Wikipedia:Featured article review/Shoe polish/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 18:44, 22 February 2008.

[edit] Shoe polish

[edit] Review commentary

This article is quite unreferenced, having entire paragraphs/sections without a single footnote. In my opinion it wouldn't meet the criteria even for a GA-class article. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, this is User:Neil's pride and joy. Eurocopter, can you please drop him a note about this review. Marskell (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling this FAR is chiefly motivated by Eurocopter being annoyed I blocked one of his countrymen. See User talk:Anittas for context. Irrespective of that, the article is fully referenced - it was given featured status a long time ago now, when inline citations were not deemed mandatory. All references are presented on the article. The fact they are not after every single sentence is a stylistic issue (personally, I feel we've gone way overboard on requiring everything to have its own reference) stemming from its FAC being back in November 2005. I count 20 references, so "quite unreferenced" is untrue. Neil ☎ 00:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry Neil for respecting WP guidelines in this case, but it clearly doesn't look like an FA to me. Also, it doesn't meet WP:FACR 1.(c). I will have a closer look at this article to see if it meets all other criterias properly. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say that based on the current FAC criteria, 1(c) is the one that may not be fully met at present - it does depend on whether you require all facts to be directly cited (they are all referenced, but the reference tends to be at the end of a paragraph or section, rather than at the end of every sentence). 1(a),(b),(d),(e), 2, 3 and 4 are all met. Nevertheless, that is a stylistic issue that can be remedied fairly easily. All that needs doing is some copying and pasting of reference cite tags to have all appropriate sentences referenced directly. My net access is limited at the moment as I'm in the process of moving house. Give me a month or so and if it's not remedied, then by all means revisit this review process then. Neil ☎ 09:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that means I should assume good faith, even if you didn't do this in one of your recent actions - actualy you didn't want to reach a compromise supported by many other people, not just by me. So, you would like to be treated well by the others, while you don't assume good faith in your actions. I'm sorry, but I can't do this. Maybe it is better to work out on the article after you move, and then propose it again for FA when it will be fully prepared. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that statement proves you're solely doing this to make a point. It would be great if whoever reviews these could close it and we can all move on. If I haven't sorted the cites out in a month I'd have no objection to this being reopened. Neil ☎ 17:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

My point is that wiki rules must be respected and good faith should always be assumed. That's why this review will not be closed. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"Maybe it is better to work out on the article after you move, and then propose it again for FA when it will be fully prepared." What is this? Please comment on the content.

This can probably be closed soon. Sandy has helped unpack the ref info (access dates and so one, though the date formatting is inconsistent), which was my first concern in looking at it. I think the LEAD could say a little more and the single sentence Other methods should be incorporated into the rest of it or expanded. Otherwise, there's not a lot a to do. As noted previously, a cite should cover everything behind it until the last ref; if Neil is telling us the article does that, we can trust him. If there's any particularly startling statement you think needs a ref Eurocopter, list it. Marskell (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please merge the one-sentence section ("Other methods") somewhere? Marskell, which date formatting is inconsistent? The article uses manual formatting, so I may have missed something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually added some fact tags and a template where I thought it was necessary. Also, the lead has to be expanded a bit to meet WP:FACR 2(a). Sincerelly Marskell, if this article would be a Featured article candidate (in its current form), would it ever be promoted to FA in this days?? --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There's something wrong here that I don't know how to fix, because I don't speak this language. Some of the footnotes are not being generated in the citations, for example: Kiwi was acquired by the American company [[Sara Lee]] following its purchase of Reckitt and Colman in 1991 and Knomark in 1987. {{ref label|rCOMP2|1|b}} They also have spaces incorrectly forced before the footnote. What is rCOMP2 ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Aha - a few references had been overzealously removed (basically, any reference about Kiwi shoe polish). They have been recovered and restored. Should be better now. I'll continue to work on it. Neil ☎ 10:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, I meant the accessed date formats. I think I've fixed most, using "Accessed November 29, 2007." I much prefer this, although the templates are coded for "Retrieved on 2007-11-27." Marskell (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Those ref labels are still dead and need to be fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC) I guess that wasn't very clear; see two citations in flagged in the "Modern day" section; they go to dead reflabels. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. A reference had got lost in the ether some time over the last 2 years. Recovered and restored. Neil ☎ 11:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, unless anyone has more citation needs, the current citation formatting is good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There are still many paragraphs without a single citation, but if you think this article would pass an FAR in its current form, feel free to close the review. --Eurocopter tigre 12:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This one is very close. I suggested a few more references to Neil. Marskell (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Add some sourcing to "Surge in popularity" and I'll be a Keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Delist The Lead is still inadequate. It is at once too short (doesn't fully summarize the article) and trivial in places (for example, the dialectical slang for one particular location). The article has serious flow and referencing and other problems, for example look at this sentance from the "usage" section:

"A floor cleaning product called 'Klear' is often used as an alternative. However, it can fade black leather blue when exposed to moisture and crack over time. Used by some cadets, it is not at all recommended, as the extreme results are obvious and could be unfavourable in inspections."

It is completely unreferenced, and doesn't even seem to belong in the part of the text it is included in. Cadets? Cadets where? The whole article suffers from these problems, and it would seem that given that it has been under FARC for months, has had adequate time to be fixed. It hasn't, and thus should be removed from the FA list... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Do your homework - that section on "Klear" was added recently, after I'd initially addressed all the points of this review. I've now removed it as it is indeed original research and unhelpful. Back in December I fixed all these problems, and thought the article had been removed from FARC (I do not know why it remained). The rest of the article does not "suffer from these problems"; please do point out any examples and I will try and resolve them. Neıl ☎ 11:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have asked Neil for an update. I'll admit that some of these FARs are getting so long that people seem to forget about them. Marskell (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought it had been removed back in December. You and Sandy asked for more references and I put them in - I didn't actually check to see if the review had been closed, though. Neıl ☎ 11:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Removing the bogus new stuff has improved the article. I would still like to see the lead expanded somewhat. My concerns over the lead haven't been addressed, but I suppose we can let that slide... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I did expand the lead somewhat, mentioning the rise of leather shoes, the World Wars, and the Kiwi brand. For a shortish article, I think the lead is an appropriate size.

Neil, this remained open for the simple reason that I didn't have enough comments to close it. I'll do so soon unless Jayron has other examples of flow problems? A few people did go over it and I don't have issues with the flow. Marskell (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for expanding the lead. It seems much better. The rest of the article reads fine, and I will not hold this up any more. From my perspective, you can close this review, this is a fine article as it is now. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Tim. You are the bestest. Neıl ☎ 16:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.