Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/archive/July to September 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the archive of Featured Article Removal Candidates for July to September 2005. For the active archive and list of previous archives, click here.

Contents 1 Kept 1.1 My Belarusy 1.2 Asperger's syndrome 1.3 Big Bang 1.4 Evolution 1.5 Vanilla Ninja 1.6 Bob Dylan 1.7 Libertarianism 1.8 History of Cape Colony from 1806 to 1870 1.9 Matthew Brettingham 2 Removed status July 2.1 Belgium 3 Removed status August 3.1 Vampire 3.2 Mitochondrial Eve 3.3 Hutton Inquiry 3.4 ROC presidential election, 2004 3.5 History of South Carolina 4 Removed status September 4.1 Bioinformatics 4.2 Chinatown 4.3 Io (moon) 4.4 Fractal 4.5 Paul Morphy 4.6 Montreal Canadiens 4.7 Anatoly Karpov

[edit] Kept

[edit] My Belarusy

Invalid nomination - article is still a featured article

I nominate My Belarusy to be removed from the list of featured articles. It is poorly written, uses images that are claimed as fair use but cannot really be justified as such, and has no references, only citations that are inproperly formatted. Furthermore, the vast majority of the article is the lyrics of the song, which when removed, would make the article very small. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 19:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, for the record. Can you check for us when this was promoted and link to the nomination? That and reading the policy at the top of the page should be illustrative. Specific concerns should now be addressed on the article talk page. - Taxman ^Talk 00:08, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I believe this was promoted recently. It should have been brought up then. Would you also suggest what is missing, as small length articles are also allowed. User:Nichalp/sg 05:06, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, while I am the author of most of the article, the article just got promoted on August 27th by Raul654, the head of the FAC. [1] He had the nomination stay up there very longer than usual, since it did not get comments. As for the fair use images, I only used two (the Lukashenko photos), but both came from government websites and both are the only photos I can find of the contest and first performance. The other images/audio are Public Domain either because they are government symbols (I can cite you the law) or because I made it (the Flag of Belarus). The references are located at [2], which I have 9 (a lot more than other FA's). While the article is short, I am going by only what I can find. Everything else will be OR, which is a no-no. Belarusian information on the Internet is very poor, so I am surprised I was able to come up with what I did (just like with Hero of Belarus. If you got some issues with the article, just let me know in the future please. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep. As per above. --Irpen 06:09, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: An ordinary article. Nothing in particular. All these considerations should have been discussed when they voted for its featured status, several days ago. Now it's too late to raise objections. --Ghirlandajo 14:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• I'm removing this from FARC per Wikipedia guidlines involving FARCs: "Do not list articles that have recently been promoted" - Archive and No vote. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Asperger's syndrome

This article is still a featured article

Though the article may be comprehensive it does not meet the stability requirements of a featured article as well as the fact that it is not easy to read and does not conform to the style guide and the writing is all over the place and the article is highly disputed and the subject of many edit wars, see:Asperger's syndrome page history. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 21:56, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

• • Perhaps you could be so kind as to more specifically point out what features of the article, outside of the recent edit war, lead you to say that? For example, I find the article as a whole much better written and easier to understand than the majority of Wikipedia articles I've seen (not to mention your own description of it above!). Also, what features of it have been disputed recently by anyone other than Tern? I do not mean to be snide; my interest is in improving it. So far all the comments I've seen on this subject have been rather vague, and we Aspies don't handle vagueness well :-). 24.77.97.3 08:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Personally, I think this was from the Brillant Prose crop of articles. Most of the articles from there have went to FARC and usually are delisted. So, until we get this figured out, I support the removal of the FA status. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It was promoted on 10 April 2004 with 10 supports, including a resolved objection (here is the position from the WP:FAC page history immediately before it was promoted). For some reason, {{fac}} was added when it was promoted, on 10 April 2004 (diff), and was not replaced by {{featured}} until 20 June 2004 (diff). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • 'Keep due to the valiant efforts of the Wikipedians at the article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Remove No it isn't, a lot of its content is controversial. See the talk page for that,as well as for what has been going on in the last few days: a fantastical eruption of hate vendetta against one person, by voices including this Ryan who
  • reject all efforts to find a mutually inclusive edit of the subject they object to
  • never give an alternative point of view on the issue, just keep claiming it doesn't matter
  • reject anything else than total deletion of all mention of it, even though it involves child cruelty towards the group this medical article is about
  • base their arguments mostly on personal prejudice and personal attacks
  • are trying to force this by repeating the same delete-vandalism at high frequency, and in ways that have been demonstrated personally malicious as you can see if you go there and look at the history or the discussion, then filing malicious 3RR charges when stood up to

Wikipedia's entire ethics would be dead unless these medical censors' mob game comes out of this banned. FA status removal is the least they have brought on themselves for trying to turn the artricle into their own controlled biased soapbox. - Tern, 01:26! Aug 23

• • Hey, given that this user is indefinitely blocked, does the above vote count? (To be clear, he was not blocked at the time he voted, however he has since been blocked indefinitely for his many and various policy violations and generally needlessly antagonistic behaviour.)
• Keep. I don't like removing an article from FA status only a few days into an edit war. Afterall, these things happen all the time and tend to resolve themselves within a week or two. While the article may have other issues, it is difficult to tell at this point. I'd be happy to revisit this issue in a month or so. If the article is still unstable then, I would vote to remove.--Alabamaboy 00:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep. As noted above, the "controversy" is entirely the work of one user. The person denying this above is that one user, who among other things, is now claiming that phrases like "terrible cruelty" - a paradigm case of POV - are neutral and even "axiomatic". Feel free to visit the talk page and confirm this for yourself. Ironically many of Tern's above accusations could be more accurately applied to himself, particularly the last two. 24.77.97.3 01:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Your views are appreciated and have been noted however your vote cannot be counted since you are an IP, if you would like you are welcome to create an account and revote or sign your name to this vote. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 02:51, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Tern's tendency towards retaliation on other sites precludes that, sorry. I have made over 150 edits to various pages, all under the same IP, only one of which has been seriously disputed (not to the Asperger page); I think I'm a legitimate contributer. I'd be happy to contact you somewhere other than publically available parts of Wikipedia with any personal information that might help make an exception to this rule (which I can't seem to find documentation of, by the way, though it's possible I'm not looking in the right place). Failing that, I guess I'll have to accept having my vote not count for this particular purpose. 24.77.97.3 08:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

This is 24.77.97.3. I have reconsidered the above, and have now created an account. Thus my vote can now be added to the keep side. (I still can't find that rule, by the way.) PurplePlatypus 02:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Note: as noted in my nomination of this for FARC it isn't just the edit warring that led me to put this up for deletion removal, it's also that the article is not especially a greatly written article and doesn't seem to fit the criteria for a featured article and the guide for style. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 02:48, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note, the article is not up for deletion, we are just seeing if it is even worthy for the FA status. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• [keep] Controversy will always exist with "disorders" such as AS. It's not clearly defined and it includes a huge range from low to high functioning. Personally, I clearly have several of the traits - more than one in each of the categories defined by the DSM-IV. I'd say the ability for intense focus is quite the counter-balance to the lack of social ability; which as I must be high-fuctioning, it is hardly that limiting. So you're a bit colder than most, have problems expressing your feelings, and get very uncomfortable in large groups; many social people get uncomfortable in small groups... [take that for what it's worth]

I tend to think this disorder should be defined in more detail, and should be geared towards low-functioning aspies. As those who are high functioning can use AS to their adv. in the real world . One could actually argue that being a high-functioning Aspie is actually adaptive... specialization and a tendancy to focus on logic is a good combo for success if you can adapt to the lack of social skills.

Nonetheless... Wikipedia's page defines AS better than any other site out there and should not be removed as a FA. It's not that the article is poorly done, but rather that the key/core issues involving AS are controversal and up for debate... me thinks this article does a decent job at presenting the different angles. ** - Oilers99fan

• KEEP Article is much better now. If there are any style problems please mention them and they will be corrected --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 11:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The article, as RN mentions, is much improved. The main problems it had before were stylistic, and the page was pretty stable until the edit war with Tern broke out. Oilers99fan has a good point in that there will always be some controversy in the core of the debate, but the page is comprehensive. ManekiNeko 21:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The edit war has abated, and cooler heads are prevailing. The article has retained the informational value it had when it ascended to FA status, NPOV--from my POV, at least--is returning, and from what I can tell, all vandalism (by any rational definition) has been cleaned up, and the source has been dealt with. I agree with ManekiNeko: the page is comprehensive. matt 20:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• The truth of the above is to be tested during the day starting now. The statement "The source has been dealt with" is a continuing expression of personal victimisation that does not bode well, and only if it is shown not to be true and this kind of thing is stamped out will everything else Matt has said become true. In fact lagre parts of the article have been thoroughly rewritten in a check for fairness by those editors who realised they were under wider scrutiny now for the personal stuff to stop and a basis for neutral common ground to be found.tern 02:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• • You know very well, or should, that non-neutrality has nothing to do with why they were rewritten. PurplePlatypus 04:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Though the grammar could use improvement and it might be better to remove the culture section from the article altogether. This article is overall a very good read. Cedars 02:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I came to the talk page to make sure it had already been featured. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep The article has grown a lot of late, which is true of many articles as Wikipedia has proliferated. But unlike some other expanding articles it has retained most of it's sense of style and accuracy, while substantially improving it's depth. A definate keep. D-Katana 01:29, 4 September 2005.

[edit] Big Bang

This article is still a featured article

The article is not NPOV, not historically or factually accurate, and attempts to portray a theory as uncontested scientific fact. Edit wars have been going on for years and will no doubt continue. The article fails 1, 2, and 3 of the featured article criteria. Those who know better have been unable to change the article to a more NPOV position due to constant reverts by Big Bang proponents. The unknowing public could come across this page and be completely misinformed and mislead about the ongoing controversy surrounding the topic. Getting the article Featured in the first place was no doubt a ploy from an article proponent to further remove attempts to contest the factual accuracy of the article. Failure to remove the featured status of this article will only result in continued decline of the quality and accuracy of the article. [posted by Ionized at 19:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)]

• Comment Scientific Creationism/Intelligent Design has an agenda and is therefore inherently POV. Pilatus 19:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is factual and reads well. I am also troubled when anonymous users nominate an article for FA removal.--Alabamaboy 21:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is an excellent candidate for featured status. --Madchester 21:38, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Already says "in physical cosmology". Does not need to point out every single contesting religious "theory". ~~ N (t/c) 21:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Do we accept anonymous nominations? ThisThanks for adding an attribution to the nomination. If this was an anon, I would have said (did say) that the nomination smacks of trolling. Keep, of course.-- ALoan (Talk) 21:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I am not an anon user. For over 2 years the article has been in edit wars. To consider it factual is to look at it solely through the eyes of its paradigm. It is a horrible candidate for Featured status because of the reasons already stated above. New contributors to the article are obviously not reading the past archived talk pages, for the article is back in a state that was previously fought about heavily. I expect to see nothing but 'keep' votes however, because dissenters are simply BANNED from this website! It is sickening, and the Featured status of the article is only going to be used to further restrict any changes that can be done to it. --Ionized
• Keep. It seemse very well thought out and presented, and NPOV as far as I can see.--naryathegreat | (talk) 00:25, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Joke137 05:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I feel the need to point out that this is not a vote for deletion of the article, rather simply a vote to remove its 'Featured' status. My points are entirely valid, longstanding, and backed up by the history of the page. I simply want it removed from being 'Featured', this would appease me and you can all go about your merry editing of false information without my further interruption. --Ionized

• Keep. Big Bang might not be an uncontested fact, but it definetly is and uncontested scientific fact. --R.Koot 20:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The above vote comment is blatantly false. It has been contested by professionals in peer-reviewed scientific journals for years. A simple perusal of the talk pages will verify this fact as the references are within. If it was not contested I would have no right to make the claim. --Ionized

This doesn't mean it can't be an FA. It has mention of alternative theories. ~~ N (t/c) 21:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

What is a scientific fact? --R.Koot 21:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not disputing the mention of alternatives, although even in their mentioning they are disclaimed. The article attempts to outline the history of the theory but does so inaccurately. That alone breaks rule number 2 of the requirements for a FA. Previous attempts to enlighten with more factual historical basis always resulted in edit wars, after which the article was simply reverted back to the innacurate version, and users that attempted to fix the article correctly where either banned or threatened. The history of Gamow's predictions and Hubble's law are just two examples. R. Koot, your inanity is not helping this issue. Sidenote, just figured out my old login so here is the official stamp so that the community doesnt accuse me of impersonating --Ionized 23:09, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Gentgeen 20:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Anville 04:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Obviously. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-10 15:29

• Comment: The only thing 'obvious' is this communities lack of commitment to a quality and accurate portrayal of encyclopedic information. It is to your own discredit that the article will remain 'Featured', for if this 'Exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work, representing what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet.', then it helps to set a laughable standard of quality and accuracy for Wikipedia. Its interesting that a simple democratic vote can overrule absolutely valid points, are you people getting paid to adhere to the dogma? Rather than simply removing its featured status like you should, by voting to keep you will simply force me to "be bold" in editing the article. I planned on not touching the article had you simply removed its featured status, but if it is to remain featured than it needs a large overhaul so that it more truly represents historical fact.(edit: I guess thats not true, I didnt plan on editing the article and even if it is kept as Featured I wont touch it, cause I know from experience that edits result only in reverts and edit wars) --Ionized 17:19, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Please would you take this to the article's talk page: it would be interesting to see a list of the points of change that you think are necessary to make this article historically accurate. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed such a list would be interesting to see, however it is already imbedded in the page history and the archived talk pages, hence I hesitate to spend time doing as you request because I know from previous experience that the recommendations are ignored and/or censored. What you are asking of me has already been done in the past. Since this is the case, the burden does not lay on my shoulders to re-iterate it all. It wasnt even my intent, the intent was simply to remove the FA status of the article, knowing with certainty that any proper revision to the article is impossible. However, I can state that the history behind Hubble's Law and Gamow's predictions, even starting with the 2nd sentence in the preamble, are being portrayed in a manner that is inconsistent with historical fact solely because the current wording lends false credibility to the BB theory. It is not entirely the BB proponents fault, most of them truly believe that history happened as it is written on the page, contrary even to the cited sources which state otherwise (again, see the archived talk pages.) To make the article historically accurate would require a complete re-writing, which is not what I was requesting, as it would no doubt only begin a new era of edit wars on the page, which is not my intent. The fact is, if the information in the article would be written correctly, any one reading it objectively would realize that the BB foundations are not rock solid. Since this would cause utter distress to the BB community, the article is simply not allowed to be written accurately. Again, all that I requested was that the article is no longer Featured, that would be good enough for me. It is more than obvious that this request will not happen, hence any further action by me on the matter would be entirely fruitless. I DO NOT intend to 'be bold' and re-write the article. --Ionized 21:01, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Looks fine to me. What exactly is a "Big Bang proponent"? Are those the people who convinced God to create the universe? Well I hope they've learned their lesson. Kaldari 06:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The article does not qualify as a featured article in its current version, and this regardless of if the Big bang happened or not. The article is an OK Wikipedia article, but not an OK featured article. I don't see how it is really NPOV, to present in the lead section, the position without its critics, I don't see how it is NPOV, to present the position, and even use terms as if the subject is a mathematical notion and an absolute truth, and in the "Features, issues and problems," every problems are answered, without indicating that there are also debates and answers to those answers themselves. NPOV also requires to present the best arguments of each sides and their critics. While the arguments are presented in one side, their critics are dumped in a section to then being criticized in their own turns. The article for this reason sound more as a theses, and while is a good article, does not have this plus thing that would make of it, featured. I really don't see how anyone would claim that words such as this: "This apparent inconsistency is resolved by inflationary theory" are not POV. Fadix 18:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete? This is not VFD. :) User:Nichalp/sg
• Keep There is no scientific debate over the merits of the Big Bang theory. It is true that there are those who object to the Big Bang. There are also those who object to any scientific claim you care to make. We mention the critics in the article and give them appropriate amount of space with respect to how notable their claims are -- they certainly don't belong in the lead section any more than creationists belong in the lead section of the evolution article. Joshuaschroeder 18:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. For those of you looking for a wiki safe from the scourge of science, I would suggest CreationWiki. They have a wonderful article on the Big Bang, BTW, which I'm sure could use dedicated editors. Interestingly, their intro paragraph doesn't mention criticisms either. Kaldari 19:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. It is a good article, but I'm not sure it would make featured if it was put up today. It's not friendly enough to non-technical readers (even the intro doesn't exactly ease people in), and on the other hand lacks detail in some areas. Presumably this is why, oddly, the History comes before the Overview - because the History is relatively nontechnical. But what's called for is a better structure, leading from simple fairly non-technical overview (of theory, history, issues, debate) to more detailed theory overview to theory detail. Rd232 21:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution

Article is still a featured article.

This is a well written and highly informative article that does not adequately or clearly explain evolution or biology. Therefore, I am nominating this article to have its featured status removed because it fails to meet the Featured Article criteria that a featured article be comprehensive. The contents of this article would be better placed in History of evolutionary thought or somesuch. --malathion ^talk 21:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• remove, Hmm, it's probably all in there, but you have to dig a lot. We can renominate for FAC when the article has a lot more clarity. Evolution (Skelton, 1993) starts out with reproduction, the struggle for existence, natural selection and variation. These are not clearly marked in the article. Kim Bruning 21:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. This article is an exceptionally tough read, and seems to be erratically structured. Plenty of good stuff in there, but quite inaccessible. Compare the opening paragraph of our article:

  In the life sciences, evolution is a change in the traits of living organisms over generations, including the emergence of new species. Since the development of modern genetics in the 1940s, evolution has been defined more specifically as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population from one generation to the next. In other fields evolution is used more generally to refer to any process of change over time.

  With that of Britannica:

  Biological theory that animals and plants have their origin in other types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.

  I cannot dispute that we are a heck of a lot more in-depth, but at the same time it's virtually unreadable, and doesn't answer the question of what evolution is with any sort of directness. The rest of the article continues in the same vein. This reads like a hodge-podge of useful info, not like a decent article. Too much hyperspecific information is being crammed in what should be an overview article.
  Disclaimer: I am not a biologist. Kim Bruning is, however. JRM · Talk 21:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

While I won't take a position on removal, since I don't consider myself really qualified to judge, I'd like to get a more definitive sense of what's wrong with the article. Graft

It could be more approachable to non-experts. It could have a definite organization instead of the "and now this aspect of evolution" approach it has now. It starts off with an innocent (and long-winded) explanation of what a scientific theory is, and then immediately delves headlong into various detailed aspects of evolution. But what is evolution? The article seems to have a hard time summing it all up. A "change in the traits of living organisms over generations, including the emergence of new species"? That seems like a very weak description. Then you get an alternate definition like "a change in the frequency of alleles in a population from one generation to the next", which is meaningless without reading up on genetics. Even the "history of evolutionary thought" section doesn't clear everything up. Is that really what it's all about?
This article reads like it was developed bottom-up, which is a fine mode of development, but the ultimate presentation doesn't seem to be straightened out. JRM · Talk 02:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• keep I love the way creationism tries to creep in to wikipedia. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 17:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

  I do not quite understand the relevance of that comment. None of the persons who support this request so far (malathion, Kim Bruning and myself) are creationists. And creationists would likewise benefit from a proper featured article on evolution. JRM · Talk 17:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• keep Evolution is a complicated concept. To avoid confusing the lay-man is usually to confuse the concept. Alleles are taught in 10th grade biology, so I would advise JRM to get his money back on his Highschool diploma. This is a well thought out article, if you are looking for one line explanations check out wikiquote or maybe some kind of coloring book. Lets try to keep wikipedia smart, and avoid dumbing down. Besides, do not throw out the baby with the bathwater, if there is something missing from this article you can edit it, instead of nominating it for deletion. Unless I am mistaken to the collective editing nature of Wikipedia. --Reid 18:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

  To clear up a possible misconception: nothing is being nominated for "deletion". The article's status as Featured article would just be reset. I'm likewise not advocating removing material to "dumb down" the article. I can't agree with the sentiment that a "smart" article can afford to be poorly accessible (to the "dumb" layperson or for that matter any other reader).

  You are, of course, correct in saying that we could improve the article; in fact, this is what should be done to get it back to featured status again. But while I'm aware of what alleles are, I do not consider myself quite knowledgeable enough to edit. JRM · Talk 18:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

  Excuse me, i misunderstood the purpose of this talk page. Also, i apologize about the highschool diploma remark. I think i will try and make a few edits. I am not a biologist, i am a neuroscience undergrad, but i will give it a go. --Reid 18:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vanilla Ninja

Article is still a featured article.

I submit this article because it is incredibly poorly formatted, and lacks any real sources. I made an attempt to fix the formatting problems in the article, and they were quickly reverted as "necessary", so as it stands the introparagraph is a long list of bolded names and dates of birth. Second, while there are references, I cannot believe that they are the source of the actual information in this article. The sources, if they mention Vanilla Ninja at all, do so only very briefly. A request I made for more and better references on the talk page remains completely unanswered and ignored. This is in no way a featured article. Thanks! Páll 13:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Remove. There are numbered external links in this article, which go against our trusted Manual of Style. Also, in my opinion, this is a little too short for a featured article.  Denelson83  14:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This article should not be considered for removal b/c it was recently promoted to featured article status. (see rule at top of FA removal page, which says, "Do not list articles that have recently been promoted—such complaints should have been brought up during the candidate period.") As a result, I believe the issues with the article listed above should be addressed on the article's talk page.--Alabamaboy 14:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • While normally I would agree with that, I have brought up several issues on the talk page, none of which have received a single reply. Páll 03:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • The nomination was far from ideal. There were several very simple and reasonable objections which were simply ignored with little or no explanation as to why. Raul has, in fact, still not explained why he so thoroughly ignored actionable objections. People behind an FA need to be deferential to those who take time to review their work and pay proper respect when reasonable objections are brought up. This includes matters that could be viewed as opinion (layout and such) and compromises, not stubborn argumentation, should be offered. If these are simply ignored and more time is spent arguing against them rather than amending them, its status as an FA should be rightfully questioned. A lot of people seem to have the notion that an FA is an unalienable right anyone is entitled to after a certain amount of time spent on an article. /Peter ^Isotalo 10:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, although my current dis-illusions with Wikipedia mean I don't actually care. Hedley 18:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems like a perfectly good article to me. I don't see anything so wrong with this that it needs removing from the list of featured articles. There are much worse ones on the list. If there are any concerns they can be brought up on the talk page. This was only recently featured and most people who commented on the nomination thought it was worthy of being featured. Nothing drastic has happened to the quality of the article since then. — Trilobite (Talk) 18:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. A featured article should be comprehensive, and this article says next to nothing about the music this group makes. Monicasdude 02:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Alabamaboy. Follow the rules. Superm401 | Talk 00:21, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • If anything, the "rules" were broken when the article was featured despite several actionable objections. /Peter ^Isotalo 10:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Which have now been fixed. I don't see your point. Hedley 15:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Hedley, tell me where each reference goes and I can fix the references to the MoS format of footnotes. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think there is any rule stating that type of references is needed. I think the references are fine as they are. Hedley 17:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, putting this up for removal for lack of good academic references is obtuse, it's an article on pop culture. I've yet to see a university with a good Estonian Pop Studies course. Sure, there's some formatting cleanup that could be done, but that's sofixit territory. --zippedmartin 19:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. FARC should only be used for articles which are in a terrible state since they were first promoted (eg. POV war, poor structure), but not because the footnotes aren't formatted correctly. This article was only featured quite recently, and so shouldn't be here at all, never mind the fact there is no real reason to remove the FA status. Unless something drastically changes, this is a first-rate source on an obscure band with great depths of information included. Harro5 09:05, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Note that there are sufficient references for everything in the article; Those that have read it and are familiar with the topic can see that. Those that have glanced should not be commenting on the references. Furthermore, some references aren't linked per opinion given that references in German and other languages are not suitable for use on an English language encyclopedia. Finally, those German references were replaced as well as possible by the English language ones given. Hedley 17:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Dylan

Article is still a featured article.

I am not sure whether this article was ever properly added to the list of featured articles; it was added at a point when the designation process was in transition, and I can't tell whether the appropriate consensus was ever reached. The record is very messy (at least to this user).

In any event, after it was designated an FA, the article was slowly but steadily rewritten, and very little of the original substance remained this spring. At that point, I was tangled up in a nasty edit war over revisions I'd made; the opposing editor argued mainly that the FA tag should itself bar the sort of revisions I'd made. That's a simplification, of course; if you enjoy wading through invective, you can read the talk page for details. The dispute was never really resolved by consensus; instead, after his position gained virtually no immediate support, the opposing editor withdrew.

Since that time, there's been very little substantive editing on the page. I've continued to clean out inappropriate material -- laundry lists of greatest songs, comments about ignored masterpieces, etc. But the article needs more work and more contributors, and I think the FA tag is inhibiting revisions (not to mention the effect of the nasty edit war). Besides, I've now written the bulk of the substantive text as it stands, and if I don't think it's good enough, you shouldn't either. [Insert emoticon to indicate that last line is spoken in sort of a Foghorn Leghorn voice.]

Formally: the article does not meet criterion one, as it is far from the best work available. Compare it to featured articles on other great American musicians, like the FA on Miles Davis. It does not meet criterion two, since it is not comprehensive. While I think my revisions to the early sections of the article strike a reasonable balance between the comprehensive and the concise, the later sections, from the beginning of Dylan's "gospel period" on, are sketchy, haphazard, and leave large gaps in their depiction of Dylan's career.

Monicasdude 18:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Remove it has never even been through the proper FAC process!!!Borisblue 04:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. Ok I've had my breather. But don't worry, I won't be around much at all and I won't be touching this article. In reality, Bob Dylan went through a completely normal, well-attended FAC process and passed, deservedly (props GWO, wherever you are), by a wide margin. Monicasdude insists that version was substandard and compared unfavorably to articles like Miles Davis and Louis Armstrong. In this he's basically a monovoice, but his dogged devotion to his own (mis)judgments leaves all others by the wayside. I vote for Remove now because he has eviscerated the article beyond recognition. It is now a turgid emotionless read and only the appearance of an equally dogged antimonicasdude could bring it back toward FA quality. If such a being exists please step it up and go. If nothing else it will be a funny scene. JDG 20:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. While the edit war is unfortunate, the bigger problem is the article is entirely full of editorial opinion, with no use of sources and no citation that I could see. Throughout the article there are comments to the effect of his play is improving, his greatest song, etc. 50% of the article is opinion about the guy or his works and the rest is facts with no sources to back them up. - Taxman ^Talk 13:12, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

While I agree with your ultimate verdict I couldn't disagree more with your reasons for it. Trying to make 'Arts and Entertainment' topics as dry and factual as Sci/Tech articles is just wrongheaded, and you confuse statements about the listening public's POV with the writer's own POV (as does Monicasdude to an egregious extent). But yes, sources should be cited far more, both inline and in References. It won't happen while MDude is the lead editor since he impresses himself as an unimpeachable source. JDG 17:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Remove, no proof it ever gone through FAC. Hedley 22:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Retain I have no personal axe to grind since my contributions to this article are very minor. But I think it's a good account of a compex career - which can still be improved upon. I just read the FA on Miles Davis as a comparison and while the Davis article is good, I don't think it's on a much higher critical plane. Mick gold 18:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• FWIW, it seems to have been a former "Brilliant Prose" article that became featured in March 2004. The system was somewhat less well developed in those days, and there may not even have been a vote (see the "vote" on transferring them pretty much en bloc at Wikipedia:Refreshing_brilliant_prose_-_People_and_culture - but this one is not there!). The best I can find is a sideways mention in Wikipedia talk:Feature candidates but it may be buried in the edit history of WP:FAC in early 2004. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Remove unless details of FA process are found (and clearly linked from Talk:Bob Dylan), and unless a clear "References" section is added. -- Creidieki 02:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Retain it's a good article and there are plans to return the article to the form it was in when it was added in the first place, also how could the articl have been added with out the proper steps taken? (penguinsforever, August 10, 2005)

• Retain - It is a long article, very detailed, seems to be very factually accurate. removing an article from featured because it was nominated under a different system than the current policy is ...stupid. SECProto 14:53, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Retain I've also made only recent and very small contributions to this article. But overall, it seems pretty comprehensive and well written. There seems to be some unnecessary rancor between Monicasdude and JDG over the edit history; but none of the changes have seemed particularly unreasonable. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:20, 2005 August 12 (UTC)

• Retain the article is still very good and comprehensive(spelling?). Besides, Dylan kicks ass.

[edit] Libertarianism

Article is still a featured article.

Fails to meet the third criteria, in that it has a neutrality tag, a controversial tag and seems to be in the middle of an edit war. Is also listed twice on RfC. Hiding 5 July 2005 13:15 (UTC)

• Since the neutrality tag has been off the page for over ten days now, as nominator I am happy to change my vote to Keep. Hiding talk 08:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Note: as of tonight, the POV tag has been removed by User:Kevehs, who placed it there initially.

Remove. It's a great article in its established form, but it's also a big attraction for POV pushing. I hate to say it, but this is too controversial to be featured. --Malathion 5 July 2005 13:47 (UTC)

Keep I think that the FARC was a little premature. If you'll let me explain what's going on, I hope you'll agree. Perhaps the article needs to be renamed, but its contents are definitely featured article quality.

1. 1. The POV tag and controversial tag were not about the contents of the article, but about the name. Some users believe that the article should be placed elsewhere (for example, at "right-libertarianism," with "libertarianism" being a disambiguation page) but they don't dispute the content. See this edit which led to the tags being added.
   2. The "edit war" you were referring to is because an anonymous user kept on inserting a complaint about other editors into the article's text [3], not an edit war about content.
   3. The RFC issues have been addressed in talk as far as I can tell. Both were about problem users that seem to have mostly given up and gone elsewhere.
   4. It is my understanding that Wikipedia can feature articles on controversial subjects so long as they are dealth with fairly. We shouldn't let trolls disrupt a good article.

I hope you'll consider removing your FARC in light of these facts. I think that the issue of the article name should be dealt with separately from the issue of its contents and whether or not it can be featured. Dave (talk) July 5, 2005 13:53 (UTC)

Remove, unless tags are dealt with I've taken the liberty of changing your votes to "keep" and "remove" rather than "support" and "object", it's clearer that way. Unless this article stabilizes, I'm afraid it has to go. Borisblue 6 July 2005 01:49 (UTC)

Keep. I can understand why there article attracts a lot of POV pushing. However, I believe that it is an excellent article with some dedicated editors willing to work on resolving their issues. As stated above, the article will always attract vandals and people who make poor edits. This isn't a reason to remove it. My suggestion is to give this article two months. If after that time it is still subject to edit wars, then bring it back up for removal consideration.--Alabamaboy 6 July 2005 13:36 (UTC)

Keep. Article does attact POV pushing, but it's nothing we can't handle. Article is still remarkably good, though could do with improving. - Ta bu shi da yu 7 July 2005 08:52 (UTC)

Remove. The tags need to go or the article will not seem credible. Peter ^Isotalo 18:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep. The current issues involve disruptive users, not problems with the article itself. Rhobite 15:33, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Agree with Rhobite. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:12, 2005 July 15 (UTC)

Keep. Agree with Dave, Ta bu shi da yu and Rhobite. --Serge 18:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Remove. This article is currently marginalizing some views that fall under the "libertarian" label, with editors excusing this by claiming that such views are minority or no longer in widespread use. Some of these same editors ignore similar facts in other articles (like anarchism), meaning that a double-standard is being applied across articles. This article needs to deal with libertarian socialism in a substantive way, via diambiguation of the entire thing, brief introduction along with NPOV definitions and charts, or some third option, rather than to ignore it, use POV language to imply that it is somehow less legitimate, or describe the use of the term "libertarian" in lib soc as nothing more than an adjective, rather than a political philosophy with a history and close tradition with libertarianism. Kev 10:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

With respect to whether the libertarianism article needs to "deal with libertarian socialism in a substantive way", it seems to me that the issue is whether the term libertarianism is used today, in English, in at least some NPOV contexts, to refer to the topic covered on the libertarian socialism page. If such usage is now decades old, which appears to be the case, then I believe that the reference to it at the top of the page is more than sufficient.

As to the allegation that there is a double-standard, I don't think this is the case. As far as I can tell, in the example given, the variations of anarchism that are "dealt with in a substantive way" on that page are generally and currently referred to as anarchism in English, at least in some NPOV contexts. The anarchism article does not deal with political philosophies that have "a history and close tradition" with anarchism, it deals with philosophies that are actually referred to as anarchism. Similarly, the libertarianism article should not deal with political philosophies that have "a history and close tradition" with libertarianism, but should deal with political philosophies that are actually referred to as libertarianism. --Serge 18:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

A recent vote overwhelmingly rejected moving the article to Libertarianism (capitalism) and having the article located at libertarianism cover all philosophies with that title. The "double-standard" across articles is not relevant to this article's featured status, as it is not something that can be fixed by modifying this article. Dave (talk) 15:30, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Removing articles about controversial topics is incredibly wrong-headed and smacks of POV-pushing (not accusing anyone but saying we want to make a precedent against this). — Phil Welch 08:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. Who's pushing what POV (most "Remove"-votes seem to be about the mere presence of a disputed-sign) and how can we possibly set a precedent that one of the FAC criterion should always be ignored? Why would we even have it then? I don't think we can separate articles from their conflicts since we're a collaborative effort. If an article can't handle a conflict which is supposedly irrelevant to the content, then it shouldn't be noticable in that article. As long as the sign stays up the credibility of the entire article will seem tainted to the average reader.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep. agree with dave and Rhobite. --Manveru 05:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Remove, unless tags are dealt with The argument over the name is a political one. The right gains by holding the status quo - Libertarian means pro-capitalist tendencies alone. Left gains by demoting those tendencies to variant. Choose your side or queue for hot dogs...[unsigned comment left by 82.69.29.92

Keep, as per reasons above. - Mailer Diablo 05:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Remove. Since the [Libertarian socialism] article has been removed as too controversial and lacking unanimous concensus, this should be removed for the same reason. Metamatic 04:26, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

That was a result of a decision reached between user:Sam Spade and user:Toby Bartels, not policy, as far as I can tell. If FAs must be unanimous, then this system of voting would be superfluous. Someone would just say it should be removed, and it would have to be removed, even if everyone else thought it was FA-worthy. Dave (talk) 15:47, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

BIG DELETE This is WIKIPEDIA not hippie leftist wacko islamist loving scum message boards--205.188.117.13 04:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Presumably no one is going to pay attention to this vote? Dave (talk) 15:33, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Keep Some is better than none, and its realy not that bad. This was a featured article, and example of prose and POV standards. --Cuimalo 05:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep. There really isn't a substantive NPOV dispute here; rather, there's a small number of contributors who object to the way the word "libertarianism" is used in English today. Their attempt to have the article renamed to fit their particular views rather than common usage was soundly rejected by the Wikipedia community, as reflected in the vote wherein a 2/3 supermajority opposed the proposed move. For them to continue to push the issue (as seems to be happening here) strikes me as an abuse of process, just like constantly renominating an article for VfD would be. --FOo 16:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Remove. Wikipedia's ongoing, uncontrolled libertarian bias is, not surprisingly, found in this article. Even with a NPOV rule, the right-wing libertarians still get there way here, being allowed to take over this article to promote themselves over other political views that use their name. It's sad that a potentially good service such as Wikipedia can be controlled so much by one political group; it's even sadder that they blatantly promote biased articles to featured status when it suits their ideology.

And, ya, go ahead and call me a troll if you want. I've been a loyal Wikipedia editor for some time, and one of the top contributors, but the bias that gets ignored here makes even me think that Wikipedia is not going to be a reliable source for a long time. -- LGagnon 02:31, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

No one is going to call you a troll, but you might want to say what is biased so it could be fixed. Should the criticism section be expanded? Dave (talk) 03:38, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness in your reply. I've unfortunately been on the bad end of slander here at Wikipedia when expressing a controversial viewpoint, which was takenly seriously despite its blatantly obvious lack of reliability (this reign of trolls is another problem with our current system, but that's a problem for another discussion), and thus I felt that I had to add that disclaimer just in case.

This article's definition of libertarianism as only the current "popular" use seems biased to me; a disambiguation page would be better to have here, as it would be less POV in that it wouldn't support one definition as the "true" one. This, however, is not the only libertarian bias I've seen at Wikipedia. Articles pertaining to issues that libertarians hold dear, such as globalization and free trade, have been favorable towards libertarian views as they do not go into enough detail on criticisms of these concepts (for instance, notice no mention whatsoever of sweatshops and related atrocities in either article, an important factor in criticisms of them). Likewise, anti-globalization had a POV scandal with fringe claims of anti-Semitism taking up a huge part of the article; even now, with that info forked to another article (which is still designated POV), it gets its own section in the article despite it being an extremely small one (a subtle yet noticable bias). Additionally, I once attempt to get an article (Jello Biafra) related to progressivism (which I guess one might consider an opposite view to libertarianism) to featured article status, yet it was rejected twice on shady grounds. The first time, it was given failure status a bit too early. The second time, it was given failure status on the basis of an objection that had been cleared up immediately after it was made. And dispite this, this article made it to FA status even though it is still POV.

Right now, the biggest problem with bias in the media these days is not just political bias, but the fact that the whole truth is not given. As it stands, we have many libertarians running Wikipedia and working to "improve" articles related to their beliefs without adding detailed criticisms (not surprisingly, I have found libertarians, whether online or offline, tend to make no attempt to research criticisms of their beliefs). This is a systematic bias, a thing that Wikipedia has discussed but never mentions the political side of it. In fact, Wikipedia has a page about systematic bias within the project (can't remember what it was called right now), yet it doesn't mention libertarianism in it. That doesn't surprise me, though, as the one page in Wikipedia that did mention it - Wikipedia's own article - had the part about it deleted. -- LGagnon 23:09, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I've had anything to do with the articles you've mentioned except this one. In fact, I wrote most of the content criticizing libertarianism on the Criticism of libertarianism page, which is summarized in the main libertarianism article. The one issue relevant here--the title--was dealt with at the recent vote. Dave (talk) 02:31, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Keep

Keep IMO this FARC nomination has more to do with the article's editors and the article's name than it does the article's content. . . 66.94.94.154 18:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment It would be nice if you could assume good faith. Hiding talk 08:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of Cape Colony from 1806 to 1870

Article is still a featured article.

This article does not meet the featured article criteria of being uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy.

I'd guess it's been taken from an ancient version of Encyclopedia Brittanica. It also seemed to have been nominated and accepted for featured article status without any South African comment. It's not neutral. The article continually mentioned kaffirs, which is the equivalent of an article on US history mentioning niggers. Probably being based on a colonial text, it describes in great details the British side of the story, but glosses over the Xhosa and Dutch sides.

Some examples: Considerable trouble was caused by the emigrant Boers on either side of the Orange River, where the Boers, the Basutos, other native tribes, Bushmen, and Griquas fought for superiority, while the Cape government endeavoured to protect the rights of the natives.

The Xhosa tribes gave the colony few problems after the war.

Read the article in detail for better examples, I need to run right now :) Greenman 2 July 2005 19:02 (UTC)

Well, as a South African who edited and wrote a fair amount of this article, I'd like to say there was a fair amount of South African comment on this article. The word Kaffir does not appear anywher int eh article. I also submit that the article is quite fair, and that other South African editors have not raised any objections to the issues you mention. Quite a bit is said about discrimination against the Xhosa, and I have also cleared up some of the more contentious paragraphs, although the Boers did indeed cause troubles by moving in in large numbers to an area that already was having issues with who owned what. Keep. Páll 4 July 2005 03:38 (UTC)

One other thing, this page is mostly used for articles that clearly fail to meet the FAC standard, such as lacking references or being clearly POV-biased. Your objections are either over a perceived lack of information, and some of the phrasing in the article, and thanks to you, the article no longer uses the word kaffir. Why don't you use the talk page so that we can all work together to fix your objections, instead of listing it here for removal from FACs over slight content disputes. Remember one of the Wikipedia maxums, "so fix it!" Páll 4 July 2005 04:24 (UTC)

There are two references to Kaffirs in the article:

The history of Cape Colony from 1806 to 1870 spans the period of the history of Cape Colony during the Cape Frontier Wars, also called the Kaffir Wars, which lasted from 1811 to 1858.

and

"The Kaffirs," in Lord Glenelg's dispatch of 26 December, "had an ample justification for war; they had to resent, and endeavoured justly, though impotently, to avenge a series of encroachments.”

Cannot see how these references are inappropriate. Do not support the removal from FA> . - Ta bu shi da yu 4 July 2005 05:21 (UTC)

Hit and run I see? :-P I have reason to believe this article was reviewed by south africans too. Could you supply some more specific examples? (Or {{sofixit}} of course ;-) ) Kim Bruning 4 July 2005 10:36 (UTC)

Comment. As I know little about this time and place, I cannot be sure if this is indeed POVed or not. The article may need some clarifications (expand on few problems and other not very clear adjectives in few places) but overall I think it's rather good. Greenman, I'd suggest you list here the complete list of POVed phrases and explain to us why they are POVed (pro-white? pro-black? pro-communist? pro-whatever?). Páll put many hours into working on this article, you can surely put few minutes into explaining to us your point. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 4 July 2005 09:54 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the comments and changes to date. Yes, I was guilty of hit and run, being in a hurry that evening :) I didn't mean to come across as unappreciative of all the work done - the article is excellent in its completeness, especially compared to so many other poorly-covered South African topics, and I'm very grateful for its existence.

However, the article comes across as pro-British to me, and I'm fairly certain that a key original source was an old British text such as the Encylopedia Brittanica. The term kaffir fell from official use early in the last century, and even more recent terms such as native have a predjudicial sound to them (perhaps this is hard to explain to someone not from South Africa, where 'the natives' might sound quite ordinary). Modern historical texts rarely refer to either word except in historical context.

With the gratuitious use of kaffir removed, the article does sound a lot better, and PZFUN's changes also helped. Here are some other sections that need minor improvement.

While the northern frontier became more secure, the state of the eastern frontier was deplorable, with the government either unable or unwilling to protect farmers from the Xhosa. ((deplorable for whom? The situation was deplorable for the Xhosa on the northern frontier too, and the 3/4-way dynamics (Boer, Brit, Xhosa, KhoiKhoi) are only mentioned from the govt (Brit) view.))

The change from slave to free labour proved to be advantageous to the farmers in the western provinces. ((the major advantage of ending slavery was the impact on farmers??))

The entire description of the War of the Axe is from a British colonial point of view. The Xhosa is a thief, the others murderers. No mention of the reasons for the aggression, of the dynamics within Xhosa society as their land disappeared.

Sir Harry Smith, informed of the increasingly threatening attitude of the natives, went to the border region and summoned Sandili and the other chiefs for a meeting. Sandili refused obedience, after which the governor declared him deposed... ((again, only one side of the story))

More than one unsuccessful attempt was made to kill Sir Harry, and he needed to find a way to escape. At the head of 150 mounted riflemen, accompanied by Colonel Mackinnon, he galloped out of the fort, and rode to King William’s Town through heavy enemy fire — a distance of 12 miles (19 km). ((detailed anecdote about Sir Harry and Colonel Mackinnon - nothing to balance this))

Their revolt was followed by that of the Khoikhoi at other missionary stations; and some of the Khoikhoi of the Cape Mounted Rifles followed their example, including some of the very men who had escorted the governor from Fort Cox. But many of the Khoikhoi remained loyal and the Fingo likewise sided with the British. ((again, this point may seem minor to some, but it reads as if a report in a British history text. The very men - how dare they! But the 'good natives' remained loyal :)))

After the description of cattle killings (a source from 1878 is described as giving a vivid account of this), comes: The depopulated country was afterwards peopled by European settlers... 2000 industrious North German emigrants, who proved a valuable acquisition to the colony. ((again, the Europeans are described as useful to the colony, while the Xhosa starvation is seen as a delusional sideshow, without a real attempt to understand it - some interesting analyses have appeared recently))

Sir George also attempted for the first time, missionary effort apart, to educate the Xhosa and to firmly establish British authority among them, which the self-destruction of the Xhosa rendered easy. Beyond the Kei River, the natives were left to their own devices.

The transfer was marked by the removal of the prohibition of the sale of alcoholic beverages to the natives, and the free trade in intoxicants which followed had most deplorable results among the Xhosa tribes.

I am happy enough to recant my suggestion that this article be removed as a featured article. It still has a number of flaws, but I acknowledge the work that has gone into it, as well as the difficulty of finding sources that provide a fair picture. Hopefully these objections can be acknowledged and the article continue to develop with some of these comments taken into account. Greenman 4 July 2005 11:36 (UTC)

Thank you for listing these. Now may I refer to {{sofixit}}? Páll 15:34, 4 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Brettingham

Article is still a featured article

Reads like an essay. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• There could be improvements, but I supported it then and support it still. Certain sections make it appear more essay-like, I agree; however, it's still an FA, IMO. Oppose. Geogre 13:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - seems fine to me. violet/riga (t) 21:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - OK I wrote it, but is remains basically unchanged since it was unanimously voted to FA status in January Giano | talk 06:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep featured, it doesn't read like an essay to me. Perhaps Ta Bu Shi would specify wherein he sees the essay-like qualities, or even better, edit them away himself? Considering the hard-nosed editors who voted to support this article in January—Geogre, Taxman, Filiocht, ALoan—it's a little hard to believe that there's what anybody would consider egregious or pervasive essay-likeness in it, although of course it's a quality that's determined by personal taste. It's not measurable in the way "no references" or "not comprehensive" are. For myself, I like a discernible individual voice, even in an encyclopedic article, I've always liked Giano's stuff, and I like this one. (Disclosure: I nominated it for FAC in January.) That said, I always rather did wonder how long people were going to stand for the sentence in the Lead section that compares Brettingham vs. Robert Adam to Salieri vs. Mozart. There, I've removed it; now the article definitely doesn't read like an essay, AFAIC. Bishonen | talk 12:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • If I had the time, I would. I'm not saying it's not a good article, it is. It just, to my mind, reads like an essay. The sole reasoning behind this is the conclusion, which seems, to my mind, to be pushing a POV. If that could be improved I would definitely withdraw the FA. I would like to note that I am not attacking Giano. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, there is a section that says to refer to Talk:Matthew Brettingham. In what way is this necessary or relevant to an FA? Talk pages must be seperated from articles themselves and should not be the main repository of info that is relevant to the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Now that you mention it, I do see some essay like writing in it, but Giano (the author) was quite confident everything was well supported by the sources he had. If you can point out specific writing that needs fixing, that would be a lot more helpful. Overall I still feel it is of featured quality. - Taxman ^Talk 23:30, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • The conclusion is the big thing. I feel that should be rewritten. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The only obvious essay-like element I can see is the title of the last section, "Conclusion", but this could be renamed: would "Legacy" fit? The link to the discussion of his input at Holkham Hall on the talk page could also be dealt with slightly more elegantly (for example, but explaining the issue in the text). But otherwise, I still think this is a Giano gem. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Yep, I would agree with that, but the one that bothers me the most is "However, the interior design of Norfolk House was to define the London town house for the next century...". According to whom? Also "as happened so often in Brettingham's career, to develop this design concept further and be credited with the success." How do we know Adams didn't simply offer more of the innovation? And "This commission might have been the ultimate accolade Brettingham was seeking." Is speculation if not attributed. It's a lot of phrases and conjecture like that that I see now that it's been pointed out. I thought it would be a lot more helpful to be specific than to just complain. While the article won't likely be removed, it would still be good to improve these issues. - Taxman ^Talk 03:31, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

• I will have to dig the reference books out again to check what fact came from where, I am away from later today for a few days or so, it will have to be later rather than sooner. Perhaps the nominator of this page's place here would like to carry out some improvements, or unlike FA itself, is the nominator's place in this hall of shame merely to be executioner. Either way he seems at present to be noticeable only for his absence. Perhaps now Taxman has given him some pointers he may show up. Giano | talk 06:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, though I've only dotted an i or two, myself. It does read like an essay: a concise encyclopedia essay sketching the career of an architect, without missing any essential commissions and without intruding any assessments that aren't widely shared mainstream opinions. Very well balanced, referenced and an example of top-notch Wikipedia work. Perhaps "essay" is a codeword for something. --Wetman 09:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment – Wouldn't it have been better if TBSDY had mentioned what was wrong on the Talk page first? Ahem User:Nichalp/sg 09:32, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Probably. Now that I have some time to review this, it was most likely a mistake to list this on FARC and as you suggest, probably should have raised my concerns on the talk page. I certainly never did it to attack anyone. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed status July

[edit] Belgium

Article is no longer a featured article

This article has several problems

• No citation at all, and no references
• It is poorly written and seems amatureish, plus it is in dire need of trimming/rewriting/editing
• There is only one image that is not a map, and even the maps are of poor quality
• The links are not organised in any way
• The article is slightly biased towards the Flemmish government

Definitely NOT featured standard, if you ask me! Páll 07:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Remove. No references. Lead is too short. Lot's of tiny paras. Nominated a year ago. A good example of how our standards are evolving. This would not pass a FA today. Remove and send to PR. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• 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)
• Comment - I have just added {{farc}} to Talk:Belgium (4½ days after it was first nominated). I think we should give its regular editors a chance to respond to this criticism. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think there would be any problem with starting the clock based on that time instead. Just gives more time to fix it if someone is able. - Taxman ^Talk 20:53, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I tried to improve on some things, but haven't the knowledge to fix others, such as the "history" jumping from 800 to 1800 in one sentence, after laboring over ancient stuff for several paragraphs.

The lead paragraph is still way substandard. And doesn't the article give their art and trade status remarkably short shrift? Sfahey 1 July 2005 04:14 (UTC)

• Remove The writing is very sloppy in sections. The link dump at the end needs trimming and organizing. ike9898 July 8, 2005 09:21 (UTC)

[edit] Removed status August

[edit] Vampire

Article is no longer a featured article

While it is comprehensive, it comes at the expense of a presentation that relies heavily on poorly-grouped lists of trivia. There is almost no use of references. On top this, the article is in the middle of an entrenched edit war. This article needs a major reworking by some fresh eyes. -- Norvy (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I would have to agree with all of that. The more new blood (heh) the better, as many of the most active people edit warring are anon users trying to restore completely unsourced and incorrect information and a guy who thinks vampires are real and wants the article to say that straight out. DreamGuy 03:55, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Keep as featured: Now that the sockpuppets have been wiped out and the couple of other edit warring editors have been blocked repeatedly for various offenses, this article has finally had a chance to progress. Unsourced material is now mostly removed, a lot of sources have been added, trivia has been mostly culled or moved, and it's a lot, lot better than it was. I think the complaints have mostly been taken care of already, and it's currently being worked on to improve the rest too. It's amazing what can be accomplished when the dead weight is cleared out. DreamGuy 00:02, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

This was closed prematurely before I had a chance to respond. I see that the article has come a long way, but I still don't think that it's up to FA status. My concern about overuse of lists still stands. As for references, there's a cleanup-verify tag at the top! A large portion is either unsourced, or is not attributed to a specific source. I'm happy to keep this listed here until this is hammered out, but right now, I don't think that there is a consensus that this represents Wikipedia's best work. -- Norvy (talk) 06:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I am hoping to put in some time on this article, and restore it to a more respectable condition. I believe it is currenly blocked, so I am starting by trying to facilitate agreement on the talk page, by making suggestions of compromise and specific courses of action. Since I don't know exactly what the meaning/purpose is of a featured article, I am not making a vote, only commenting, and hoping to be one of the fresh eyes that helps. BarkingDoc

DreamGuy is seriously pissing me off with his attitude, and his edits. He has gone on this ridiculous crusade of removing everything he considers fiction from articles without caring about whatever anyone else thinks about it. It's not without a reason that so many users are against him. And every user who's against him, is of course branded as something derogatory by DG. Whether it's an "anon" user, "sockpuppet" user, or whatever. DreamGuy has no flaws. The rest of us do though.

EliasAlucard|Talk 04:07, 09 Aug, 2005 (UTC)

OK... First up, that's got nothing to do with what's being discussed here. Secondly, I don't think suggesting that extensively detailed and trivial fictional representations should be moved to Vampire fiction (the article specifically about this topic) is at all a "ridiculous crusade" -- it's just common sense. And considering that you were recently banned for violating 3RR three separate times to remove inoffensive edits I made to articles, with the outright admission that you will not try to work with me on anything and will just undo whatever I do, it seems very strange for you to be claiming that I am the one with a problem. And, yes, the people I pointed out were sockpuppets of a banned user were proven to be so and banned, so don't complain about that either. Please take your personal conflict somewhere else, learn to work with other editors and deal with things as a mature adult. DreamGuy 08:35, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Remove "Being uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy, and not have ongoing edit wars" is no longer true for this article. The edit war may be over but there is still a lot of cleaning up to be done. It's been so for quite some time now, so why is this article still in the featured article list?? Jules LT 14:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

keep Why should an article like Vampire be removed? I don't get that. The word Vampire is very often used in today's society. Removing this article is preposterous.

EliasAlucard|Talk 12:57, 19 Aug, 2005 (UTC)

This isn't a VfD. We're not trying to determine whether vampire is notable enough to have an article, we're trying to determine if it merits featured article status. -- Norvy (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I see. Well, excuse me for my misunderstanding. I don't hang around much at these voting forums that exist here on Wikipedia. Kind of difficult to keep track on what's what. Anyway, I still vote keep for keeping it as a featured article status, because it's a subject that I have great interest for.

EliasAlucard|Talk 17:10, 19 Aug, 2005 (UTC)

When do these votes end? I mean, this Vf"featured article status removal" has been here for a lot of time, now. Could people please vote so we can move on? (I still hate the idea of people coming here from the "featured articles" page and seeing a big "content to be sourced" banner). By the way, we don't make articles featured articles because the subject is of interest (there'd be thousands) but because it meets the featured article criteria. Because of what I said above, this is no longer true, so this article shouldn't be a featured article anymore.Jules LT 08:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Remove since the referencing has not been dealt with. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. Still poor sourcing. All have been added later with no evidence they's been used. Plenty of unencyclopedic writing and conjecture, and poorly formatted and choppy prose. A bit better perhaps, but a ways to go. - Taxman ^Talk 22:59, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mitochondrial Eve

Article is no longer a featured article

From being a FA with only two support votes this has turned into somewhat of a brainfart. There are several problems with the article, it weasels its way around concepts that are as good as proven (we all have a more recent common ancestor than Eve), badly explains and possibly get wrong several important concepts (I have a degree in biology and I can't work out why a population bottleneck is implied or needed). Dunc|☺ 17:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Remove. Ambi 00:23,

26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Remove. That said, I hope someone will fix the article b/c it could be a good one.--Alabamaboy 11:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• cleanup, or revert to FA'd version. It could be saved with comparatively little effort by somebody who know's what they're doing. Failing that, remove, I'm afraid, see my comment on talk. dab (ᛏ) 06:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. I agree, there is something just not "feature article-ish" about it. And a stub section in a FA? Come on...--naryathegreat | (talk) 00:22, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup It's on the verge of FA. Karmafist 04:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hutton Inquiry

Article is no longer a featured article

I do not believe this article can honestly be said to be comprehensive. It deals only briefly with the conduct of the inquiry itself, before going on to sum up Lord Hutton's conclusions in a very dry and 'listy' form. A large part of the article is then given over to reporting what people in the press and public life have said about it. In my opinion the real impact of the Hutton inquiry came in the manner it was conducted and the evidence given to the inquiry rather than the report which was written rather badly, and (though I happen to agree with most of its conclusions) has largely been dismissed as a whitewash. I was prompted to put it up for removal by reading the latest British Journal of Political Science which includes a long article by Diana Coole analysing the Hutton Inquiry from a philosophical basis and asking (with Pilate?) "What is truth?". If it's that significant it deserves a better encyclopaedia article than we have here. David | Talk 09:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: Readers may be interested in the nomination and 'debate' over whether to feature this article, from February 2004. David | Talk 10:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I don't see why it's worse now than it was when it was listed. It seems like you missed your chance to object then, and are doing so now. It is your own responsibility to follow the WP:FAC page. Superm401 | Talk 00:18, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Playing the man not the ball? Please don't. For the record I wasn't a Wikipedian when it was proposed on Featured Article Candidates. I dispute that this was ever really of featured status because it really isn't an article about the Hutton Inquiry but about other people's reactions to it. Can you honestly say that one paragraph about the conduct of the inquiry is enough? David | Talk 10:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Remove - It's not any worse now than it was when featured, but standards have risen a great deal in the year and a half since then, and if nominated today I don't think it would pass. In particular, as the nominator says, the paragraph on the inquiry itself is surely inadequate, and the section about the report is not brilliant prose. It's a good article with a lot of content, but not an example of the very best of Wikipedia. Worldtraveller 14:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Remove Awful article. Dubious copyright tag on images.Borisblue 14:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. Ambi 00:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• If the proposer believes that it isn't supportive enough of the government maybe they should edit the article. It's not awful by any means. Secretlondon 15:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. I don't think it meets the current standards for Featured, in terms of depth or structure or writing quality (by which I mean too listy, too many quotes). Removing featured status might prompt those with an interest to improve it enough to get it up to current Featured standards. Rd232 22:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ROC presidential election, 2004

Article is no longer a featured article

I submit this for removal for a few reasons. First of all, it has no references at all. Second, the introparagraph is awful, poorly formatted, and repetative. Second, the writing is poor and non-standard throughout the article. Also, the one image that is not a map has doubtful copyright status. Thank you! Páll 13:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Remove. The article is chock-full of short paragraphs. Featured articles should describe each point they raise in great depth. At least one particular section only has a shallow description of the point it raises.  Denelson83  14:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Undecided. Why can't I access the discussion that lead to this article being selected as a Featured Article in the first place? When I go to the article's discussion page and click the "identified" link in the featured article box, the words "Added to History by Raul654" pop up (at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/ROC presidential election, 2004) My understanding is that all featured articles should keep a link to the discussion that lead to the article first achieving FA status. I would like to hear why this link isn't available. I will wait to make my final vote after I hear why this link was removed.--Alabamaboy 16:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. Not comprehensive, map is hokey, bad layout, no references, prose is not wikiworthy. Michelle T 21:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of South Carolina

Article was de-listed and re-nominated per a controversy with original vote - not a featured article

This article was recently presented and rejected as a featured article candidate. After its initial rejection, the author immediately renominated it. There had been major, substantive objections to the article by several editors, including myself. The repairs were superficial and inadequate, and the way the article was renominated meant that editors who had been following the process had no real notice a new nomination was in place -- instead, the old one appeared to be present but dormant. The editors who made the most detailed and specific objections did not support the new article, or withdraw this objections. This amounts to "gaming" the FA process, and while I don't claim that the author/nominator was acting in bad faith, the failure to notify the objecting editors and to invite them to review the repairs was a subtantial lapse. The problems with the article -- for example, the failure to address the "nullification" crisis and related political issues, the Indian Removal Act -- remain; the attempted repairs amount to adding fairly generic references to these matters, without reaching their substance. Monicasdude 14:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. If you have problems with the way this went through the FAC process, it may be better to open up this issue via Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. Previous experience tells me that this page is only here to allow removal in conformity with existing process, which is not what is requested in this case. Buffyg 14:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I object to it substantively as well. The treatment of the important historical issues mentioned is so inadequate as to mean that the article fails the comprehensiveness standard. It's not as though the issues are obscure or insignificant, yet their combined treatment is shorter and less detailed than the discussion of one barely-notable recent issue. Monicasdude 15:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Listing an article here only two weeks after it was promoted (2 August) is also "gaming" the FA process - the instructions above say Do not list articles that have recently been promoted—such complaints should have been brought up during the candidate period. ... [such] listing is likely to be summarily removed. Why didn't you object to the second nomination? The second nomination included a link to the first nomination, although it didn't explicit say that the old objections were addressed: do the other previous objections all still think that their objections have not been properly addressed? Why didn't they check whether their objections has been addressed when it was re-nominated? (The {{facfailed}} template was added on 25 July, after the first nomination failed, and then {{FAC}} was added again on 26 July, so I don't buy the argument that the contributors didn't know it had been renominated, although renomination immediately after failing is a little unusual). -- ALoan (Talk) 15:54, 18 August 2005

(UTC)

Why didn't I object to the second nomination? Because I had no notice of it. It was put up almost immediately after the first nomination failed, even though the author/nominator had said it required major work and would be put up "later." I had a "watch" tag on the original nomination, which didn't note any of the postings regarding to the second. Are you really saying that it's necessary to check the FA candidates list in detail day after day to see if the discussion you had taken part in had been replaced by a different discussion with the same name? Renomination immediately after failure is, I think, more than a little unusual, and fairness to the editors who put their own efforts in to commenting on the article should have prevented this from happening the way it did.

As for "gaming," I think that taking advantage of a gap in the guidelines, without explaining the circumstances (and without even putting the FAC tag on the talk page; that was added later, by someone else) can fairly be categorized that way. I'm not trying to take advantage of any gaps or avoid any guidelines. I'm looking for any appropriate place to comment on what I believe to be an abuse of procedures, whatever the author/nominator's intentions, and I think this is the most appropriate and most visible place to do so. I've been entirely open about my action -- the first line of the comment notes the "recent" promotion of the article -- and it's entirely unfair to suggest I'm "gaming" the process in an attempt to evade the spirit of applicable guidelines. Monicasdude 16:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep. As said above, the article should not be here b/c it was recently promoted to FA status. In addition, several of the people who voted against the article in the first FA round supported it in the second round. I remember when the article first came up for FA review and the major objection seemed to be that it's record of history stopped with the Civil War. As a result, the author corrected this. I'd suggest taking your objections about the article to the article's talk page and also editing the article to improve it.--Alabamaboy 17:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The objections I referred to dealt with the pre-Civil War 19th century period, and were dealt with only cosmetically; the editors, myself included, who raised such objections didn't vote in favor of the FAC. And raising the issue on the talk page does nothing meaningful to address the procedural question. I don't think it's fair to the editors who took the time to review and comment on the defects to allow their objections to be summarily dispensed with using a renomination process that didn't give them any real notice. Do you check the list every day to see if a discussion you commented on has been replaced by another discussion with the same name? Monicasdude 17:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Then I would raise the issue on the Featured Article talk page and with the editor who promoted the article before everyone had a chance to vote. If for a period of time the article's talk page did not mention that it was again a FA candidate, then that is an issue that should be raised. However, if you have issues with the pre-Civil War 19th century parts of the article, why not simply make the changed (under the Be Bold theory of Wikipedia editing). If your concerns are legitimate and you cite them with good references, the article's original editor will have to accept them or bring them up for a discussion.--Alabamaboy 18:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

There were 4 or 5 editors who made substantive objections and did not support (or even comment on) the renomination. I'm not competent to repair all the objectionable material, nor should it be the responsibility of the objecting editor(s) to write new text to cover obvious omissions. Whatever the motives of the author/nominator, the way this was done, even if technically within guidelines, allowed the second nomination to avoid the detailed review/comments that the initial nomination received, without really addressing the problems that were pointed out. Monicasdude 19:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, I'd like to make the point that the FARC process does not allow you to redress these problems at this time in this place. I would add the relevant tags to indicate the article's current defects for documentary purposes and ask the people managing the FAC process to consider whether there was a material oversight here. I'd reckon the page you were watching was moved, so you didn't see the new submission. If you believe that items were acknowledged in the first failed FAC and that it was a reasonable assumption that the second FAC should not have been submitted if these issues were agreed, you will be asked whether you saw the second FAC show up on the talk page of the article, which you ought to have followed along with the first FAC page. It is far more reasonable to allow that this was a reasonable mistake whereas the resubmission for candidacy was not. I do not, however, believe the FARC process cannot address those grievances because you are asking for an exception to the letter of one law to honour the spirit of another. Buffyg 19:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to be clear (see also the comments on User talk:Monicasdude and my talk page) - I think User:Monicasdude does have a point, and this may be a good place to draw attention to it, but it is not the right place to resolve it (I'm not sure appealing to the "letter" or "spirit" of the "law" is the right approach either - Ignore all rules ;). -- ALoan (Talk) 19:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

(responding to BuffyG) -- I'm going to have to be blunt. The author/self-nominator said, in at least two places, that she acknowledged major problems with the articles, that it required substantial work, and that it was "much too soon" to resubmit it. She then put it back up about 24 hours later, adding a few hastily written, superficial (at best) paragraphs; made no effort to communicate with any of the objectors, and didn't follow the established procedures for an FAC nomination. You're faulting me for believing somebody's acting honestly and in good faith, and ending up being hoodwinked. Where else should I have put comments like these, and would you support me if I put them there? Monicasdude 19:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

If your case is as clear as you claim here, my support is likely to be rather beside the point. I am neither one of the powers that be nor faulting you in the manner you claim; I am simply telling you that this means of appeal (FARC) is virtually certain not to be heard as legitimate because it is not the right forum and is in fact in manifest contradiction with the basic rules of this specific forum. I can say that what you've said of your case tells me that there are other forums where your case can get a hearing. I would advise you to seek out a user advocate and lay the issue out on Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. Buffyg 20:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I have raised this issue on Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. We will see if they have any insight on it or can work it out. --Alabamaboy 22:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep it on. No good reason outside of 'playing with the system'. -- A Link to the Past 00:19, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I honestly thought that it had improved enough since it was first first nominated to warrant nominating it a second time, looking at the differences between those two versions. I had only been with Wikipedia a week and I thought that there were people checking the FAC everyday. I thought that as long as it had undergone enough changes for it to meet all previous objects and FA requirements, which I thought it had, that it could be nominated a second time regardless of time. I'm sorry and did not mean to "manipulate the system." I deeply appreciation your criticism and would not like to see anything I say misconstrued as an attack. Toothpaste 00:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd say that is all perfectly understandable. I'd recommend taking taking into account Monicasdude's concerns and working out the edits on the article. This can only strengthen the article in the long run. Best, --Alabamaboy 14:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep My opinion of the FARC for South Carolina is that it is bull. Does this vote warrant count or I need to explain it further?--Kiba 01:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Unless you're eight years old, yes, you do. And you should review the Wikipedia civility policies.Monicasdude 14:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes. One of the best policies on Wikipedia for civility is to call those who disagree an eight year old. Get the Hell over it; the article is FA quality. Are you arguing that the people who voted on it are wrong, and you're right? All YOU are doing is being pedantic over this. You aren't FARCing this article because of its quality; rather, you FARCed it because it was renominated too quickly and you didn't notice it. Get the HELL over it. -- A Link to the Past 15:13, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

This response is an unreasonable characterisation and your line of argument borders on hectoring. Monicasdude is asserting that materials shortcomings addressed in the first FAC were not addressed before the candidacy was resubmitted. Monicasdude appears to have been reasonably confused about how to track the FAC and objects that this should not occlude the fact that changes made to allow for the second FAC were not reviewed by those who raised them in the first, just as Toothpaste appears to have been confused about the substance of the shortcomings and the appropriate means to verify that they were addressed. It is unreasonable to acknowledge on the one hand that "it was renominated too quickly" and then to pass over the question of whether that should call into question that outcome of that renomination. Without prejudice to this argument, I believe this simply needs to be addressed through another process, as this process is not intended to address shortcomings in the FAC process but defects thereafter introduced into FA articles. It is, to say the least, intemperate, for you to inject abrasive rhetoric where Monicasdude and Toothpaste are discussing with level heads and good manners. Buffyg 16:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Where am I? Is this some horrible world where calling someone an eight year old is considered good etiquette? What's next, "Good day, poopy face dop poop eater", is that going to become proper? -- A Link to the Past 17:42, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

No, you were not called an eight-year old. You said that you thought the FARC was "bull" and asked whether you needed to explain yourself further. That question need not be taken as rhetorical. Monicasdude said that the argument would not suffice "[u]nless you're eight years old," which would indicate that she took you seriously enough to ask you to explain yourself in a calm and reasonable fashion; I can't say exactly how seriously that would be. I'd argue that up to that point, the argument on either side was about demanding unambiguous civility. Rather than substantiating your point in good faith, you replied by arguing incivility with statements of the form "get the hell over it," which moved this from being a misunderstanding in which your possibly rhetorical question may have been taken earnestly but met with irony to a clear self-contradiction in which you argued incivility by being decidedly uncivil.

That was the wrong sort of irony for sorting things out. Please take a step back to let your head clear — you'll see that we are not elsewhere slipping down any slope of accepting bad etiquette if we can all now be gracious about this. Buffyg 18:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I was not called an eight year old, if you were to read closely in on this. Kiba called it bull (which isn't that proper of a thing to say), but then he made the insinuation that unless he's an eight year old, he should explain why it's bull. Personal attack or attack on an edit of theirs. Hmm... -- A Link to the Past 22:53, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for that bit of confusion. There is, however, a considerable difference between telling someone that it would be immature not to explain themselves and calling them an eight year old. In the instance at hand the first response is to ask someone to indicate clearly that they are not acting churlish by complying clearly with policy (there's no insinuation there); the subsequent response imputes a distinct act of incivility that isn't exactly what that person said and meets it with unambiguous incivility. I can see that you're cooling off and reconsidering with a measure of grace; please continue to do so. Buffyg 23:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment here. From discussion on Wikipedia talk:featured article candidates, I wasn't aware if this problem had been resolved or not, but I can see now that it hasn't. First, I'd like all the personal attacks to cease immediately. Second, I agree with Monicadude's comments that this nomination amounted to gaming the process (about which I am not pleased...). As the nomination itself was tainted, I think Monicadude was correct in bringing this problem to the FARC, despite the instruction to avoid bring up recently promoted articles. I wrote that requirement, you see - the reason was to avoid people nominating articles here that had recently been legitimately promoted; on the other hand, Monicadude has a point that this aritlce was not legitimately promoted, so I don't really have an issue with him bringing it to attention on this page. I'm tempted to resolve the problem by "defeaturing" it and renominating it on FAC, along with a paragraph explaining the situation. Comments? →Raul654 19:48, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thank, Raul. This seems eminently fair. Having been through a similar ordeal over the Anschluss entry, I thought it reasonable to refer Monicasdude to the FAC talk page first, since that appeared to be where the process failure happened. Unless there are objections here and given that the article has already been demoted, will this FARC be closed after a brief period to lodge objections? Given that the demotion is already done, it seems to me that it may be appropriate to go ahead and archive the FARC, as it's already been effectively actioned. Buffyg 20:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree--this is fair. I was naive in thinking that the situation was resolving itself. Doing as →Raul654 sayas will enable the process to be done in a fair manner. --Alabamaboy 21:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks: I agree, that would be the best solution. (I have removed this page from WP:FARC, by the way, although it is still in the FARC archive.) -- ALoan (Talk) 23:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Raul, too. Can we have a notice on the FAC page similar to the one we have here? It would have helped me out a lot when I first relisted it. Toothpaste 23:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed status September

[edit] Bioinformatics

Article is no longer a featured article

I like the areas of application, but this important science article lacks a lot of things: It's relatively short, lacks of a history of informatics, current and future developments, names and information of people prominent in this field... But the main reason is that it has received only 3 support votes during its previous nomination back in Feb 2004. CG 18:48, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

• No Vote. Even if there are only 3 support votes, that's still consensus. In addition, I dont think the article is any less deserving than, say, Blue Whale. That said, the article would greatly benefit from the suggested additions. --Alan Au 08:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. Aside from the above issues, the article is not effectively illustrated. The image of DNA is utterly generic and without relevance to bioinformatics. A simplified depiction of an alignment, or a screenshot of a bioinformatics program, or even simply some visual representation of a gene would be more worthwhile illustrations. --FOo 02:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Remove, images are a problem, as are the see alsos scattered about willy-nilly, and the "related fields" section. Also seems like it could use more citations and has way too many external links. Tuf-Kat 04:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I do however agree with Alan that 3 supports is acceptable. The original promotion was done correctly, and either the system failed because not enough people commented, or our standards were lower at the time (which is probable). It is a very nice article, but not FA-worthy. Tuf-Kat 04:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Remove Everyking 05:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chinatown

Article is no longer a featured article

There's no record of the discussion by which this came to be featured (or at least it's not linked from the appropriate place in the template on the talk page). Over time, the article has become a bit of a sprawling mess, circling around to some topics more than once, and with a good bit of mediocre writing. I put a little work into it myself a few months agoe, but it's more than I want to take on to get it back to FA quality.

Of course, I'd be very glad if someone does a rescue job, but it seems like no one has been "minding the store": that is, I'd guess that whoever once got this up to FA quality hasn't been keeping an eye on additions over time and integrating them into the article structure, and inevitably this article is a bit of a magnet for additions. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:06, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I apparently originally forgot to place this on Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates, so the clock should start now. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:45, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

• User:Hoary has now made some genuine stylistic improvements, but not enough, in my opinion, to get this back up to FA level. In fact, the fact that there are places where this user admits to not being able to decipher the intended meaning of a passage speaks volumes. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• Remove. I had thought about nominating this article myself. Even if it was re-edited to FA quality, the article is edited way too often, especially by Wikipedia newbies, to keep it there. Just trying to keep the Chinatown article regularly spell-checked is an impossible task. BlankVerse ∅ 04:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - {{fac}} was added by Dori on 10 April 2004. From poking around in the WP:FAC page history at around that date, here is the diff when Raul654 promoted it (actually a decent amount of discussion for that period). (The comment that the archived discussion cannot be found comes up so often, surely it should be in the FAQ...) -- ALoan (Talk) 12:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Io (moon)

Article is no longer a featured article

Originally promoted almost two years ago, this featured article doesn't really bear up too well to current standards. Io is one of the most fascinating and remarkable moons in the solar system, but the two sections covering physical characteristics and volcanism definitely don't do it justice, sadly. Worldtraveller 22:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Remove. It does not, or at a minimum, contains informations about its Atmosphere, observations, explorations, spacecrafts that visited it, future explorations, appearances. It is too short for a FA on such a prominent subject. CG 18:57, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fractal

Article is no longer a featured article

This article is quite skinny AND poorly organized. Note in particular the "examples" section which holds bits of everything. The article is also shallow as far as the mathematical theory is concerned. No references, and an external links section that needs a good amount of weeding. Was given featured status with minimum support back in 2004. Fredrik | talk 19:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Tentative remove. Looks like you're doing some useful changes on the article. I certainly don't think it's substantially below featured quality, although it certainly has rough points. Keep at it, and by the time that this vote expires (in two weeks) perhaps this will be a keep vote. --FOo 21:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral so far. I'm on the fence here. For one, I somehow missed this one when I went through looking for FA's without references, so it never got a request to fix that. Otherwise I would vote remove on principal. But other than that, the fact that it is superficial doesn't make a clear case for removal from featured status to me. I actually like it since it means I can understand it, and I probably wouldn't understand a treatment of the subject geared for a math PhD. That said, if you know of more deep level material that is important to the subject but isn't covered, then this article fails the comprehensiveness criteria also. Best would be to maintain an understandable coverage for as great a percentage of the article as possible, but also include the nitty gritty details where needed or better, in separate sections if possible. - Taxman ^Talk 20:46, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. On the one hand, the article meets almost all FA criteria. In fact, the only criteria on which it fails is that it lacks a References section, which is easily fixed. And it's not shallow - it is deliberately written at an introductory level suitable for the general reader; if you want the mathematical detail, take a look at Hausdorff dimension, Mandelbrot set and the other articles on specific fractals. OTOH, if this wasn't a FA, it would get less attention from well-meaning folks trying to "improve" it by adding a link to their favourite fractal gallery. FA status can make articles worse. Gandalf61 13:24, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Though the votes above are tentative and neutral, the objections contained therein, namely the lack of references, have not been rectified (even though the article has been on FARC for five extra days). I am defeaturing the article; No Vote. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Morphy

Article is no longer a featured article

In short, no external links, no definitive references. It pains me to nominate this as someone has put a ton of work into it, but this page has a ton of problems with it for an FA (for which, coincidentally, I cannot find the original nomination page). To start, it has minimal references, none of which go back to multiple statements, claims, grandiose language, and quotes scattered throughout the article. This might not be a problem if, from the gate, the article wasn't making claims which call out for definitive sourcing. I can list them all if necessary. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> - 06:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Remove. it is disturbing that no record of the original FAC can be found. The lack of references combined with this makes me seriously question the article.--Alabamaboy 16:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. Similar problems as Karpov article. Monicasdude 16:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Montreal Canadiens

Article is no longer a featured article

This article is no longer featured quality because of these reasons:

• No references. There is no policy that says the references requirement is not retroactive. Help make wikipedia the most authoritative and accurace source of information in the world.
• It has a bit too many fair use pictures. One has no copyright information.
• Shouldn't it have a list of team records holders (eg: most career goals, assists, points, etc?)
• The facts section mostly duplicates the team box.

Michelle T 21:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Issues with hockey team page formatting are discussed here: Ice Hockey

• Remove. Having no references is enough for me (it's been plenty long enough), but add in way too much lists, poorly formatted prose, and the image problem and its a definite, I'd say. - Taxman ^Talk 22:49, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 08:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Remove Above criteria can be modified, however, I don't think the article even when these are changed is of FAC standard.--Knucmo2 00:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Remove For most of the reasons previously mentioned. The year-by-year results section is really large as well. It's got some good ideas behind team page formatting though, particularly the infobox. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anatoly Karpov

Article is no longer a featured article

This article is rather inconsistent. Like many articles on the great GM's it skips a lot over their early career successes, also the name of the section itself is "Grandmaster", which is rather erroneous and could be more detailed. Furthermore, there are several inaccuracies in this article, one of which I corrected.

1. The first one was that Anatoly Karpov suffered a mental breakdown in his 1984 WCC match against Kasparov. While it is a fact that he lost 10kg, and suffered a physical collapse, and was subsequently hospitalised as a result, there is no evidence that Anatoly suffered any mental instability.

2. The article states that: "Korchnoi's offering to play under the Jolly Roger flag when he was denied the right to play under Switzerland's." This is false. Raymond Keene suggested to Korchnoi to play under this flag after being refused to play under the Netherlands flag.

3. The article states that: "Karpov's Dr. Zukhar who attempted to hypnotize Korchnoi during the game, to Korchnoi's mirror glasses to ward off the hypnotic stare." This has never been proven that Zukhar tried hypnotizing Korchnoi, and such accusations resulted because of an abberant association between Parapsychology and Zukhar. Korchnoi's reasons for the glasses were actually to ward off Karpov's stare, which had irritated him in their 1974 match. If the article is to mention such controversies, it is better being wrote in an uniequivocal neutral, factual style

Another problem with this article is that there isn't even a picture of the man himself, save a minute thumb of him playing Kasparov, which is a side-on photoshot anyway.--Knucmo2 14:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep for now All of the problems you raised can easily be corrected. Why not just edit the article to make the changes? I'm not convinced that these problems rise to the level of the article being removed. That said, the article needs references. Why not address these issues by editing the article and raising the issues on the article's talk page. If the issues are not addressed in a month or two, then I would vote to remove the article.--Alabamaboy 16:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for now I agree with Alabama. In the specific case of the picture, there originally *was* a picture on it, but was removed due to the recent push to delete images with lack of information on its background. --Etaonish 18:39, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Even so, if the changes are made (they are not so 'easily' corrected), I don't believe the article is still near FAC quality. I would suggest as an alternative putting it through a few rounds of peer review.--Knucmo2 14:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Remove. The prose is not encyclopedic (the hyperbole in the intro is telling); the chronology moves backwards and forwards, and there is very little discussion of Karpov's actual chessplaying. It's like one of those bad band articles which gives a titles-only discography, a list of chart positions, and a roster of member changes, but never gets around to whether the band plays country&western, power pop, or death metal. Monicasdude 19:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Remove Not deserving of featured status. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)