Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pages are moved to sub-archives based on their nomination date, not closure date.

See the Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/archive for nominations under the previous FARC process.

[edit] Archives

Contents


[edit] Kept status

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 by User:Marskell 09:33, 8 June 2008 [1].

[edit] Gangtok

[edit] Review commentary

Wikiprojects listed on the talk page and User:Nichalp have been notified.

The article does not follow most of the FA criteria including, 1b, 1c, 2a and 2c. This article is not worth more than a B rated article. Huge editing is required for this purpose. Amartyabag TALK2ME 02:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I would need your inputs on this: When you say that 1b is not satisfied, what points do you have in mind that need to make it more comprehensive? =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't know about other points but 2c is not satisfied. Even the meagre 6-7 refs are not formatted ie. publisher and accessdate are missing. This article desperately needs inline refs. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 07:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Inline references can be easily fixed, so I'm not so worried about it. 1b requires more time to research, add, copyedit and reference. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I suggest looking at the Darjeeling article for 1b. Specifically, the history section needs some work (for example, the status of Gangtok and Sikkim during British times is not at all clear), and you should add something on Education and Media. For 1c, you will need to find many reliable sources. Too many to point out here but these should be easily available (IMHO). 1d and 1e are fine. Style: 2a is fine though it needs something to 'draw' the reader in, what makes Gangtok special (see the Darjeeling article for example). 2b ok. 2c, well it needs many more citations.--RegentsPark (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Just a note: Gangtok was never under the direct control over the British. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I feel point 1a is mostly violated with section "Localities" added to the article. Unless the locality is really of encyclopedic importance(historical,geographical,political,economical,etc...) it should not come into the article. People simply ignore such sections and scroll down the article to read more. --gppande «talk» 08:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see someone removed the localities section. Thanks ! --gppande «talk» 19:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

One more question - why is there a vertical photo gallery in top half of the article? As such, the bottom section completely lacks images. Rumtek monastery is mentioned many times in the culture and city institution section but photo lies in upper half of the article. Any specific reason? --gppande «talk» 19:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Many of the images were added after the article became featured. Please have a look at the version of the article when it got featured. Probably during later addition of the images, those were added haphazardly, leading to the apparent disorganization.
Yes, the "localities" section has been removed. And other works are being done gradually.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I tried to fit the images as per section. --gppande «talk» 16:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Ya, the images are all mixed up. I'll try and source some better looking images. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I was surprised to see how much the article has changed. Well, one big question, even in FA version, the civic administration is saying, Gangtok is governed by municipal corporation. Fact is, it was abolished in 1985 and responsility lies in hands of Urban Development and Housing Department[[2]]. As such there is no special body for Gangtok and UDHP takes of major towns in Sikkim. Isn't there a wrong information in both current and FA version? --gppande «talk» 15:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a good point and reference you have raised. Please go ahead and correct any errors you find. And also, if you can manage some time, please add citations. You can go through the list of webpages Nichalp has provided in the talk page of Gangtok. Regards,--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
It's under a municipal corporation now. [3] =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Right, after intensive google search, I found the first elections for GMC will be held on June 11, 2008. http://beacononline.wordpress.com/2008/04/02/civic-polls-in-sikkim-on-june-11/ Maybe this can go in the section. --gppande «talk» 10:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Sections Geography, Economy, Civic governance, Media, Transport and Demographics have now been thoroughly cited. --gppande «talk» 15:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Update - This version was at the beginning of the FAR. This is the present version. Major works have been done in sections such as Geography, Climate, Economy, Civic governance etc. Inline citations are being added, formatted and improved. About a third of work has been completed. --Dwaipayan (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Disclaimer - Sikkiminfo says that it is not fully reliable and the user has to double check for themselves....Also holidayiq seems to be user contributed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

holidayiq removed. Sikkiminfo has been used to support some non-exceptional sentences, such as the cable TV service provider of the city,and newspapers printed in other cities reaching on the same day in Gangtok. I believe foe such sentences, "sikkim info" (whose information, as they say in the disclaimer, are for general use only) can be used. However, if reviewers insist, no problem in removing the citations.
Otherwise, have tried to provide RS citations. The lead will soon be dealt with by Nichalp, as well as general copyedit. The article has been made comprehensive.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we want better than this for a FA. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to Sikkiminfo being used as a source, since they aren't qualified in this field and are just running their own website. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for the clarification. Sikkiminfo will be removed. Taking some time in case RS is found to support the sentence. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
sikkiminfo references replaced/removed. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments- Woh!!! what a improvement in the article quality. Good works guys. There is no etymology section or a paragraph as per the norms of Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities· Pls try to add it. I will comment more when i get time. Amartyabag TALK2ME 16:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
It use to be there in lead of the article till holidayiq citation was removed for doubt on it accuracy. How about using this. It says The literal meaning of the word Gangtok is ‘hilltop’. The website's about us page says the infomation is correct according to them. --gppande «talk» 16:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
While the source provided by GPPande (indiasite.com) is more reliable then the user-generated holidayiq, still it's status is somewhat like sikkiminfo.net. That is, IMO, the site's info are ok for general use. However, the etymology is not exactly a general use. Etymology needs more solid sourcing. Since we could not find such a source, IMO, we may have to part with the etymolgy.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b), referencing (1b), and LEAD (2a). Marskell (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Looks good to me! Some quick specific suggestions:

  • I think it would be useful to say what kind of pilgrimage center (I assume for Tibetan Buddhists) in the lead. Other than that (an a few minor grammatical errors) the lead looks good.
  • History is good (I think I can help with the missing citation but gotta get to the library). Except for the last two sentences which are an odd shift from the political history in the paragraph (as well as the rest of the section). Plus, the major disaster goes unexplained (I assume it was a landslide but that is not clear).
  • More later (though probably not much) but a quick question if someone happens to know the answer. Is the Raj Bhavan the former Residency of the British Representative? If yes, I have a nice photograph of the gardens from the early 1900s that I can upload. --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 23:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Note Here is the version that was nominated for FAR. Here is the diff between FAR and FARC version.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments : *Kindly resolve the [citation needed] tags.

  • I think you need to reword the following section, Flora around Gangtok includes temperate, deciduous forests of poplar, birch, oak, and elm, as well as evergreen, coniferous trees of the wet alpine.[13] Densely forested regions of these evergreens lie just around the town. A wide variety of rare orchids are often featured in flower shows around the city.[13] Sunflower, marigold, poinsettia, and other flowers bloom in November and December. Bamboo grows in abundance along the slopes of Gangtok, providing a perennial source of spring water, which originates from the roots of the trees. In the lower reaches of the town, the vegetation graduates from alpine to subtropical and temperate deciduous. It seems like copy-paste from http://jnnurm.nic.in/toolkit/GangtokCdp/Chapter-2.pdf . pls do the needful.
  • Use {{rp|pp.00}} template for PDF files. Pls see Kaziranga for the usage. Amartyabag TALK2ME 11:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding use of the {{rp|pp.00}} template, its use may make prose harder to read. Still, we;ll use in some instances to see how it looks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The description of flora has now been re-worded.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The suggested criteria concerns have been addressed. The article now meets all the criteria. The difference between the FAR version and the present version shows the improvement.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep – The etymology section can be omitted as it is too short to be included in a standalone section. Other than that, the article has improved significantly. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Good work here. Will keep. Someone should either provide full publication info for the three books in References or remove them if they are not used in the article. Marskell (talk) 09:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Removed those books. They were used in the past in the article. However, the present version hardly used them. And the references of the present version are entirely stated in "Notes" section. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I believe the article is now better organized, has better images, better data and looks to be written like pro. Please keep. --gppande «talk» 14:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 by User:Marskell 09:33, 8 June 2008 [4].

[edit] Free will

[edit] Review commentary

previous FAR
Main contributors, philosophy and religion projects notified.
  • Lead section should be about twice its current length to meet the lead section requirements and therein summarize the article properly, especially considering the great length of the article (I note that this was missed in the last FAR, though this hardly surprises me...)
  • Too much attention seems to be given to (free will in) Buddhism and Hinduism, especially the latter which is also treated in free will in theology, which has its own summarized section further down. If it's to be part of the broader theology article it shouldn't be treated specially here too.
  • It seems that editors are struggling just to keep the article maintained (maintenance not being a requirement, though it should be). I (having been recruited to help out, even though this is a topic I know little about) reverted a dubious edit tonight that had remained for 3 days [5].

This was made an FA very early on in the history of Wikipedia, and though it has survived a review a couple of years ago I don't think it quite meets current standards. I have been putting off an FAR for some time but it's clear the problems aren't going to be addressed very quickly. The article needs some time to improve (and hopefully find some knowledgeable guardians); only then can it return to FA status. Richard001 (talk) 11:39, April 24, 2008

Part of the issue with this article is that all of the editors who have worked in the past to maintain and improve the article, including User:Lacatosias, User:Bmorton3, and User:SnowFire have all since been driven away from wikipedia, and no qualified editors have come along to replace them (check their edit histories, and see BMorton's note on his talk page). I myself am much less active now due to real-life work-load, and can barely keep up with the trolls and vandals to keep the page from going backwards. A look at the diff between the version that was "kept" in the previous FAR and the current version shows that there have been some changes, some good, some not as good [6], but overall, the current version is recognizably similar to the version that was kept. Unless some new editors materialize out of thin air (despite the fact that they haven't so far, in several attempts to elicit help), or the FAR editors decide these concerns are not sufficient to de-list, this article will be de-listed. I absolutely cannot do the work it would take to keep the star. Edhubbard (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that this malformed nom wasn't submitted until April 25; please notify per the instructions at the top of WP:FAR, following the sample on other FARs listed on this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Diff since last FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you in agreement that it isn't up to FA standard anymore though, Edhubbard? I'm the only one that's saying it isn't; you're free to disagree with me (or are you? [free will humour]). Richard001 (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have trimmed some of the Buddhist/Hindu content and consolidated the sections. Skomorokh 16:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it as a section on Eastern philosophy (<speaking of short leads!) rather than religion changes my mind somewhat on the balance issue, but it still seems slightly awkward that free will in theology still includes a section on Hinduism. But the universe isn't exactly packaged into non-overlapping categories (or magisteria, if you like (and there's a 'good article' with a crappy lead too)). To be pedantic I think we should change the 'main article' tag to 'further information', since a true summary of the F.W. in theology article would mention Hinduism too. That basically just leaves the lead. I've read the article a couple of times myself but I think I would still have to read it once again to compile a longer summary for the lead. Maybe someone more familiar with the subject/article could take a shot at it? I might even have a go myself if nobody else can manage, if it's going to save it from delisting. Richard001 (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
It's absurd to use the term "philosophy" to refer only to modern and contemporary Western philosophy, as the article did. You would be hard pushed to find a clearer example of systemic bias. I do think the Hindu/Buddhist sections are more philosophy than theology, but if we are to have a Philosophy section and a Theology section, the theology and philosophy of Hindu/Buddhism should be separated. In contemporary Western philosophical circles, what this article refers to as theology is simply philosophy of religion, which might be the way to go here. I'll have a go at the lede in the next few days if no-one else bites. Skomorokh 11:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are LEAD (2a), focus (4), general cleanup (2). Marskell (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yes, ideally there'd be some clean-up: for instance the lead would be expanded, and the article isn't quite as obsessively referenced as is the current standard at FAC (for good or for ill). Some attention by people versed in the topic could no doubt give it some polish. But overall I find this a quite impressive article that still stands up well. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think we need to decide on this one. If it doesn't meet the lead criteria, it should be a straight fail regardless of any other reasons for keeping. I'm way too busy at the moment to expand it, so unless somebody else does soon I think it should be delisted. See the 'to do' list for other concerns. Richard001 (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sorry Richard. First, there normally has to be enough votes on something for any action to be taken, and it looks like this hasn't generated enough responses in months now. In fact, since it's been in FARC for almost a month with no movement, it seems that there is really no hope that it will generate enough of a response to make it better, or to delist it (that is, it is not for you to decide what must or must not be done with the article, that is for the FAR "cabal" to decide). Second, while I admire your motives, there are so many other articles that are so much worse that we should all be working on that I just can't justify this. No, it's not perfect, but it's not as bad as you keep making it out to be. Edhubbard (talk) 07:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the lead as a dealbreaker. It is short but it mentions all of the sections at least briefly. An extra sentence or two wouldn't hurt. Might also trim the See also and External links a touch. Beyond that, I am going to keep this as it's overdue. Marskell (talk) 09:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 by User:Marskell 16:19, 6 June 2008 [7].

[edit] Chola Dynasty

[edit] Review commentary

Wikipedia:WikiProject Former countries, Wikipedia:Noticeboard for India-related topics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages, Wikipedia:WikiProject Tamil civilization, User:Sundar, User:Vadakkan, User:Ravn, User:Venu62 notified.

Most importantly, fails 1c. Several sources are suspect or incomplete. I asked for source details long back on the talk page and havent received any responses. Also fails 2c, 1a and perhaps few/many other criteria. However, without the all important 1c being taken care of, it would be difficult and indeed unnecessary to critique this article further. 19:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarvagnya (talk • contribs)

  • Thanks, Elcobboal. regarding Image:Uttama coin.png, the image's source has released all images under {{Cc-by-2.5}} at the bottom of the page. Doesn't that override the non-commercial statement inside? I'll get back on the other images. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 13:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That's an interesting contradiction. I'll buy that it overrides; they explicitly mention Wikipedia and provide a link directly to the CC-by 2.5 license. Thanks for the catch. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 13:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Further,

  • Note: the nominator's original concerns have been answered on the talkpage, and rested upon an apparent misunderstanding of footnotes. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
ah.. the fine art of trolling! for the record, no. My concern about footnotes has not been addressed. I asked for details (book, p #, ISBN etc) for the citations and was simply told that the "citations" were in fact, "footnotes". Apart from the fact that even footnotes have to indicate where they're coming from (it would be OR otherwise), what we need there are "citations". You dontcite sentences and paragraphs with "footnotes". And, this one below, is an instance of a "footnote"(?) masquerading as a "citation" --
^13 - Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland By Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland
Can somebody show me the "footnote" part in the above "cite"? Sarvagnya 17:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations! You just called me a troll! You win a small cup, and the admiration of all comers for your sensitivity, accuracy, and regard for our policies!
I'm glad that of the 20-plus footnotes you complained were "malformed" you managed to find one which was not cited. Well done! You're right, that completely justifies your statement above.
About "even footnotes must be cited" - well, certainly. Except when, of course, they're footnotes, placed there, as guidelines suggest, to not break up the flow of the prose. Have fun accusing more random people of trolling, and helping, in your small way, make this project a better place! --Relata refero (disp.) 18:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Comments on "Early Cholas" and "Interregnum" sub-sections
  • This reference needs more information. As it is, it doesn't make much sense to me. <ref name="sangam">lorem ipsum</ref>
Done.
  • Inside the citations, whatever written in non-English will not be readable and hence not verifiable. They can just be avoided. Eg: <ref name="sun">"செங்கதிர்ச் செல்வன் திருக் குலம் விளக்கும்" - [[Manimekalai]] (poem 00-10)</ref>
Done.
  • In the Interregnum subsection, two sentences in the first paragraphs start with "Little is known .." and both are uncited. They will need to be rewritten with proper attribution to reliable sources.
Modified one sentence, provided citations for both.
  • The Pallavas and Pandyas seem to have left the Cholas alone for the most part; however, possibly out of regard for their reputation, they accepted Chola princesses in marriage and employed in their service Chola princes who were willing to accept it. – Reads more like a speculation; and source information is not clear. Needs to be reworded and book and author information needs to be provided.
I'm not entirely sure about this one, am still looking for a citation. If I cannot find any, I'll probably just remove the sentence.
I have now modified this sentence and added citation. --Madhu (talk) 04:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang, who spent several months in Kanchipuram during 639 – 640 writes about the 'kingdom of Culi-ya'. – Not sure how this sentence is relevant to this article. Needs to be addressed.
Sentence modified and placed at a more logical location.
  • Despite this loss in influence and power, it is unlikely that the Cholas lost total grip of the territory around Urayur, their old capital. – How? Needs explanation and reference.
Sentence now reads - Despite this loss in influence and power, it is unlikely that the Cholas lost total grip of the territory around Urayur, their old capital, as Vijayalaya, when he rose to prominence hailed from this geographical area. Does that make sense? Added citation as well.
  • However, nothing definite is known of their connection to the early Cholas. It is possible that a branch of the Tamil Cholas migrated north ... – Again, reads as a speculation and unreferenced. The phrases such as "nothing definite" , "it is possible that" etc must be best avoided unless they are direct quotes of scholarly opinions. Citation needed. - KNM Talk 21:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Changed to However, it is not known if they had any relation to the early Cholas. to be in sync with the source. Citation added. --Madhu (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments on Chalukya Cholas subsection
  • The entire subsection is uncited. Needs to be well referenced per FA criteria. - KNM Talk 22:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Added citations for the entire section (and various other sections as well). Please review the modified article and let me know if you still have any pending concerns. --Madhu (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments Needs a copy-editing run through. The "Later Cholas" section looks terrible, no refs, no links, and should perhaps be moved out to a sub-article, with the essential points retained and clean-up. The sources in the "References" section are 4/5 by two authors, though the notes use others. The citation style repeats most book details in full every time. A good bit of work needed. Johnbod (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Article no longer has "Later Cholas" section, it has been changed to "Chalukya Cholas". I have increased the number of sources (it has more than doubled, actually) since the article was nominated for FAR and the number of citations has more than tripled. I've also addressed issuesd with citation styles. Let me know if you still have any concerns. --Madhu (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Chola Dynasty vs Chola Empire

Article was promoted as FA while the name of the article was Chola Dynasty and the lead was reflecting according to the article title. A particular user is moving it again and again to Chola Empire name, without any consensus to move for it. The lead section is totally changed from the version when the article was promoted to FA status. If required, these two should be considered as two separate topics and developed on their own articles. A featured article, after it is promoted, cannot be moved into another name (whose meaning differs significantly from previous title), and the lead totally changed – that too without any discussion and consensus. Any attempt to inform that user about the FA'ness of this article, is in vain, and resulting in an apparent edit war, bringing 1(e), stability criterion, at stake. I suggest whole article to be rewritten, followed with fresh rounds of copyedits and resubmitted to FAC. The current version does not qualify FA criteria by any means; especially the newly added/replaced sections such as 'Later Cholas' which in its current form, is totally awful for an FA quality article. - KNM Talk 18:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

    • I've restored the article to a stable version and left a polite message at the new user's talk page. We can discuss and decide if it needs to be split or rewritten. I believe that the best course would be to decide on the main articles and the summary first. Write the main articles without disturbing this FA and then come back to the summary article. If we feel that a major rewrite is required, we can FAR it and then reapply after the rewrite. Right now, nothing needs to be done to this article, IMO. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Quite a lot of paragraphs have no sources. A lot of the inlines are actually footnotes/extra info, so even though some paras have one inline at the end, there is actually no source attached. However, a more pressing concern is the large amount of peacock/subjective comments that are written in teh narrative voice as Wikipedia POV, rather than being denoted as being a scholar(s)'s opinion. Examples are
  • "Chola inscriptions cite many works, and it is a tragedy that most of them have been lost to us"
  • "It is considered as the model for Kamban for his masterpiece Ramavatharam" needs cite
  • "Ramavatharam is the greatest epic in Tamil Literature"
  • "The Chola period is also remarkable for its sculptures and bronzes. Among the existing specimens in museums around the world and in the temples of South India may be seen many fine figures of Siva in various forms, such as Vishnu and his consort Lakshmi, and the Siva saints."
  • "The maturity and grandeur to which the Chola architecture had evolved found expression in the two temples of Tanjavur and Gangaikondacholapuram. The magnificent Siva temple of Thanjavur, completed around 1009, is a fitting memorial to the material achievements of the time of Rajaraja."
  • "Under the Cholas, the Tamil country reached new heights of excellence in art, religion and literature. In all of these spheres, the Chola period marked the culmination of movements that had begun in an earlier age under the Pallavas. Monumental architecture in the form of majestic temples and sculpture in stone and bronze reached a finesse never before achieved in India."

and many more. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), ref formatting (2c), and prose (1a). Marskell (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sir,

To begin with the title of the article is wrong, smaller kingdoms in other pages like the Hoysalas have been given the title of empires where as an empire with overseas territories and that too for not a small period (in fact, I have in my possession an official brochure published by the Govt. of Sri Lanka itself, which says that invasions from the Tamil country on Sri Lanka leading to its occupation) which lasted for almost 1500 years. These include earlier invasions from the Pallavas, then (when the Cholas were weak between around 435 AD to 848 AD, before being revived by Vijayalaya) it was the turn of the Pandiyan and Chera kings who held sway over the Island of Sri Lanka. Subsequently right from the times of Aditya I and indeed his son Parantaka I who ruled from 905 AD the occupation of Madurai and Ilam by the Cholas started in and around 930 and lasted at least till 1100 AD when the Lankan kings freed themselves, later, the Chola kings occupied Ilangai for various periods during the times of Rajaraja II, Kulothunga II, Rajadhiraja-II and Kulothunga III in addition to their occupation of Kalinga, Telugu country between Nellore and Visaiyawadai (vijayawada) for the most part of their existence.

So the title Chola dynasty to the deeds of kings who built an empire is nothing but a gross misnomer.

Also deliberate (in order to make the chola empire look like an extension of the Chalukya kingdom) is the title given to the maternal line of Chola Kings who have been (sic)'titled' Chalukya Cholas. It is a fact of history that when ruling over Vengi and over Bastar district in M.P. Prince Rajendra Chalukya a grandson of Rajendra chola I through his daughter (Ammanga-??) was indeed known by that name, but he was quick to change his name to Kulothunga Chola (I), a practice which continued with succeeding kings till the end of the Cholas. Scores of grants, plates and inscriptions of Cholas can be found all over South India all the way up to Eluru, Vizag, Dowleswaram as indeed of successive chola kings at Tanjore, Tiruvaiyaru and the Ranganathaswami Temple in Srirangam where none of the kings from Kulothunga I till Rajendra III have ever been addressed as either Chalukya Cholas or indeed Chola Chalukyas.

If somehow the authors of this article are convinced that the name Chalukya cholas should indeed stick, then let them adopt the same practice in the case of kings succeeding Vikramaditya VI who was married to a Chola princess as well as successors of Hoysala Veera Ballala II who was the son in law of Kulothunga III as Chola Chalukyas or even Chalukya Cholas and Hoysala Cholas or Chola Hoysalas.

User _Earth was very correct in saying that this article does not deserve FA status because its very title is in dispute.

I wonder if there are any right thinking wikipedian admins left in this website who would be keenly following the goings on this page and first of all, take the step of removing this 'article' from the coveted FA list so that a proper opportunity would be afforded for a complete re-construction of this page by backing it up with accurate data, removal of misleading and malicious content currently pervading all over this page so that the Chola pages have any chance of resurrection.

Srirangam99 (talk) 12:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Be very careful of what I said. I was referring to a particular edition of the article which has no lead section, thus breaking WP:MOS. I advocate stripping the article of the FA if your style of article structure is adopted. __earth (Talk) 07:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

User Earth, there is nothing like 'my style' of this article, I had started to make contributions and before one could link the text with the appropriate sources, unwarranted interventions and revert wars started with me getting blocked twice over.

Besides, for your kind info, I suppose if you were to make a neutral reading of this article it clearly has been filled with misinformation especially the section being called Chalukya Cholas. Though I for one doubt the neutrality of historians, what is even more objectionable is the fact that they go on to christen and baptize the later Chola kings by naming them as Chalukya Cholas as if the Chola empire was under the protection of the Chalukya or Eastern Chalukya kingdoms. This itself is reason enough for removing the FA tag from the Chola article, which in its present form itself it does not deserve.

If in Hoysala pages and indeed in the Chalulya pages scores of inscriptions of the kings of those dynasties can be quoted with their proper names and their titles like Trailokyamalla or Nolambavadigonda etc. then proper attention, if paid to both the names and titles of the later Chola (dubbed wrongly as Chalukya Cholas) starting from Kulothunga I from 1070 to the last king Rajendra III who was deposed in 1279, these kings always called themselves as (for example) Tribhuvanachakravartin Kulothunga Chola and in the process they got categorized as Kulothunga I or II based upon the year of their grant being issued. Kulothunga Chola II also called himself Tribhuvanachakravartin which was after his conquests of Karur, Ilangai, Madurai and Kalinga (after which he also built the Kampahareswara temple near Kumbakonam). other later Chola kings like Rajaraja II, Rajaraja III, Rajadhiraja II etc. all had the title 'CHOLA' suffixed to their main name.

What I want to submit is that under no circumstances and not a single king from Kulothunga Chola I to Rajendra III ever had the Chalukya or Chalukya Chola or Chola Chalukya titles suffixed to their names, but only 'Chola' suffixed to their names for example Rajendra Chola (III) or Rajadhiraja Chola (II).

While adding the suffix Chalukya Chola to the later Cholas simply because the first king Kulothunga I was borne in the Eastern Chalukya household and also while acknowledging Kulothunga Chola I had the name and title Rajendra Chalukya as an Eastern Chalukyan prince, it is worth mentioning and noting that upon ascending the Chola throne, Rajendra immediately took the title Kulothunga Chola I and what is even more importance is that in all their grants and inscriptions the kings succeeding Kulothunga I to the Chola throne always used 'Chola' as a continuous and constant suffix to their names.

Also one finds that some 'references' have been added in the Chalukya Chola apparently to attest the veracity of the name and title Chalukya Chola or Chalukya Chola Dynasty, but I have checked the concerned link and found nothing of that sort, kindly see for yourself:

Search in this book(for clarity) kindly see this link:

http://books.google.com/books?id=XNxiN5tzKOgC&q=Chalukya+Chola

Page 279 ... II then defeated the Chola, ... Page 374 ... Chola II. Shortly after he had repulsed them the feudatory ... Page 394 CHAPTER XIII South India From the close of the 3rd cent. AD (p. 139) the history of South India remains very obscure until about ... Page 395 ... Chola country, and his dominions extended from the Krishna to the ... Page 398 The Chola chief ... more » Page 399 Sorry, this page's content is restricted. Page 403 Sorry, this page's content is restricted. Page 405 ... undid his life's work, and probably died in 953 AD The history of the Cholas during the next 32 years is somewhat obscure. The Chola king Sundara Chola ... Page 406 He was a great conqueror and laid the foundation of the mighty Chola empire. He also made excellent arrangement for the administration of his vast dominions ... Page 408 Sorry, this page's content is restricted. Page 409 Sorry, this page's content is restricted. Page 410 It thus not only comprised the whole of Mysore but even some borderlands to the north. This brought him into conflict with the Western Chalukya emperors ... Page Sorry, this page's content is restricted. « less

In any case with not just these but even more discrepancies in the Chola article, which I will discuss later, what emerges clearly is that in its present form even, the Chola Dynasty article does not deserve FA status. Can you guide me where one can voice his or her opinion and vote for or against granting of FA status to such articles. I would like to register my vote against grant of FA status to this dubious article.

Thank you.

Srirangam99 (talk) 08:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Remove lack of citations in many places, and also subjective opinions/observations need direct referencing and attribution, per exampels above. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
update - I'll be checking in regularly. Because there is a serious attempt to add references, I will be helping with formatting fixes etc. (It would have been pointless to fix them if the refs weren't there). It seems as though there is a good chance of fixing the article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 10:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Much improved. Another look later perhaps. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep User:Nmadhubala has added citations to a large number of unreferenced statements. I notice that Blnguyen (the above commenter) has removed some subjective statements. A critical reviewer like Blnguyen is well-suited to identify and remove such statements. 2 (c) issues have been mostly resolved. I plan to do a round of copyediting in a couple of days from now. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm not a past contributor to this article, I just stepped in to save the FA status, so I'm not entirely sure if I could vote or not! As Sundar has mentioned above, I've added added as many citations as I possibly could, as well as addressed the issues with ref style. I do believe (1c) and (2c) are satisfied, and I don't think (1e) is an issue anymore. If there are any specific concerns, please list them here. I agree (2a) could be an issue, and I hope User:Sundar and User:Blnguyen would help out with it. --Madhu (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see significant problems with the sourcing, though this subject is far from my field of expertise so I can't fully judge the sources themselves or say much about issues such as comprehensiveness. I should also note that Nmadhubala in particular seems to have done a sterling job, for which many thanks indeed. This is on the face of it a textbook example of how the FAR process should work. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 by User:Marskell 16:19, 6 June 2008 [8].

[edit] Mercury (planet)

[edit] Review commentary

Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy, Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects, Wikipedia:WikiProject Solar System notified.

This article has undergone significant revision since it was promoted 2 years ago. The current version includes long stretches of facts with no citations to back them up, citations that are not properly formatted, and sections that have been called into question as being dubious. Although the poor state of the article has been recognized for several weeks, there are still many outstanding issues which will require some dedicated research to verify, cite, and if necessary, correct. Kaldari (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: It seems to fit the featured article criteria still, a great article still. Don't see any significant problems. Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 19:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Because there are significant tracts of unsourced material, it does not satisfy FA criteria 1c to be "factually accurate". There are also "dubious" and "citation needed" tags. Note 45 needs to be fixed to satisfy 2c. Some of the writing also needs polishing up.—RJH (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

  • Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing and accuracy (1c). Marskell (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I cleaned up the Ancient astronomers section a bit (getting rid of the dubious claims), but it still needs someone with more expertise than I to flesh it out. Specifically, the section on Babylonian records is a bit sketchy and poorly cited, and someone needs to add info on Maya astronomers as well for it to be comprehensive. Kaldari (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm working on adding references, and have started from the bottom of the article with BepiColumbo, et al. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this can be kept if I can find cites for everything, which shouldn't be an issue. Other than the Axial tilt item, are there any outstanding accuracy items that need work? I'm coming in late to the party, I know. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
We've cited the planet's Axial tilt, and copyedited the new figure to fit. Everything should be either sourced or tagged for sources; there are only half a dozen items or so still in need of citations, which I can do on Monday if they don't get done over the weekend. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Remove. Aside from 1c there are other problems. In my pinion the article is not comprehensive (1b); it is skewed towards observations and orbital properties and does not provide enough information about physical properties. It should have a separate section about origin and evolution of Mercury and and a section about chemical composition of this planet and its surface. In addition there are problems with 1a and 2c: some section need clean up, formating of refs is not always consistent (ndash, order of the last and first names etc.), imperial units should also be removed.
If this article were in FAC now, it would not pass. Ruslik (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you're being a bit harsh, Rus. Neither Venus, Mars, Jupiter, nor Saturn have separate formation/evolution sections. Perhaps they should, but given that they are all currently featured articles that shouldn't be held against Mercury. Serendipodous 18:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The article improved considerebly and I changed to Neutral. However it can be made better. At least temperatures should not be converted to °F in my opinoin. The use of °C should also be reconsidered—either all temperatures are converted or none. Ruslik (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there a particular MOS guideline or format I should look to for guidance? I'm not seeing a real uniform format across the other planet articles (FAs all), so any insight is helpful. Thanks again, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The style should be consistent. You should convert everything or nothing. As to °F see Talk:Saturn#Imperial values of measurements. The same logic can be applied to the temperature units. °F are not used in science. Ruslik (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we got everything switched to strictly Kelvin. I don't see any Miles or imperial units, though I might not be looking hard enough; do you see any other errant conversions? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I changed to Keep. Ruslik (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Great! Thank you. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I will hold this a little longer per UltraExact's comments. Marskell (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
All {{fact}} tags have been cleared; we're now running through the article and adding refs for uncited hard figures. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Hold. Still in process: definitely not yet a keep, but I see no reason why it cannot be saved with further work. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, the extra time is appreciated. Two of the sections tagged for cleanup have been cleaned up or expanded; in the case of the geology and atmosphere sections, that resulted in a merge-back from Geology of Mercury and a re-alignment of sections. I have also begun to correct image problems (alignment, sandwiching, etc). UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perhaps in a perfect world some of these shorter paragraphs and sections could be expanded, but the work that has been done on this article in the past few weeks has been extraordinary. Another great example of the way that FAR should work. Congratulations and kudos to all the participating editors. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Summary. I believe the article can be kept in its current form. The references have been greatly expanded (to over 100 as of this morning's count), and everything in the article (including hard figures) has been tagged to an inline citation. The article is now internally consistent, in that figures in the body match both the source and those in the infobox. The language has been cleaned in many areas, and we have expanded several sections (including, as noted, a partial merge-back from Geology of Mercury). We've added several images, and formatted the images to match other planet articles and the MOS. We're down to clarifying what "lobate" means, so I'm hopeful that all of the concerns about this article have been addressed, especially through the efforts of RJHall, Kaldari, Ruslik0, Serendipodous, Kheider, and others (I'm sure I'm forgetting someone). UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article has finally gotten the attention it deserves thanks to Ultraexactzz and the other editors he mentioned. It's been improved 100% and I think it is definitely up to FA standards now. Kaldari (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 by User:Marskell 20:40, 3 June 2008 [9].

[edit] Military brat (U.S. subculture)

Besides myself the only other editor with more than 50 edits is SandyGeorgia, and for some reason I think she'll see this on her own ;-) I went ahead and notified her as well as the MILHIST project.Balloonman (talk) 03:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll be honest, as the articles primary creator, I was surprised when this passed the FAC. Based upon the comments at the time, I thought it was going to fail. But it was promoted. I won't complain about it's being promoted, I did take pride in the article. That being said, I haven't been watching the article as closely as I would like, and it has taken a significant turn for the worst. Many of the edits made over the past year, are IMHO, not supported by facts and accurate. I do not believe that this article is FA quality. Unfortunately, I am not motivated enough to get this back to the condition that it needs to be in to preserve the FA status.Balloonman (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered a big revert back to its original form? I did that with Link from the Legend of Zelda and it worked pretty well. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't be opposed to that...Balloonman (talk) 06:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I have a bit time today and will flog out anything that seems unsourced. Hopefully, not all new edits were garbage. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I worked through the article and there are two issues where sources should be provided, otherwise I delete them. One is housing of officers in a row. and: "If a person does not like somebody or gets into a fight, they know that in a few years somebody will move and the problem will disappear." needs also cites. Otherwise the article is still FA material and I would strongly oppose a revert of the last edits. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I suggest looking at changes just after mainpage date, as opposed to the FA version. Also, I understand Balloonman is discouraged, but this article should be saved. I worked on it a lot with him pre-FAC, so obviously I'm biased :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the article ought not to be demoted, hoaving kept an eye on it during its mainpage view date I kind of feel like it part mine too. Of course, being a military brat myself makes me bias as well :-) TomStar81 (Talk) 04:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Next time semiprotect anything that appears on the main page. There have been made some useful edits since 30th April. But I wouldn't oppose a revert to the version before it appeared on the main page in case the useful and referenced additions and images that have since been inserted get implemented. You can easily find them out by comparing the first and the last edits of the edit history pages. Wandalstouring (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I just reread the article, and the changes weren't as bad as I thought they were the other night. I just went through the article and compared the current version with the version that appeared on the main page a year ago. I removed all of the OR that was added (especially that which was inserted before a reference) Restored some of the deleted text and fixed some of the other POV inserted into the article. My concerns have been alleviated.Balloonman (talk) 06:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I propose a steady keep and watch since the issues seem solved. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll keep this one now—there seems to be consensus it doesn't need demoting. I also looked through it during FAC and it still seems fine in comparison, under Balloonman's watchful editing. Marskell (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 by User:Marskell 15:27, 1 June 2008 [10].

[edit] Harbhajan Singh

Wikiprojects listed on the talk page have been notified.

The article seems to have a lot of problems. The major problems are linguistic and POV related. Here are a few examples:

Grammatical problems:

  • Harbhajan was born into a middle class Punjabi family, the only son of businessman Sardar Sardev Singh, who owned a ball bearing and valve factory.
  • Arora credits Harbhajan's success to a work ethic that included a three hour training session in the morning, followed by another in the afternoon lasting from 3pm until after sunset, using the headlights of a parked scooter to provide light.
  • Harbhajan was struck by the police, cutting his bowling arm and injuring his elbow.
  • Despite many bowlers having superior domestic performances, Harbhajan was selected to make his Test debut in the Third Test against Australia in Bangalore, where he recorded the modest match figures of 2/136.
  • Harbhajan was then omitted from the team during a home triangular ODI tournament against Bangladesh and Kenya, but was recalled for the Singer Trophy in Sri Lanka, claiming eight wickets at an average of 24.1
  • Harbhajan received a ban of three Test matches after a Level 3 charge of racially abusing Australian cricketer Andrew Symonds calling him a "big monkey" whilst he was batting during the third day of the Second Test at the Sydney Cricket Ground, was upheld by the match referee Mike Procter.

These are just a few examples, a thorough review/copyedit is needed to clean-up all problems like these.

Style issues:

  • Use of editorial adverbs like "Somewhat ironically", "Harbhajan quickly issued and apology", "seemingly out of favour with selectors", "Perhaps fittingly", "His performance improved markedly" etc. should be avoided.
  • Image captions should help read the image in the context of the article. One of the image used has a single word caption "Sreesanth".


POV / OR issues:

  • The article begins with a claim that the subject is "one of the world's most successful off spin bowlers." Neither is this claim directly referenced, nor is it supported by any statistics presented in the article.
  • The introduction paragraph ends with: "Despite unremarkable Test performances in 2006, which led to speculation about his lack of loop and his waning value as a strike bowler, he remains India's first-choice ODI spinner." Says who?
  • "He also performed strongly in the ODIs during the Indian season, taking twenty wickets at 19.75 in ten matches and taking his first five wicket haul in ODIs."-The reference only provides raw statistics, but whether the performance is strong or not is an added POV.
  • "With Kumble injured during the home series in March 2001 against the visiting Australians, Harbhajan, whose previous best Test figures were only 3/30, was entrusted with a heavy burden. He was to lead the spin attack against an Australian team which had set a world record with 15 consecutive Test victories, and was searching for its first ever series victory on Indian soil since 1969." Use of terms like heavy burden, lead the spin attack breaches NPOV.
  • "Harbhajan is an attacking-minded bowler who exercises great command over the ball, has the ability to vary his length and pace, although he is often criticised for his flat trajectory." - Failed verification (the reference provided indicates his attacking-mind but the rest is original research).
  • "His main wicket-taking ball climbs wickedly on the unsuspecting batsman from a good length, forcing him to alter his stroke at the last second." - Subjective statements like this need to be attributed to Pandit, instead of being stated as a fact.
  • "Harbhajan tends to bowl outside off-stump more than Muttiah Muralitharan, who attacks the stumps; he captures 66% of his wickets via catches and only 22% by bowling or trapping batsmen LBW, whereas the corresponding figures for Muralitharan are 48% and 41%." - Subjective conclusion drawn on raw statistics, convincing but original research none-the-less. Arman (Talk) 10:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I can't see any grammatical errors in the examples cited, although the prose could be tightened in some. The adverb issues, where they are a problem, can be fixed quickly. The POV instances can also be fixed quickly. There seems to me to be zero chance of this article losing FA status and this listing could have been avoided if these relatively trivial concerns were addressed using the talk page. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
On the article talk page someone already raised the POV concern, but (s)he was harshly ruled out. FAR seemed to be a better forum to discuss these issues. If you believe these are easy-to-fix then let's do it and quickly close this FAR. Arman (Talk) 10:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I see no grave concerns for this article to have been moved to FAR. These concerns could have been addressed in the talk page. I am surprised that the user has not made any attempt to discuss these issues in the talk page but has pressed the trigger to get it listed in FAR. Hence I would have to question the motive of the user in doing so... -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 11:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I already replied to this just on the post above. I don't believe there is any hard and fast rule that there has to be a discussion on article talk page before listing an article for FAR. The reasons for listing are several and very specific. So instead of spending time investigating the motive of the nominator, let's concentrate on resolution of the identified problems, shall we? Arman (Talk) 12:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please complete the nomination by following the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to notify significant contributors and relevant WikiProjects, and post the notifications back to the top of this FAR. Thank you. --Regents Park (moult with my mallards) 18:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Arman (Talk) 03:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Articles are nominated for FAR if they require a copious amount of work to meet the current FA criteria. What's the point of bringing this to FAR when all your comments are easily actionable? This bureaucratic process could easily be avoided by bringing up these issues on the article talk page. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
This article, in my view, does need a copious amount of work to meet the current FA criteria. The language problems identified here are just examples. The article needs a thorough copyedit. POV concerns are significant. The introduction paragraph starts and ends with unreferenced POV claims. FAR is a constructive process to improve Featured Articles which are loosing quality. If you find this process unnecessarily bureacratic or want to add a new requirement to discuss concerns on article talk page before raising the article to FAR, you are welcome to raise that at an appropriate level. Arman (Talk) 02:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Anybody can check anybody else's FAC/FAR record and come to their own conclusions as to whether they are being consistent. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Please feel free to draw as many conclusions as you like, but it would make more sense if discussion in this section is kept limited around the article in question. Arman (Talk) 03:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Most of the (legitimate) issues raised have now been addressed and given that this appears to be, at best, a POINTy listing and at worst, one in bad faith—given the previous history between the nominator and some of the major contributors to this article—I would propose closing this review and moving on to more productive activities. As I stated above, the points listed are minor, the article is clearly of featured quality and any remaining issues can be dealt with through the article talk page, where this should have been taken in the first place. FARC is not a place to take personal vendettas and this listing has been an abuse of process. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Disagree: The article still has a long way to go. The lead section and the style concerns have been fixed. But the language problems have not been addressed. The article grossly fails criterion 1a of featured article for it's poor language usage - see the examples I have given above. If someone can't see the grammatical problems in these examples, (s)he should consult a high school grammar teacher. Furthermore the POV and OR concerns especially in the "Playing Style" section have not been addressed. For example, the statement, "Harbhajan is an attacking-minded bowler who exercises great command over the ball, has the ability to vary his length and pace, although he is often criticised for his flat trajectory." - now has 3 references but none of them talk about "great command over ball" or "ability to vary his length and pace". Arman (Talk) 02:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The article also fails 1c because some unreliable sources are used in the article (e.g. http://clients.rediff.com/philipseyefi/bhaji.htm and http://www.chennaionline.com/cricket/Features/2005/01news12.asp) Arman (Talk) 02:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. The diff between the FA version (Mar 9 2007) and the current version is here. The majority of the difference seems to be the addition of the incident in Australia, material about 2007 (world cup and other tours) and updated statistics. I'm no expert but it doesn't seem hugely different to me. --Regents Park (moult with my mallards) 02:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I also agree that this review can now be closed. I also note that it is quite heavy handed, if not rude, for Arman to suggest that others that disagree should consult a high school grammar teacher. The few minor grammar changes can be tweaked without this article staying at FAR (all articles are after all fluid including those with FA status) - and they can be easily tweaked by Arman if he really wants to without the discussion continuing here.--VS talk 02:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree: I can see that most of the POV issues have been addressed now, and I also agree I can give a hand to address some of the grammar issues that still remain. The article, as it stands now, is close to FA standard and I won't mind if this discussion is closed now. Arman (Talk) 03:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Removed status

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 removed by User:Marskell 16:19, 6 June 2008 [11].

[edit] Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series)

[edit] Review commentary

Notified parties

The article for Buffy the Vampire Slayer no longer meets the requirements for being a featured article. In particularly, it fails the first FA criteria 1c which requires the article be factually accurate with all claims being verifiable through reliable sources. There are several unreferenced statements in the text, including several completely unreferenced paragraphs. Some of the worse instances include:

  • Writing - almost entire second paragraph has no source
  • Music - same problem
  • Format - section is completely unsourced
  • Angel - most of section is unsourced, sans first paragraph
  • Expanded universe - only one out of the four paragraphs has any sources
  • Fandom and fan films - unsourced lead out to main article
  • U.S. ratings - spotty sourcing in table, all of prose is completely unsourced
  • Series information - main section prose unsourced and entire DVD section unsourced

Additionally, several of the sources used within the article fail WP:RS, with the heavy use of fansites, including whedonesque.com and and IMDB. I posted a note to the talk page about these issues, but no response nor reaction was seen after 3 days. I'd also question whether it meets criteria 4 for being an appropriate length that doesn't go into unnecessary detail - such as having a six paragraph section on spinoffs that were never even created and which already have a main article. Collectonian (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I brought up similar issues in November 2007. By Feb. 2008, nothing had happened. So, this isn't just a 3 day no response issue, this is a several months no response issue. The issues I brought up were subsequently archived without further response. Given Collectonian's current load of 2 FARs, it was discussed on this talk page (see the history) that I would take over this article in the review.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to add that the lead could probably be tweaked to better represent the article as a whole.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree with the above; since no-one seems to be attending this article anymore, I suggest it be moved to FARC since the problems are not likely to be redressed, per Bignole. Eusebeus (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove, sourcing issues remain completely unaddressed. Also needs MoS fixes, and some lead work. Collectonian (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove - I have to agree. No one seems to have cared to even put forth an argument on this page, let alone clean up the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove 1c. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove refs less in spinoffs; WP:LINKS; pop culture, fandom and DVD are stub sections. Ultra! 15:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 removed by User:Joelr31 03:03, 3 June 2008 [12].

[edit] Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones

[edit] Review commentary

previous FAR

Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction, Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars and Wikipedia:WikiProject Films.

Criteria not met

  • 1a, 1 b, 1c.

Concerns

  • Article is incomplete and this is its biggest problem. Lots of books are available about literary criticism and cinematic style of Star Wars but this article contains nothing from them. Film scholars and historians have much info about the film that is missing from the article I found some in a two-minute book search:
    • Visions of the Apocalypse: Spectacles of Destruction in American Cinema by Wheeler Winston Dixon
    • Star Wars and Philosophy: More Powerful Than You Can Possibly Imagine by Kevin S. Decker, Jason T. Eberl
    • From Alien To The Matrix: Reading Science Fiction Film by Roz Kaveney
    • Technophobia!: Science Fiction Visions of Posthuman Technology by Daniel Dinello
    • Movies That Matter: Reading Film Through the Lens of Faith by Richard Leonard
    • Film as Religion: Myths, Morals, and Rituals by John Lyden
    • New Hollywood Violence by Steven Jay Schneider
  • Novel and music are just half sourced
  • DVD has no source
  • Overuse of IMDb which fails RS
  • Redundancies in cast like "Ewan McGregor as Obi-Wan Kenobi. Obi-Wan is", "Hayden Christensen as Anakin Skywalker. Anakin is"
  • Too many external links, repeated links to them, flagcruft etc.
  • References to the original trilogy section has some pointless trivia. Ultra! 21:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - You need to list specifically you have notified.
  • I cut the excess external links, the flag, and the unreferenced trivial paragraph in the references to the original trilogy section.
  • The "redundancies" are fine. You need to say who is being referred to, do you not? If we put a generic "he", then it would be unclear.
  • I cut all the IMDB citations, as it is no longer thought to be reliable. I have also added more specific fair use rationales.
  • So now the question is expansion and referencing. Did you find those books on Google scholar or the library? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I have been corrected by a user who has, I believe correctly pointed out, that the IMDB links used in the article are not user contributed trivia, which was the questionable IMDB content, but rather their news section, which is, I believe, reliable and sourced. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
You mean the "news" site with "The Internet Movie Database takes no responsibility for the content or accuracy of the articles...nor can we guarantee that reporting is completely factual." at the bottom? It is not reliable, and such links should be removed. DrKiernan (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This article, like other FA-film articles I've just skimmed through are structured Plot-Production-Reception. Why don't they address themes or style? I saw a mentioning of this here-and-there in the FA-articles, mostly in the Production or Reception section, but there doesn't seem to a lack of critical commentary that could support these aspects as full sections. -maclean 00:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Some films are to recent to have any themes or style penned down. Ultra! 18:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I find it extremely difficult to believe that a film this widely seen and known has had absolutely no journalistic essays or critical writing whatsoever. Even amongst the review critics there are a sizable number who have written at length about the larger motifs of the series in the context of the particular film being discussed. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Beyond that, there has to be some authoritative textual (book) resources that can be utilized. Having only electronic references seems like that is the only place that the editor has looked at for information. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 06:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC).
After reading some of the reviews on this particular film, I can see the major themes concern rebellion, independence, and commitment. To what degree they are isolated to this film and what degree they augment the film series is another aspect. --maclean 19:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, there needs to be a lot more research done on the influences on this film. To not mention The Searchers is almost criminal! :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please complete the nomination by following the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to notify significant contributors and relevant WikiProjects, and post the notifications back to the top of this FAR. Thanks!--RegentsPark (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b), and referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove. The lack responses from anyone interested in fixing the article is really disappointing. Unfortunately, this is one of many "web researched" pop culture articles that ignores any authoritative sources. A quick search in the International Index to Film Periodicals reveals dozens of serious, scholarly works that could be used to research and write this properly. As it stands, it does not meet 1b or 1c at all. --Laser brain (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove per Laser brain. Even the web sources have not been updated; at best, the article is simply a snapshot of initial press reactions. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.