, and no references. Comprehensive? maybe, I have no idea, but the lack of prose and sectioning is troubling. - Taxman 16:28, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Disagree. Only a small part of the content is a list ("Highlights" does have bullets but can hardly be called a list - all prose). The "overview" makes a very good lead section. Thus only a few minor tweaks required, best not throw baby with bath water here. Pcb21| Pete 17:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Well it's a list of prose paragraphs :) In any case they are disjointed and the article has no overall narative arc. No article would pass FAC like that today. An overview section is deprecated, and is not a lead section unless well, it is in the lead section. If it does qualify as a great lead section, then work it in there. I did think this one over, and wouldn't have nominated it if I thought it was close to FA quality. - Taxman 18:35, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Forgot to respond to your other points. References: I added one, not sure of the extent of written material on the subject since that book. The external links give a whole host of supporting data for those wishing to read more. I don't see problems with breadth of coverage. Pcb21| Pete 17:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Great, I'd much rather it be fixed up well than de-featured. Again websites can be listed as references too if properly used to add or fact check material. Create a proper lead section, fix the sturcture of the article, and add some more references (at least three) and I would vote keep myself. - Taxman 18:35, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Of the three, this is clearly the best: if it were nominated now, it would stand a decent chance, I should have thought. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support removal — Matt Crypto 18:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Some comments: As much as I'm a fan of HIGNFY, I think this article is nowhere near featured quality at present. 1) Bullet point prose is, of course, problematic; 2) I have to wonder: what criteria were used to choose the "highlights" section? Are they simply the author's favourite bits, or is there some verifiable means that they are particularly well-known incidents in the show? 3) "Meaning that, as pointed out in a later episode of the show, he is the only person in the UK who can be called a "conniving little shit" without fear of being (successfully) sued for libel." — I'm not sure that is a correct inference, at least, not as far as the article relates. 4) There's no discussion about how much of the show is scripted, whether it's all improvisational, whether the best bits are edited, or what. 5) It seems a little short -- I would have hoped for...well, more. 6) There's no discussion of the different quiz types, like the missing word round, or whatever. The format of a typical episode needs to be described in more detail (the H2G2 entry does this well). 7) More screengrabs from the show? — Matt Crypto 01:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Keep Keep Keep Keep Keep. Keep. I'm hearing a lot of support for Keep.--Crestville 18:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep agree with ALoan. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:27, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove entirely lists. Thechamelon 11:33, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Entirely lists? Are you reading the same article as me? Maybe half to two-thirds lists, and only by length not by volume. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Okey, probably not all lists but too much to be considered a featured-article.
• Remove. I like the show, but this article leaves a bit to be desired I am afraid. The prose sections need improving, and I think the "Highlights of the Show" section should be trimmed and probably reformatted. Rje 01:13, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove, per Matt Crypto. Ambi 23:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• remove due to another wikipedia desease: Lists... (though a useful desease!) -Pedro 02:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed status June

[edit] Aryan invasion theory

Article is no longer a featured article

Uh-oh, when a supposedly FA article has cleanup template we have a problem. Nominated a year ago, passed with [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) |a single support]]. No references, external links in body, no picture. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Remove. The content itself seems ok (albeit somewhat essay-like), but there are severe structural problems. Phils 09:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Remove I agree with Phils, there are major structural problems and why is the bibliography in the middle of the article? Ganymead 05:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. These are serious structural flaws, and must be fixed with the article going back through peer review and FAC before regaining its status. Harro5 07:11, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. Neutrality^talk 14:13, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove -- ALoan (Talk) 17:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Remove --Theo (Talk) 13:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Remove - didn't we start the essential references criteria when this became FA? Could be wrong. Whatever, it could be a lot better. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. Get rid of it; it's not worthy. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 21:42, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Assassination

Article is no longer a featured article

What the...? It's a Featured article? When I stumbled on this I thought it wasn't a proper Wikipedia article at all, I was thinking VfD. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Assassination is an essay. Bishonen | talk 09:39, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Remove. Reads like an essay. No references. Glad to have learnt though that "in nations like India killings by knife or sword remain quite popular, as they do in sub-Saharan Africa (for example, with the machete)". — mark ✎ 12:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Mmm, I'm not seeing what's so bad about this article. No vote. Everyking 12:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. Too much essay, no references. - Taxman ^Talk 15:38, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. No references, not comprehensive (I'd like to see a 'famous assasinations' section, for example). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. Neutrality^talk 14:12, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove -- ALoan (Talk) 17:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Remove, too much like an essay. Phoenix2 19:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Question: Could someone give me a more detailed explanation of the problem here, please? --Theo (Talk) 13:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Theo. I was hoping my terse complaint "essay" would say it all, because if I explain at all, it's going to have to be at unattractive length. But I certainly don't blame you for requesting some unfolding. OK... stand back!

1.) Style. Assassination is personal and argumentative in tone, and full of opinions, interpretations, and claims that are unsubstantiated and inherently unsubstantiable. There's too much editorial voice, and too much buttonholing of the reader. I don't mean these remarks in a negative way, I think it a good text of its kind. But that kind is the essay. Consider these rhetorical flourishes:

However, this does open larger issues concerning interpretation, notably regarding attempted killings by those with other motives ? is it an assassination simply if the person is a major leader or public figure espousing a cause, or only if the assassin's reason for the attack is due to that person's status as a figurehead for a particular issue? (No rhetorical questions, please!) [Lennon's] killer does not seem to have been more than an unstable fan (although it may be of note that the word is derived from fanatic). ..it could be argued that describing his killing as an assassination is no more appropriate than, for example, using the term to describe the murders of singers Selena Quintanilla or Marvin Gaye. (This is a significant point: we're supposed to deal in what has been argued, not what could be argued.)

While it must be acknowledged that attempting to read a person's thoughts is both imperfect and somewhat antithetical to the nature of such an issue... (No, that really doesn't need to be acknowledged in this context.)

there seems to have not been a good deal of moral indignation at the practice amongst the political circles of the time, save, naturally, by the affected. (Too unsourced, too much chat ("save, naturally, by the affected"). "Many allege".. "Many accuse"... "Most major powers"..."Many modern analysts".. (such vague, unsourced phrasing abounds.)

2.) The style is good on the whole (except that there seems to have been some unhelpful fiddling with some sentences--copyediting wanted), but it's idiosyncratic. That is true of the structure also. The choice of what goes in needs to be as neutral as possible, or, to put it another way, it needs to be clear to the reader why a particular piece of information or analysis is included/excluded. If the answer is "because it fits in/doesn't fit in with the argument I'm making", then that's essay thinking, not encyclopedia thinking. What, for instance, is the death in battle of Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden doing here? It's not offered as an assassination, as indeed it wasn't, but as an example of how armies can be galvanized by the sudden death of their commander. I'm sorry, but that's too stream-of-consciouosness, and that whole section, "Assassination as military doctrine", seems to me much too speculative. It illustrates well what is my biggest beef with the article as a whole: that it discusses the morality and expediency of assassination, where it ought to be describing the existing discussion of it.

After I nominated the page here, Wally, who I assume is one of the major contributors (see Talk:Assassination), has made changes towards a more encyclopediac style. Compare for instance the June 4 versus the June12 paragraphs beginning respectively "One of the earliest forms of defense" and "It is important to note that, in the final analysis". These changes need IMO to be bolder, and to address structure as well as style, because the text is still an essay rather than an encyclopedic text.

3.) References. There are none. Whether or not the reference criterion is to be applied retroactoactively, it's a fact that a lot of the claims in the article cry out for sourcing. This paragraph is fairly typical:

Nowadays is known that "hashishinnya" was an offensive term used to depict this cult by its Muslim and Mongolian detractors; the extreme zeal of Nizarites and the very cold preparation to murder makes it very unlikely they ever used drugs, while there is evidence that one of the first Hassan's sons was sentenced to death by his father only for drinking a little wine. Moreover, despite many unlikely legends, they usually died along with their target (a tale tells of a mother being sad knowing her son survived a "mission"). As far as known they only used daggers (no other weapons, poison or whatever fictional records make them use) and it seems that they killed only five westeners during the time of the Crusades.

Unlikely, there is evidence, a tale tells, as far as known, it seems that....I would really like to be able to evaluate the sources that these things come from, in particular to know how old they are, and whether superseded by later accounts. Please note that Taxman posted a carefully argued request for references on the talk page on 24 april, and has had no response to it. Please also note that this is not one of those cases where you can simply redefine some of the External links as references; I have looked at those external links, there are only three, and they don't cover the sort of stuff in the paragraph above by a long shot. They're purely Further reading and purely US. Incidentally, one of them links to a timed-out session at the Yale Universiy Press, and needs to be replaced by a permanent URL (I suggest Amazon.com).

I apologize, you did say more detailed. Finally, in view of the popular uprising (ahem) on the talk page against the new nomination rules, I think the article should be left on this page for three, not two, weeks. Vote about the rules in the straw poll at the bottom of the Talk page if you have an opinion! Bishonen | talk 12:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Detailed is good. Now I understand, and agree. Hence: Remove. --Theo (Talk) 19:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Computer security

Article is no longer a featured article

I think this article falls quite a way short of current Featured quality. There's lots of problems obviously evident and not all can be easily fixed — I can give examples if you like, but I think it's clear, and I'm feeling lazy ;-)

• Remove. — Matt Crypto 15:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. Yikes, I don't see how this could be fixed without a ground up rewrite. - Taxman 17:32, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. needs updating and fixing. Rhobite 00:46, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove — mark ✎ 00:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. Looks like one of those brilliant prose articles... not so brilliant anymore... -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. Neutrality^talk 06:23, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. Some sections written in second person, some in third person, some sections are clearly outdated. (e.g., no reference to DVD/R media as backups). Monicasdude 13:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Remove -- ALoan (Talk) 17:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Remove --Ragib 01:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

Article is no longer a featured article

This article does not warrant featured status due to the relatively poor quality of much of the content, and the over representation of critique at the expense of content addressing fundamental aspects of copyright. The simplest way to illustrate the weakness of the article is to invite comparison with the patent and trademark articles. The article in its current form simply does not compete at featured article level. 203.198.237.30 12:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

This was its form when it was a featured article.

• Remove. No references. Even if others disagree, I'll continue to believe references are important enough. It's also been long enough. - Taxman 17:32, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The "Further Reading" section has references, it appears. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • What would lead you to believe that that is true? "Further reading" could just as well mean that those are a list of works made available for the interested reader, but never even seen by the page authors. Further, I made a request over a month ago to clarify that very problem, and there was no response. So instead it would appear they are not valid references. - Taxman 13:48, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove — mark ✎ 00:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. The "as of 1911" reference still hasn't been cleaned up by fact-checking to see whether or not the related information is still true. -- Beland 01:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. Neutrality^talk 06:23, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. Deeply, deeply,flawed; more a hit-and-miss set of discussions relating to the subject than a coherent exploration of it. Monicasdude 01:35, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Remove -- ALoan (Talk) 17:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)