Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/December 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Removed status 1.1 Autism 1.1.1 Review commentary 1.1.2 FARC commentary 1.2 Mixed-breed dog 1.2.1 Review commentary 1.2.2 FARC commentary 1.3 Celtic Tiger 1.3.1 Review commentary 1.3.2 FARC commentary 1.4 Floppy disk 1.4.1 Review commentary 1.4.2 FARC commentary 1.5 Kitsch 1.5.1 Review commentary 1.5.2 FARC commentary 1.6 Pashtun people 1.6.1 Review commentary 1.6.2 FARC commentary 1.7 Bath 1.7.1 Review commentary 1.7.2 FARC commentary 1.8 Mark Antony 1.8.1 Review commentary 1.8.2 FARC commentary 1.9 Split infinitive 1.9.1 Review commentary 1.9.2 FARC commentary 1.10 Lawrence v. Texas 1.10.1 Review commentary 1.10.2 FARC commentary 1.11 Julia Stiles 1.11.1 Review commentary 1.11.2 FARC commentary 1.12 United States House of Representatives 1.12.1 Review commentary 1.12.2 FARC commentary 1.13 Revised Standard Version 1.13.1 Review commentary 1.13.2 FARC commentary 1.14 Space opera in Scientology doctrine 1.14.1 Review commentary 1.14.2 FARC commentary 1.15 James II of England 1.15.1 Review commentary 1.15.2 FARC commentary 1.16 World War I 1.16.1 Review commentary 1.16.2 FARC commentary 1.17 Bodyline 1.17.1 Review commentary 1.17.2 FARC commentary 2 Kept status 2.1 Chess 2.1.1 Review commentary 2.1.2 FARC commentary 2.2 Order of St. Patrick 2.3 Operation Downfall 2.3.1 Review commentary 2.3.2 FARC commentary 2.4 Toilets in Japan 2.4.1 Review commentary 2.4.2 FARC commentary 2.5 James Joyce 2.5.1 Citations list 2.5.2 New look? 2.5.3 Another new look 2.6 Order of the Garter 2.6.1 Review commentary 2.6.2 FARC commentary

[edit] Removed status

[edit] Autism

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Medicine FAR and Psychology. Sandy (Talk) 03:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion this article is no longer up to featured status. It has 12(!) {{fact}} tags on it, and a couple of sentences are either weaselly or POV. Examples of the latter include:

• Some now speculate that autism is not a single condition but a group of several distinct conditions that manifest in similar ways.(weaselly)

• Parents who wanted to have sex with thier kids were not able to because the kid was to retarted so the parents through the kids out on the streets

If these problems are addressed I will happily support its remaining a featured article. Until such time, I beleive it should be delisted--Acebrock 02:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The weasle words and broad patches of uncited text are problematic (indicative of POV and OR), but the article has far bigger problems than just the cite tags and weasle words.
  • It doesn't conform to WP:MEDMOS
  • It is severely undercited, and relies on some sources which are personal or support group websites rather than medical sources.
  • The lead is too long and doesn't summarize the article.
  • External links have become a link farm for support groups, see WP:EL and WP:NOT
  • See also needs pruning and/or other articles incorporated into text.
  • Infobox isn't complete.
  • Article isn't tightly focused on its topic, with entire sections discussing other conditions.
  • Problem with Fair Use image.
  • Doesn't rely on highest quality medical sources, and References appears to have grown piecemeal; it's not clear those references were actually used in the article.
  • The Table of Contents shows an unorganized approach to the topic, and could benefit by following suggested sections per WP:MEDMOS, modified as needed for a neuropsychiatric condition.
  • There's a red link in See also.
  • There are external links. jumps.
  • It relies on daughter articles which are in very bad shape, speculative, and poorly sourced.
  • It is not comprehensive
    • Treatment is inadequate
    • Causes is inadequate
    • There is no Diagnosis or History section
    • There is no Prognosis section, or Prevention/Screening section
  • Sociology section could benefit from being trimmed and making better use of Summary Style
  • It has numerous mentions of individual researchers or research institutions, which look like attempts to promote those people rather than an encyclopedic entry.
  • It duplicates the DSM criteria, which is a copyright violation.
• In order to maintain FA, a serious and organized effort at improving this article is needed. Sandy (Talk) 03:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Sandy, however I'm sure her approach from the [Asperger syndrome] article is very inappropriate. The current autism article is extremely biased and *published* research that is no longer relevant needs to go. --Rdos 08:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Rdos, I think that a reviewer's approach elsewhere is irrelevant. Here, all that matters is improving the article at issue. I, too, agree with Sandy's points. And while we're at it, the writing is sorely in need of improvement. Here are random examples from the lead for "Characteristics".
  • "Typically-developing infants"—Isn't there a better standard term? The hyphen after -ly is wrong.
  • In a contrast, the wording should be equivalent, not "individuals who have autism are physically indistinguishable from those without".
  • "Enlarged brain size appears to accompany autism, but the effects of this are still unknown." False contrast: why "but"? A semicolon would present a more logcial relationship between these assertions.
  • "Much of this is due to the somewhat vague diagnostic criteria for autism, paired with an absence of objective diagnostic tests. Nevertheless, professionals within pediatrics, child psychology, behavior analysis, and child development are always looking for early indicators of autism in order to initiate treatment as early as possible for the greatest benefit."—"Somewhat" adds nothing but uncertainty. Just get rid of it. "Paired with" is not idiomatic in this context. The contrast in "Nevertheless" is unclear. The subsequent assertions require referencing (a long-shot that all of those professionals do the same?). And there's too much crammed into the last sentence. Tony 14:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Move to FARC, little improvement in concerns raised. Sandy (Talk) 14:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria are comprehensiveness, sources, prose, POV/OR, lead, and images. Sandy (Talk) 01:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Insufficient inline citations. LuciferMorgan 22:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Very long list of problems (detailed above) almost completely unaddressed during FAR/FARC. Sandy (Talk) 13:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mixed-breed dog

[edit] Review commentary

No original editor, messages left at Dogs and Tree of Life. Sandy (Talk) 23:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Message also left at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dog breeds. Joelito (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Very few references for a FA and non of them are in-line references. A lot of POV OR can be found on the article as well, with sentences such as "many people enjoy owning mixed breeds". Michaelas10 (T|C) 21:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This needs massive re-writing. Potential OR, rather than prose (which isn't too bad), is the fundamental issue. It's an interesting and, I'd guess, fairly well-searched topic—no doubt for these reasons, lots of people have added nuggets of BS. In discussing intelligence of mixed-breeds we find: "For example, Benji, the hero in a series of films named for him, was a mixed-breed terrier." A fictional example used to support a real-world point?

Other random OR concerns:

• "Some American registries and dog clubs that accept mixed-breed dogs use the breed name All American, referring to the United States' reputation as a melting pot of different nationalities." That's really how the term arose?
• "Mixed breeds also tend to have a size between that of their parents, thus tending eventually toward the norm." What is the norm?
• "If one knows the breeds of the parents, some characteristics can be ruled out; for example, a cross between two small purebreds will not result in a dog the size of a Great Dane." No shit?
• Ah wait, there is some info that suggests someone read a book. The norm is provided: "With each generation of indiscriminate mixing, the offspring move closer to the genetic norm. Dogs that are descended from many generations of mixes are typically light brown or black and weigh about 18 kg (40 lb). They typically stand between 38 and 57 cm (15 and 23 inches) tall at the withers." OK, this is good and encyclopedic, if we have a source.
• "It's important to note that..." I just love "it's important to note that...". It helps you clearly identify non-encyclopedic writing.
• "Mixed-breed dogs can be divided roughly into three types:..." Roughly divided by whom? This screams OR.
• After saying just the opposite, the article declares: "Overall, mixed breed dogs tend to be healthier. They have more genetic variations than purebred dogs." That needs sourcing.

This really is an interesting topic (as a dog lover), but I think this page is a good example of the "semi-OR" that went unnoticed a year or two ago: written with good intent and no desire to deliberately include inaccuracies, but still of the vague, unsourced, "I-sort-of-know-this" type. Hopefully it can be picked up and worked on! Marskell 21:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Needs inline cites (1. c.). LuciferMorgan 15:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Good article, but needs inline citations. Right now, I would question it's FA status on that basis. Badbilltucker 19:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Move to FARC. Sandy (Talk) 04:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria are citations and OR. Joelito (talk) 04:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delist. This is one of only two featured articles a project I am associated with can point to, so I have very mixed feelings about saying this. But I do believe that the objections raised above are serious enough to merit the article being delisted. Maybe doing so might jolt some editors into working on it. Maybe I might even stop trying to assess articles to do it. Maybe. Can I get back to you on that one? :) Badbilltucker 15:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Remove as per FAR commentary. --RelHistBuff 13:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm going to check whether this can be referenced/rewritten from the sources I have available, so please leave it on for a couple of days. Yomangani^talk 02:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - now I've had a decent look through. It's uncited, original research, poorly written and US-centric. Needs rewriting from scratch in my opinion. Yomangani^talk 11:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - too much uncited OR. Sandy (Talk) 21:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per Yomangani (nice summary of the article's flaws!).--Yannismarou 21:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Lacks inline cites (1. c. violation). LuciferMorgan 21:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Celtic Tiger

[edit] Review commentary

Message left at CGorman --Peter Andersen 16:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Additional messages left at Ireland and B&E. Sandy (Talk)

A very old FA. Needs more inline citations (1c) - a lot of the links that are actually there doesn't work. I doubt it is comprehensive (1b) and it is very listy (1a). --Peter Andersen 16:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. External jumps, mixed reference styles (refs need to be converted), not clear if "Online references" are really References or External links, but the sources necessary for adequate inline citations appear to be available, and this article should be salvageable. Sandy (Talk) 17:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Indeed - not as bad as I was expecting, given its antiquity (FAC in late October 2004). It has not changed all that much in two years (diff from 31 October 2004, the last version before it was promoted, to 20 October 2006, the latest edit before today). Inline citations are required, inevitably; the listy sections can no doubt be prosified, if necessary. -- 17:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I've worked on this article considerably and it has gone from here to current. I will probably review the text one more time. It could still do with more citations and improvement in flow but I think it's considerably improved. –Outriggr § 01:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Since there is still a lot of uncited text, we should move to FARC just to keep things moving. Sandy (Talk) 04:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations and flow. Joelito (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone still working on this? There are still some statements needing citation (for example, the first thing my eyes fell on was "Today, wind power supplies only 5% of Ireland's electricity."), and the blue links in Notes need to be expanded to include bibliographic info and last access date. Sandy (Talk) 15:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• No, I'm done. –Outriggr § 23:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I can expand the refs that are there, but if no one is working on finishing the citing, it might not be worth the effort ... ??? Sandy (Talk) 00:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I tend to agree with you. (Which kind of reinforces for me the 85° uphill battle that I feel this process is!) –Outriggr § 00:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Unfortunately, in spite of excellent improvements by Outriggr, no one else pitched in to finish the job. Sandy (Talk) 16:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Still patches of uncited text. At least the article has been improvised though. LuciferMorgan 21:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Would it be worth the effort to remove the uncited statements without affecting the context in order to preserve FA? If you all think it is possible, I might try giving a first pass at it. --RelHistBuff 11:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I spoke too soon. It looks unsalvageable unless someone has the sources. Too many uncited sections that really need cites. I change my vote to Remove. --RelHistBuff 13:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Floppy disk

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Litefantastic, Computer science, and Computing. Sandy (Talk) 22:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

An old FA that lacks inline citations in many sections and has a variety of {{fact}} tags. Lead is insufficient (two sentences). Bloated trivia section ("In Marvel's Transformers comics continuity, Optimus Prime's personality was downloaded onto a floppy disk after his death"). Some "weasely" sentences ("It is probably true that floppy disks can surely hold an extra 10–20% formatted capacity versus their "nominal" values, but at the expense of reliability or hardware complexity."). Gzkn 06:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Move to FARC. Inadequate lead, listy and trivia-loaded, weasly, no improvement during FAR. Sandy (Talk) 16:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are lack of citations (1c), weasel words (1d), and trivia (4). Marskell 18:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Remove until Sandy's FAR review comments are addressed. LuciferMorgan 03:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Remove - unfortunately, nothing doing towards fixing deficiencies. Sandy (Talk) 00:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kitsch

[edit] Review commentary

Brilliant prose promotion, no original author. Messages left at Germany and Aesthetics. Sandy (Talk) 22:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This brilliant prose promotions has no citations, has become an External link farm (some commercial promotions), has a trivia section, and is filled with weasle words and what appears to be original research, editorializing, and opinion. There are several cite needed tags, and a good deal of redundancy in the prose. Sandy (Talk) 22:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree, plus the pictures are not great Johnbod 02:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It is listy in sections, and needs inline citations (1. c. requirement). LuciferMorgan 21:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There is an obvious need for inline citations. Some of the weasel words might be from the original sources, but without citiations no one can know that. While acknowledging the difficulty of creating an article on such a poorly-defined subject, the article is still in desperate need of improvement. Badbilltucker 17:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, no significant improvement. Sandy (Talk) 14:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria are citations, trivia section, and prose (lists). Joelito (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Remove—The quality of writing does a good job in depicting the topic. Take just the lead:

"Kitsch is a German term that has been used to categorize art that is considered an inferior copy of an existing style. The term is also used more loosely in referring to any art that is pretentious or in bad taste, and also commercially produced items that are considered trite or crass.

Because the word was brought into use as a response to a large amount of art in the 19th century where the aesthetic of art work was confused with a sense of exaggerated sentimentality or melodrama, kitsch is most closely associated with art that is sentimental; however, it can be used to refer to any type of art that is deficient for similar reasons—whether it tries to appear sentimental, glamorous, theatrical, or creative, kitsch is said to be a gesture imitative of the superficial appearances of art. It is often said that kitsch relies on merely repeating convention and formula, lacking the sense of creativity and originality displayed in genuine art.

Though kitsch and kitschy may be terms used to criticize, the term is sometimes used as a compliment as well, with some finding kitschy artwork to be enjoyable for its "retro" value or unintentional, ironic humor or garishness."

• It's a German term, but it's now an English term too. Need to insert "originally"?
  • "Categorize" is pretty ungainly, in concept and phonology.
  • "in referring to" --> "to refer to"
  • Replace the em dash with a semicolon or a period?
  • Many people will object to the concept of "genuine art". Why isn't kitsch genuine?
  • "kitschy"—is that a word? "May be terms used to"—clumsy.
  • "Some"—some what?
  • "Where" should be "in which".

Very messy and lacking authority. This should be binned. Tony 12:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Remove: lack of inline citations (unverifiable), too many non notable trivia and most of them uncited and orphaned paragraphs. — Indon (reply) — 13:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Under-cited and with listy and trivia sections.--Yannismarou 19:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Insufficient inline citations. LuciferMorgan 14:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pashtun people

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at User talk:Tombseye, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pashtun and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Marskell 11:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this really a featured article? It seems generally speculative and the sources don't seem to meet WP:RS. Particularly, the population figures from the "Joshua Project", an evangelical Christian missionary organization, seem suspect. Mike Dillon 03:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of references, but still large swathes that are only partially wikified (see Women section). I don't think this meets 1a either. "Their history can literally be traced back millennia"—do people normally assume "millenia" is a non-literal denotation? List numbers should not be inserted into the text as they are in "Pushtans defined". "This is the most prevalent view among the more orthodox and conservative tribesmen who do not view Pashtuns of the Jewish faith as actual Pashtuns even if they themselves might claim to be of Hebrew ancestry depending upon which tribe is in question." Wha..? Marskell 11:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It's always nice when FAs follow WP:LAYOUT; perhaps one of the main editors will fix that. Sandy 13:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Needs a serious copy-edit to pass 1a. Here are examples of redundancies and other problems in the first three sentences.
  • Right at the start, "Pashtuns" and "ethnic Afghans" are plural, yet all of the alternative terms are singular.
  • "are an ethno-linguistic group living primarily in eastern and southern Afghanistan"—Remove "living".
  • Insert "the" before "Balochistan"—presumably, they're identifiable.
  • The listing is wrong technically: "The Pashtuns are typically characterized by their language, adherence to Pashtunwali (a pre-Islamic indigenous religious code of honor and culture),[20] and Islam." I think it should be ", and adherence to ...", without another comma.
  • "Pashtuns have managed to survive a turbulent history despite having rarely been united. Their history can literally be traced back millennia, while their modern past began with the rise of the Durrani Empire starting in 1747." Replace "managed to survive" with just "survived". Just why the "despite" is the case is not immediately clear. Remove "literally". Choose either "began" or "started", not both. Tony 11:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that even through the article has some inline citations, there are still entire paras without a single one.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are quality of sources (1c) and prose. Marskell 13:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry for the late reply, but 'real life' has kept me away from wikipedia for months. I got the message regarding the review for the article. Firstly, since I wrote the article and it won FA status it has devolved into personal views and irrelevant additions and now we have an ever expanding view of what defines Pashtuns (that does not correspond with encyclopedias). I will try to repair it as much as I can, but people seem adamant at turning it into a sub-par article just to get their point across regardless of whether it is academic or not. I agree with the above comments as well as and will see what I can do. Any further input would be appreciated. Thanks! Tombseye 21:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Update ? By the way, what is the Literature section - are those References or Further Reading? Sandy (Talk) 15:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

As Tony notes below, there is still work to be done. I'm doing some on and off and I'm in the middle of a ton of work in real life. As for the language and lit. section it's about the Pashto language. Tombseye 23:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Quite a lot has been done on this article since my last comment. But I'm not yet happy that the prose is of "professional" standard, and I think that it's still under-referenced. I've copy-edited the lead as an example; a few of the edits are based on personal preference; most are not. Plus a few random points that suggest that there are problems lurking throughout.
  • "They share with their menfolk a free-willed, strong and fiercely independent character that values freedom and self rule." Reference required. "Due to numerous social hurdles, the literacy rate for Pashtun women remains considerably lower than that of males"—Reference required (I guess stats are unavailable, but you are making this assertion ...).
  • "for example, though women are technically allowed to vote in Afghanistan and Pakistan, many have been kept away from ballot boxes by males.[69]"—By males? Is this a systemic, cultural behaviour? How is it manifested? More details would be nice, since most readers won't bother to go to the reference.

I'd like to see this survive as a FA; at the moment, it's on the wrong side of a knife-edge. Tony 14:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Is anyone still working on this? Many of the references are just blue links that need to be expanded. If there is actually an effort to improve the article, I'll help expand the refs to bibliographic style, but if no one is working on it, it's not a good use of my time. Sandy (Talk) 16:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Remove: Citations are needed in several sections ("Women", "Genetics"), some restructuring is needed as there are overlapping information in the "Pashtuns defined", "Culture", "Putative ancestry", and "History and origins" sections, and a through copyedit should be done. --RelHistBuff 13:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bath

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at OldakQuill, UK notice board, Cities, Geography and UK geography. Sandy (Talk) 19:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This FA has several problems.

• As with most nominations here, it lacks inline citations. The article is 45k long and has only 7/8 footnotes.
• Fair use rationale missing (and possibly an incorrect tag) on Image:Coat of Arms - City of Bath.jpg. Other images not checked.
• Very thin lead for such a long article.
• Poorly written: see e.g. first sentence of the Politics section
• Degenerates into a list in the Bath in arts section
• Horrible layout, too many headers, stubby sections, lists
• Possibly excessive external links section.

--kingboyk 11:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Insufficient inline cites. LuciferMorgan 16:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Per LuciferMorgan, plus other issues: some section have tiny paras that need to be merged or expanded and there are stub-sections(like 'The Spa'). Lots of red links, but I don't consider that issue a criteria for objection/removal personally - but it would be nice if somebody would do some stubs.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria are citations, images, LEAD, layout, and prose. Joelito (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Insufficient inline cites. LuciferMorgan 00:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove as per Lucifer, and 1a and 2a. The lead is too short and represents a clumsy attempt to summarise the article. The prose is poorly written.

"Bath is a city in South West England most famous for its baths fed by three hot springs. It is situated 159 km (99 miles) west of central London and 21 km (13 miles) southeast of Bristol.

The city is founded around the only naturally-occurring hot springs in the United Kingdom. It was first documented as a Roman spa, although tradition suggests that it was founded earlier. The waters from its spring were believed to be a cure for many afflictions. From Elizabethan to Georgian times it was a resort city for the wealthy. As a result of its popularity during the latter period, the city contains many fine examples of Georgian architecture, most notably the Royal Crescent. The city has a population of over 80,000 and is a World Heritage Site."

• • The opening sentence is stilted. Try: "most famous for its baths, which are fed by three hot springs." Are they underground springs? Thermal rather than hot?
  • Founded earlier? No reference, which would be OK if this point were referenced in the History section; but it's not even mentioned.
  • As a result of its popularity there is great architecture in the city? Fuzzy. Buildings arise from wealth.
  • No hyphen after -ly, please.

This deserves a prompt demotion. Tony 11:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. Inadequately cited, prose issues, poor image placement, external jumps, short stubby sections and paragraphs, mixed reference styles, and no one working on any of it. Sandy (Talk) 00:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Remove as per everything above- --RelHistBuff 11:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per Sandy.--Aldux 14:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Antony

[edit] Review commentary

No original editor, messages left at Bio, Classical Greece and Rome, MilHist and Ancient Egypt. Sandy (Talk) 23:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Needs inline citations, and also needs to have the first image replaced, and it is of unknown origin. In addition, the references used are almost solely from ancient texts or Britannica 1911, so could definitely use some updated scholarship. Judgesurreal777 22:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Needs inline cites. LuciferMorgan 10:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, still uncited. Sandy (Talk) 04:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria are citations. Joelito (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Remove - Lacks inline citations (1. c. violation). LuciferMorgan 15:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per above.UberCryxic 18:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per above. Badbilltucker 14:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per above. --RelHistBuff 15:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per above.--Yannismarou 14:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per above.--Aldux 17:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split infinitive

[edit] Review commentary

Message left at Dpbsmith. Sandy 16:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that this article needs to references to add. I guess this will be fixed the fastest way if I put it here. Otherwise, the article is still fine. --Tone 22:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• It's more than references at issue. Take this bit:

Germanic languages (including Old English) do not permit an adverb to fall between an infinitive and its preposition. Compare German:

Ich beschließe, etwas nicht zu tun.

I decide not to do something.

"Zu" here is not analogous to "to" in the English infinitive. This example, I think, is misleading.

And this statement:

"In the 19th century, some grammatical authorities sought to introduce a prescriptive rule from Latin that split infinitives should not be used in English." Um ... how can you split an infinitive in a Latinate language? Infinitives are all single words in that branch.

And:

"It is likely that the split infinitive originally entered the English language under the influence of French; at any rate, it first appears in the time after the Norman Conquest when English was borrowing very widely from French". Same problem—in French, infinitives are single words. An example or two would be nice. And the fact that split infinitives first appeared after the Norman conquest doesn't prove that French had anything to do with it. Before we talk about split infinitives, let's work out from what time was the infinitive in (Old) English expressed with a "to"?

This nomination looks as though it will be defrocked. Just referencing it will take careful work by a specialist; clearing up the other problems will be a further challenge. Tony 09:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't entirely agree with Tony: historically the zu in German beschließe zu tun and the de in French decider de faire are certainly related to the to in English decide to do, though obviously the way these are used today diverge, and the traditions of analysing them in these languages are miles apart. So the comparison is valid, though maybe it needs to be handled more discriminatingly. But Tony is quite right that the argument from Latin is nonsense: Latin uses no such preposition (or whatever we want to call it) with the infinitive, so there is no precedent in Latin, one way or the other, and I don't believe the story that the prescriptive rule against split infinitives was inspired by Latin. The article on Linguistic prescription tells a different story (but then I wrote it). Parts of the split infinitive article sound like anti-prescription crusading, and most of it would benefit greatly from better references. --Doric Loon 22:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Doric, does "zu", then, mean "for the purpose of"? That's what I suspect, and if so, it's not a part of the infinitive construction. Tony 02:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No, that would be um ... zu. Depends on the sentence of course: as in English, because the uses of the infinitive can be quite complex when you analyse them in detail. But in a sentence like When I couldn't find my key I tried to climb in through the window German has the exactly parallel infinitive construction Als ich meine Schlüssel nicht fand, versuchte ich durch das Fenster zu klettern. But I think we're getting away from the FA question - so if you want to talk more about this maybe we should continue in the article's talkpage. --Doric Loon 08:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

But coming back to the question in hand, I think Tony and I agree that this article is certainly not ready to be a featured article. --Doric Loon 08:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've put my thoughts on the split infinitive from a comparative linguist point of view onto Talk:Split infinitive#history. Please engage with me further there. --Doric Loon 21:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'd suggest changing "Probably the most famous split infinitive is..." to "One famous split infinitive is..." Gzkn 06:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations and accuracy of information (1c). Marskell 11:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Over the last couple of weeks, many of the above concerns have been met. The article has improved beyond recognition. I would now support FA status. My above reservations are therefore withdrawn. --Doric Loon 22:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Is anyone still working on this? Numerous cite tags, and mixed referencing styles in History section. Sandy (Talk) 07:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

What does "remove" mean? Remove FA status or remove review request? I think we should keep the FA status. This article is now rather good, and it is ceratinly impressively well referenced. I and a couple of others are still working on it, but at present there doesn't seem that much to do. --Doric Loon 10:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Remove means Remove FA status: if you are still working on the article, we can let the review run longer (the two week FARC period ended yesterday, and it wasn't clear work was progressing). Are you working on the cite tags? Also, the mixed referencing style in History should be addressed (some use Harvard referencing, while others use cite:php). Sandy (Talk) 19:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't really see your problem. There are not "numerous" cite tags - there were a couple of places where a superceded tag was left from an earlier stage of work, and I have just deleted those. There is ONE tag left, a theory that ought to be referenced, but so-far a source eludes us. As for the references, this article is particularly well referenced, and to me the references all look full and in proper academic style. If you are worried about commas and points, YOU change them - that would be more constructive use of your time than challenging the FA status on such flimsy grounds. But if you see anything substantial that needs to be done, please tell us. --Doric Loon 21:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand the role of reviewers. The cite tags appear to have been addressed, but the mixed referencing style has not yet been fixed: is anyone working on it? Harvard style is mixed with cite:php - either system is fine, but please pick one style to use throughout the article. I'm still a Remove, unless the referencing and Tony's concerns are addressed. Sandy (Talk) 14:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Remove—numerous problems with content. Tony 07:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't your most helpful comment, Tony. What exactly do you see as needing improvement? (But the best place for detailed suggestions is on the article's talk page.)--Doric Loon 10:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I recommended removal for the same reasons I explained in the review: problems with the content. You appeared to at least partly agree with me at the time. Here are more problems, taken at random.

• In the lead: "The construction is still the subject of disagreement among native English speakers as to whether it is grammatically correct or good style." Remove "among native English speakers"—it's unnecessary to drive home notions of superiority here. Ungrammatical: change "it" to "its use".
• "people frequently place adverbs ... before the bare infinitive, as in "She will gradually get rid of her teddy bears"), or in transformational-grammar terms from a re-analysis of the role of to.[5]". Where's the infinitive, please? The last bit, after "or", will float above most of our heads, even if referenced.
• "The split infinitive appeared after the Norman Conquest when English was borrowing very widely from French."—Reference required.
• "the majority of infinitives"—why not just "most infinitives"?
• "Then in Middle English, the bare infinitive and the infinitive after "to" took on the same uninflected form"—"Then" is suitable in a narrative register, and usually unsuitable in an encyclopedic one. Why not provide the approximate year or part-century?
• "was borrowing very widely from French. Other Germanic language such as German still do not permit an adverb to fall between an infinitive and its particle (preposition), but French and other Romance languages do. Compare modern German, French, and English:"—"Very" can be dropped. And why does French come into it at all? English is a Germanic language; comparisons with French are tenuous, since Norman French had little influence on the native English grammar; by contrast, it left its mark on the lexis.

I still strongly recommend removal. This article is far too messy to be a FA. Tony 14:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tony, that's much more detailed. Half of this is very trivial points of style, and to be honest, you could have removed the word "then" yourself with far less effort than it took you to write two lines complaining about the stylistics of the word. I personally like the phrase "the majority of split infinitives", but by all means change it if it bothers you. Let's concentrate on content. You are right, I did broadly agree with you above, but if you do a "compare versions" you will find that the article has been largely re-written since then. All the problems we both saw there have been worked on. You raise four new points of content, but I don't agree with them. The relevance of French as a neighbouring language with a parallel construction and a history of influence in both directions is very obvious to me. The fact that French influenced English after the Norman conquest is such basic knowledge that it doesn't need to be referenced. In the teddy-bear sentence, the bare infinitive is "get", here being used as part of the future tense; I would have thought the parallel being drawn was pretty obvious. The re-analysis of "to" is explained at least twice in the article: it was originally a preposition, later it was perceived as a "verbal marker" (however one chooses to describe this). I really don't think the article is messy, but please do tidy up any "verys" which are annoying you. --Doric Loon 14:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Reviewers are under no obligation whatsoever to edit the articles they critique. You don't present a convincing case that French is a useful comparison. Just how did French influence English grammar, as opposed to the lexis? The fact that it's a "neighouring language"—across the channel, I guess you mean, is irrelevant. Basque and Spanish are "neighbouring", but couldn't be more different. Polish and German are neighbouring, and are significantly different. The world is full of linguistic discontinuities. What exactly is this "parallel construction" between Fr and Eng? Why is a history of influence from Eng to Fr relevant (as you imply)? A reference is required for the assertion that the "the split infinitive appeared after the Norman Conquest", not that there was influence in general related to the conquest. What is "infinitive" about "will get"?

And what does annoy me is not the occurrence of "very" in the article, or even your preference for several words when one would do, but your contention that half of the points I raise are "very trivial points of style". So, little glitches in the editing of a film that are allowed to survive into the cinema are trivial, are they? It's not a professional angle. Disappointing. Tony 15:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

OK perhaps I misunderstood what you think you're doing in critiquing this - I thought you were interested in contributing. I'm only going to answer your specific points in case you are really interested; I'm not arguing with you about the article itself. 1. There are strong areal features in which French and the Germanic languages influence each other in both directions. This goes far beyond lexis. The French perfect tense is borrowed from Germanic, the German pronunciation of the letter r is borrowed from French, and French influences on Middle English include the loss of cases, the plural in -s and a host of other syntactic and morphological features. In the case of the split infinitive, the article shows the close parallel between English and French, which is interesting even if they are unrelated, since very few of the world's languages have anything comparable. But the article points out that there is a possibility (no more than that) that they are indeed related: the preposition + infinitive construction may have been borrowed from Germanic into French and the French idiocyncracy of putting the negation in the middle may have been borrowed back into English as the split infinitive. I should say that is a significant point of comparison. 2. The English future tense (will get) is made up of an auxiliary (will) and a bare infinitive (get). That is the normal way to analyze this - check any beginner's grammar. The article cites scholarship suggesting that the position of the adverb in this (very different) infinitive construction could have been transferred to constructions involving the to-infinitive, thus creating a split infinitive. It is just a theory, but entirely plausible. I think the article explains this pretty clearly. 3. The article does give a reference for the split infinitve appearing shortly after the Norman conquest: it even cites the text verbatim. This is the Layamon passage, which is given in Middle English with verse numbers and translation - you can't reference more specificallly than that. Please read the article - the answers to all your questions are already there. --Doric Loon 21:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Beginners' grammar books or not, I can't easily accept this construction of the future tense as rooted in the infinitive. I go by [[Michael Halliday|functional grammar], which will have none of that. Thus, I think the line taken in the article is potentially POV. (English grammar is notoriously POV, which makes it hard to promote related articles to FA status.) When you say "It is just a theory, but entirely plausible.", you're hitting the nail on the head. I've learnt something from what you say about the French influence on English grammar, but can we have better referencing of these assertions? I'm suspicious about your claim that case was lost in English on account of the French influence. Are you sure that it wasn't the creolisation of Anglo-Friesian and Norse that did it, from the ninth to the 11th centuries? Tony 01:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I almost knew you were going to say that about the future. Quite right: there are different ways to analyse. Historically, of course, the "get" in "will get" goes back to an Old English infinitive, I think we can agree on that. But the loss of inflections means it is possible to talk about a base-form of the English verb and dispense with the concepts of infinitives, present subjunctives, imperatives etc for the modern language altogether. That makes sense for some purposes, for example for understanding how first language acquisition works in modern English, but trendy and fashionable as it is in some circles, it is neither the tradtional nor the most usual current approach. I don't think it's POV to use mainstream terminology just because there is an alternative, especially when the alternative would be less helpful in the context of the particular point which is being made.

Where's the proof that "will get" is derived from the infinitive? It seems counterintuitive to me.

And of course you are right that the loss of English inflections can have several causes at once, and since loss of inflection is in any case a general phenomenon in IE languages the question here is merely what accelerated it so suddenly, so OK, that wasn't my best example. But 11th century Englis was still far more highly inflected than classical Middle English. --Doric Loon 15:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Proof that the Norman influence accelerated the loss of inflection? I understand that it was the creolising process between the Anglo-Frisians and the Norse people in previous centuries.

• I still see problems of content in many places. For example: "in modern English syntax it is better regarded as a particle before a verb form"—I'd have thought the "to" was part of the verb form, not a separate particle preceding it.
• "Some are said to dislike the split infinitive on the grounds that it is not a natural construction in a Germanic language. This is a weak argument today, as standard English has many constructions novel to the Germanic language family. Also, while German and Dutch never allow an adverbial to fall between the preposition and the infinitive, Swedish does. However, given that the further back in history one examines the English language, the more typically Germanic it becomes, it is possible that the reason the medieval split infinitive never gained widespread acceptance was that it was still uncommon enough to sound foreign." False contrast: remove "However". I think the last sentence is drawing a long bow (too long for an authoritative encyclopedic article) and should be removed. There's no verification—just speculation.

I've asked a non-WPian expert on the history of the language—Dr Gary Symes—to comment on the article. Tony 01:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks as though he's going to take longer than I expected to respond. Over to you, Joel. Tony 11:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

He emailed me and said: "soon". Hmmm. Tony 07:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Eek, seven weeks. I guess one more can't hurt... Marskell 22:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Dr Symes says:

"I found the piece quite informative on the history of the subject, much of which I was not familiar with. The presentation of the arguments for and against is not especially cogent, & the section Special situations less than helpful. Overall, it is not very well written or organized.

As I expect with these sorts of things, the information is not all reliable. It says that the first known use of the term split infinitive was in 1897 & gives as reference, note 13, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition (2005–2006), s. v. split infinitive. Merriam-Webster are just recycling the info in the OED article, infinitive, sb., published in July 1900, which had the 1897 cite. OED notes that the phenomenon is also called cleft infinitive, a term which the Wikipeida article nowhere mentions. The OED cite for 'cleft infinitive' at 1893 mentions an article on the cleft infinitive published in the American Journal of Philology, which the Wikipedia article is ignorant of. The OEDS (1976) s.v. infinitive, sb., provides no earlier cites for either term, but has cites for the compounds infinitive-splitter (1927) and -splitting (1926).

My own view is fairly conservative; I do not usually split infinitives, unless it would be patently artificial or mannered not to do so. But it does not generally matter much; & thinking back, I seldom bothered to 'correct' it in student essays, unless it were particularly egregious. What the Fowler brothers said in 1907 remains apt."

The contributors may take these details into account. I guess the article should stay featured. Tony 02:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please thank Dr Symes on all of our behalf. That is very useful. --Doric Loon 06:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The mixed reference styles (and lack of information about the references) in History still needs to be addressed.

• (Bache, 1869;[15] William B. Hodgson, 1889; Raub, 1897[16]) were condemning the split infinitive, others (Brown, 1851, lukewarmly;[17] Hall, 1882; Onions, 1904; Jespersen, 1905; Fowler and Fowler, cited above)

I could combine all of them into one ref tag for you, which would solve the problem, but the information on some of those refs isn't provided. Sandy (Talk) 00:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Remove At one time I was a devoted defender of the "Quit the split" cause. In the role of overseer of some of the future's newspaper copyeditors (COM 456 "Newspaper Copyediting" Purdue University, late 1980s) the editor in me considered it a noble cause. And I suppose it made me feel good; knowing stuff that separated me from the rabble.

This changed when I was challenged by a student to defend a finity of splits in some rather major newspapers. Come to find out, those who wrote the stylesheets had neglected to ask me before declaring the entire issue irrelevant. They seemed to say "split or not, makes no nevermind to us."

So: Is this article here to document the history of this specific usage, provide the current best thinking about the issue, or some combination?

This distinction is important. If the conclusion stays entirely within the history bounds (could even be contemporary; I am thinking teleology not chronology) these distinctions are critical and the focus ought to be about how we got to where we are.

The anthropological linguist in me asks that if we include some "how to " focus we need to lead with some version of "now even the experts agree that a split infinitive is not necessarily 'wrong' and a split infinitive does not in itself represent a grammatical error. Those who think it matters, don't matter."

As it now sits I'm not sure where the article lies along this line.

We live within a language that is itself living (unlike Latin, Old English or even Middle French). Today's wart might be tomorrow's bloom. We should only describe, leaving those areas or nations with Royal Appointed grammarians to decide what is proper for their own small and diminishing sphere of those who care.

The article does seem to imply that anyone splitting an infinitive is in error, with the jury still out over the magnitude of the crime.

If this is rather strictly an historic treatment we should ask whether the issue warrants so much attention. Even the uber-populous Wikipedia cannot feature the history of every twig. There are grammar usage errors of far greater consequence and there are parts of speech with pedigrees far nobler, or more interesting.

After all, we gain nothing by agonizing over the rights and wrongs about the 1960's grade school guerrilla actions over "ain't". It just doesn't matter.

My understanding of the mission of Wikipedia (I might have missed this boat as well) is to be an already-NOW resource for anyone who can grab a keyboard for even a few minutes. I have thought that Wikipedia is not trying to render redundant the host of small scholarly journals which do the truly important work (just to be clear, I intend no irony here) of working through mountains of material to make sense of some small corner of the world.

The semiotician in me suspects so much type has been devoted to the split infinitive because it has a cool, easily remembered name. It serves to stand for all that divides the stilted user of formal grammar from the rest of us, in a real sense not at all about grammar. Now that is a topic that still wants a good public airing! That will probably happen over in Ebonics land. Who is publicly campaigning over this issue? The split infinitive has never (to my knowledge) been the subject of a Broadway musical. ;)

I guess this makes it a candidate for de-throning. Can we insist that a featured topic matter, even if it is carefully documented and skillfully addressed? Roy 03:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, if you look at WP:FAC you'll see that an article's subject matter has no bearing whatsoever as to whether it can be an FA.--Zantastik talk 03:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, 1c requires factual accuracy. Tony 03:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course it requires factual accuracy. What I was suggesting is that the topic has no bearing on an article's FA-worthiness. An article on everything from the word "the" to an article on the 2nd world war can reach FA status, if it's written so as to meet WP:FAC. --Zantastik talk 07:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I can only say that I found working on this to be very interesting. This is something which everyone has heard about and people are curious to know what is behind it. We did not find it easy to put together the historical sections, because the information was not readily available (though the research had been done and with effort we could find it); is that not precisely the point of Wikipedia - to make the access easy when people want to know?

Since my own interests are in historical linguistics, the point of the article for me is to chart the history of the construction, and of the controversy. I didn't contribute much to the last part, but I don't think it really intends to make recommendations: just to describe how things were and are.

I would be grateful to know what part of the article gave you the impression that any of us working on it think the split infinitive is wrong. I thought we were successful in staying neutral on that. --Doric Loon 11:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lawrence v. Texas

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Neutrality, Law and Supreme Court cases. Sandy (Talk) 18:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Only one in-line citation and a few scattered external links in the article itself. This does not pass 1c. Hbdragon88 02:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Lacks sufficient cites (1. c.). LuciferMorgan 09:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'd prefer if the article had a bit more about the aftermath and what happened as a result of the case. JoshuaZ 20:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if the article had more on the affects of the case, but the law doesn't move terribly quickly so courts are still deciding what the implications of Lawrence are. For instance, the Supreme Court hasn't heard any case since Lawrence that raised the same issues. So, it is impossible for the article to have a comprehensive review of the effects of the case for several years.Dekkanar 18:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking in terms of social and political aftermath not just legal. JoshuaZ 14:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Aren't all these court reporters inline cites? What the hell else are they? I agree that more references should be added (especially for interpretive statements), but this article has more than five inline cites, even if they don't appear at the bottom. Moreover, it's not in an obviously worse state than Roe v. Wade. But yes, cites for all the bullet points under "Broader implications" would be useful. Cool Hand Luke 04:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, I can see how the opinions sections are already cited (learned this while citing my own court cases in a recent essay), but the whole section talking about history (like no-fault divorces) all needs to be cited. If you don't think Roe v. Wade is an FA either, nominate it as well, but please don't use the article status of Roe to justify the status of Lawrence. Hbdragon88 01:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, work still needed. Sandy (Talk) 14:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria are inline citations and comprehensiveness. Joelito (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC) And prose. (Tony1)

• Remove—Poorly written: when it comes to matter legal, precision of prose is of great concern. The lead is appalling:
  • Very clumsy opening: "not finding a constitutional protection of sexual privacy"—Shouldn't that be "finding that there is no constitutional protection of sexual privacy"? "The Lawrence court held that"—better as "The Lawrence judgment"?
  • "Lawrence has the effect of invalidating similar laws throughout the United States that attempt to criminalize homosexual activity between consenting adults acting in private." Remove "attempt to"; no two ways about it. Remove "acting". Heck, there's a lot of redundant wording ....
  • "The case attracted much public attention, and a large number of amicus curiae ("friend of the court") briefs were filed in the case. The decision, which contained a declaration of the dignity of homosexual citizens, was celebrated by gay rights advocates, hoping that further legal advances might result as a consequence"—"The case ... the case." The agency for "hoping" should be crystal clear. "Hoping ... will", not two hedge words (might). Remove "as a consequence". Tony 12:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak and reluctant remove. I like the analysis, but the lack of inline citations is a huge problem. The article mentions previous Supreme Court decisions and achieves a high-level legal analysis. But the lack of any scholarly backing, and subsequently, of citations, do not allow me to support it. There are also some stylistic problems, such as some external links not properly linked.--Yannismarou 19:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Prose problems, mixed reference styles, inadequate referencing, and no one is working on it. Sandy (Talk) 00:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• If I was a bit more familiar with the Americal legal system, I would love to work on this article!!! It is so close to FA status after a slight copy-editing and the addition of the missing sources. Unfortunately, my library does not include books of Americal Law and I do not know to what extent I should trust Internet source.--Yannismarou 20:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Remove per Yannismarou.--Aldux 14:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Insufficient citations. LuciferMorgan 03:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Julia Stiles

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at PedanticallySpeaking, Bio, Films and Theatre. Sandy (Talk) 21:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, this old FA is no longer up to featured status. The lead is insufficient, lacks inline citations (only 6), the quotes are not cited, none of the images have a fair use rationale, and it has several stubby/one sentence paragraphs. Nat91 21:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Move to FARC - no improvement, and a recent (unsourced) edit changed her from a Mets to a Red Sox fan, so accuracy is in question. Sandy (Talk) 20:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria are LEAD, citations, images, and prose. Joelito (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Insufficient citations. LuciferMorgan 02:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per Lucifer.--Aldux 14:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove I'd give it a B-class. Wiki-newbie 16:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per Lucifer.--Yannismarou 20:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States House of Representatives

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Omaryak, MisfitToys, Daysleeper47, Stealthound and Lord Emsworth. Thesmothete 07:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Additional messages at United States, Congress, and Politics. Sandy (Talk) 14:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is a point-by-point rationale following the FA critera. For such a prominent article, it does not reflect current standards for FA status.

1 It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable. ??

• (a) "Well written" -- the prose is neither "compelling", nor "brilliant". Organization of the article is haphazard. Factual statements often occur without context.
• (b) "Comprehensive" -- while major facts and details have good coverage, some significant aspects of the House are not covered at all, such as the system of bells, the significance and use of the Mace, and the visitors’ gallery, a more complete listing of Speakers and their significance, controversies about delegates voting in the Committee of the Whole House, the full significance of the Committee of the Whole in organizing the House, etc.
• (c) "Factually accurate" – the vast majority of statements in the article are accurate. However, many claims are not verifiable against reliable sources, such as statements that the House is “more partisan” than the Senate, or that “fewer than 10% of all House seats are seriously contested in each election cycle” (more than 43 seats were seriously contested in 2006). The article does not accurately present the related body of published knowledge. Claims throughout the article are rarely supported with specific evidence and external citations. Inline citations are almost non-existent.
• (d) "Neutral" – for the most part, the article the article presents views fairly and without bias; however, the opening of the article is somewhat pejorative (the “lower” “more partisan” body of Congress), and there are additional statements throughout that could be phrased with greater neutrality.
• (e) "Stable" – the article is stable.

2 It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects, including: ??

• (a) The lead section is not concise, does not summarize the entire topic, and does not prepare the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections, except insofar as it contains substantial minor facts without organization as with the rest of the article.
• (b) The article has a proper, if limited, system of hierarchical headings; and
• (c) A limited table of contents (see section help).

3 It has very few images for such an important subject, particularly given the likely volume of material available without copyright from the US government.

4 It is of appropriate length, for the subject, but it does not stay focused on the main topic – it goes into extensive unnecessary detail about the history of the Constitution, Pombo’s legislation about the Northern Marianas, the Gilded Age, etc.

Thesmothete 06:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)]]

I disagree with your characterizing the introduction as non-neutral. Neither "lower" or "more partisan" are pejorative - the former is a neutral fact (see Lower house) and the latter, if sourced properly, would be an important and relevant piece of information. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 14:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Move this one down, I say.
  • "Because its members are elected from smaller (approximately 690,000 residents as of 2006) and more commonly homogenous districts than those from the Senate, the House is generally considered a more partisan chamber." The logic escapes me. And just why the founding fathers would characterise the Senate as being more "deliberative" escapes me too.
    • (Interjecting) In answer to the last point: mainly because of its smaller size, as well as the fact that its members served smaller terms and were not elected, shielding them from pressures to which the House members were exposed. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There's a stubby paragraph in the middle History, surrounded by big fat ones.
  • Why is there talk of a presidential veto before the relationship between Congress and President has been explained? Where is the 2/3 override of veto mentioned? Why does the lead not announce that Congress has the sole power to legislate? Isn't that basic?
  • Why is there no discussion of the relationship with the British model? Is it the case that the relationship between the British Parliament and the king at the time is reflected in the Congressional–Presidential power balance? (Whereas the Canadian and Australian Governors-General vs Parliaments reflect the British state of play in a later century ....?)

Very superficial. Tony 12:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria are prose, LEAD, and citations, among others. Joelito (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Insufficient citations. LuciferMorgan 03:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove—Zilch done since my comments above. This is an obvious demotion. Tony 03:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove, no inline citations, poor quality for an FA. Terence Ong 08:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revised Standard Version

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Bible and Christianity. Marskell 11:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

With the FAR page finally settling down, I thought I'd nominate one myself. This article fails to meet the criteria on a number of counts:

• 2a. The LEAD, consisting of one sentence, is obviously insufficient.
• 2b. The headings are entire phrases, in some cases.
• 1c. Completely lacks inline citations. There are references, but unfortunately sourcing will be difficult for someone relying on the web.
• 1a. Not terrible, but many one sentence paragraphs. Some of it is stylistically limp, such as "owing to its aim" in LEAD. Later: "The RSV New Testament was well received, but reaction to the Old Testament was different. Many accepted it as well, but many also denounced it." This doesn't need to be two sentences and it feels like it was written with a six year-old in mind.
• 1b. This weighs in at 13.5k. Yes, it's comprehensiveness not length, but the size is on the low-end of what you'd expect. The description of the drafting of the version overlaps the first and second sections and needs to be better rationalized and expanded. The International Council of Religious Education is redlinked and the reader needs to know what it is. Who were some of the scholars involved? How were they chosen?

A tough nut, to be sure. Hopefully someone will pick up on it. I can work on the prose, at least, if there is interest. Marskell 11:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Article has several serious flaws, and, personally, given the significance of the textual differences of the various editions, could and should be much longer. I also agree with all of the above reservations cited by Marskell. Badbilltucker 17:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria are LEAD, style (headers), citations, prose and comprehensiveness. Joelito (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. Nothing doing. Marskell 14:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. No improvement. Sandy (Talk) 20:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove No inline cites and an insufficient lead section. LuciferMorgan 04:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Space opera in Scientology doctrine

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at David Gerard, ChrisO, and Scientology. Sandy (Talk) 16:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is long with lots of list-like sections. The prose is not compelling, hence failing criterion 1a. There are lots of quotes from Scientology literature, hence it appears more like a Scientology pamphlet rather than a Wikipedia article. My suggestion is to cull some of the text and rewrite it into a more summary style. --RelHistBuff 15:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Other problems:
  • The article uses mixed reference styles (at least 3 different styles): needs to consistently employ one reference style.
  • External jumps should be removed.
  • Rambling, out-of-control Table of Contents, reflecting lack of organization and possible failure to tightly focus on subject.
  • Not clear if all of the References were used to source the article, or if some should be eliminated, Further Reading, or External links.
  • Possible POV because of lack of critical sources.
  • The article is listy and stubby, appears to have grown via piecemeal edits, and needs a rewrite/reorganization.
  • Text relies largely on quotes. Sandy (Talk) 16:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - The article is NOT neutral. It gives inordinate emphasis to casual remarks by Hubbard as being part of Scientology doctrine. Arslycus is a good example; that was a casual remark in the PDC lecture made to illustrate a point (I actually listened to that very lecture not long ago while on a long drive). It is not a part of Scientology. Hubbard was always careful, IMO, to distinquish between his opinion or his self-admitted tendency to act the raconteur and what he considered to be the technology of Scientology. Additionally; he specifically excluded space opera (as a general topic) from Scientology; lumping it in, along with lots of other "unprovables", to what he termed "para-Scientology"; meaning that most Scientologists have VERY little intersection with space opera and it is by no means a core belief (the core belief being that you are an immortal spiritual being inhabiting a body and using a mind and that you can improve your state of being, by-and-large, using very concrete techniques that have nothing to do with space opera). The only actual alleged example of space opera that I know of that has any relevance to Scientology is the claim by ex-Scientologists that OT 3 includes the Xenu incident. But if that were the entirety of the article, I guess it would not be as "interesting" (although it might be a lot more accurate). Interestingly, I just looked again at the article and see that critics like to pooh-pooh Scientologist's protestations that LRH's far-out stories, anecdotes, and jokes are not a part of mainstream Scientology. So I guess we are "damned if we do and damned if we don't". Anyway, the article needs a lot of work to bring it to a neutral state. --Justanother 16:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Needs inline cites and needs to observe NPOV. LuciferMorgan 23:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The main problem with this article, aside from its blatant POV problems, is that most of the wacky stuff this article gleefully delineates in slobbering detail is NOT "Scientology doctrine", not by the dictionary definition of doctrine, not by Wikipedia's own Doctrine article, and most importantly, not by The Scientology Handbook. Subjects like the "Obscene Dog Incident" are taken from Hubbard's lectures, which were not always about Scientology, and were/are NOT Scientology doctrine except in the most ridiculously all-inclusive sense. By that same all-inclusive standard, we would also have to consider "Scientology doctrine" to include Hubbard's many tangents gone off on during lectures which had nothing at all to with Scientology, old war stories, stories told to illustrate a point but clearly not necessarily real, anecdotes from his personal life, and moments such as when, in one lecture, he commented at length about the hors d'oeuvres being served at the lecture and how tasty they were. Who's ready to start Hors d'oeuvres in Scientology doctrine? At the very least, the word "doctrine" needs to be stricken from the article's title and introduction. Highfructosecornsyrup 20:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The article needs massive cleanup, and a lot of time is being chewed up on a POV dispute instead. If the editors intend to retain their featured status, they should get crackin' on resolving the problems, and start writing in accordance with WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:LAYOUT, and WP:MOS. Sandy (Talk) 23:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment (I am copying this over here from an unregistered user that put it on the talk page for this review)

I am a Freezone Scientologist. In the past I worked for the Church of Scientology, but I do not currently work there or participate in any of their activities. I do, however, continue to participate in Scientology (but not Church of Scientology) activities. I continue to be in agreement with the aims of the subject, even if not entirely with the official organisation. I have at least a passing familiarity with pretty well of the material which is referred to in the article and have done the level known as "OT3".

My overall impression of the article is that it has been written for the purpose of poking fun and/or titilation. Much of the material does not form part of what you could really call doctrine and was mentioned only in passing. The parts that refer to something you genuinely could call doctrine are quoted way out of context and thus do not give the reader a fair/neutral impression.

Further, many things which are actually part of Scientology doctrine seem to barely merit even a mention in Wikipedia. Thus the overall impression a reader obtains from this and other pages on the subject is heavily skewed.

Many from the official Church would be utterly shocked and offended that this material is mentioned in public at all. I do not feel that way personally. But I do object to the overall bias.

Nick Warren—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.185.125 (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2006

• Comment I disagree that the article needs "massive cleanup". It has citations for the Scientology teachings and Hubbard quotes. It believe it is written in an NPOV manner, but I'd be willing to improve the article if someone could provide a specific suggestion for what needs to be changed in this regard. And while I sympathize with those that are Scientologists or Freezoners that they don't consider these particular Scientology teachings to be "doctrine", it is clear that the Church of Scientology does in fact believe that Space Opera is not just a funny story that Hubbard came up with in a lecture. The Church of Scientology specifically says Space Opera is NOT FICTION. When a Church and its guru make proclamations like this, you can't just dismiss them out of hand. It is true that most Scientologists are not exposed to Space Opera until upper levels of Scientology, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a part of CoS teachings -- because it is 100% certain that CoS teaches that Space Opera is real, that CoS upper level courses specifically discuss aliens, and that Hubbard himself spoke about alien civilizations and alien beings on a number of occasions. Vivaldi (talk) 08:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I already provided a list (above), and none of the structural items (aside from possible POV) have been addressed. Sandy (Talk) 20:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I have no stake in this on either side, and it does seem to me that, like "Zionism" or "Creationism" or even "Baptism", it will be nearly impossible to do much more than provide "equal space" and let the POV proxies duke it out.

However, I would like to point to what seems to be a significant error in categorization: It is indeed possible for a philosophy or religion to teach that something is "real" and for adherents to talk about it without it being doctrine.

Doctrine can not reasonably include everything a group believes. This would be a most unhelpful definition which would dramatically increase the amount (and pettiness) of Doctrine for all of the World's faiths. Doctrine, as technically defined, could be construed to include just about anything. It could arguably be part of the Jesuit doctrine that the Sun rises in the East; of the Zoroastrians that it sets in the West.

For the sake of utility (see our own somewhat flawed article on "doctrine" for inspiration) I would suggest that we accept as doctrine "whatever a religious, political or social group claims as doctrine." This makes sense precisely because the utility of doctrine lies in its ability to discriminate, and it must be the purpose of any group charged with teaching doctrine to isolate those things that make "us" stand apart from all the others.

It is doctrine that enables our scholars to prove that your scholars are wrong. Doctrine tells not only what may be believed, but what must be believed. Doctrine tells us who is and who is not one of us. This is the strength, and the weakness of doctrine.

Applying this to Scientology, I would suggest that we accept what the church says is doctrine, as the doctrine of the church. This does not mean that many or even most of the church members don't believe something in addition to the doctrine, but that someone will not be thrown out of the group for refusing to believe these other things. This might help clarify our statements.

Roy 05:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are structure, sectioning, and TOC (2), prose (1a), and consistent referencing (1c). Marskell 20:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Remove: My initial comment on simply culling and rewriting was being generous as I had the hope that some Scientology experts would rework this article. However, now that it appears that there are different viewpoints, a lot more work on agreeing on the subject matter needs to be done. --RelHistBuff 11:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Remove: massive problems, unaddressed during FAR, the article is an embarrassment to FA standards. Sandy (Talk) 01:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove: as per Sandy --Justanother 01:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove as per Sandy. LuciferMorgan 13:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James II of England

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Emsworth, Bio, Royalty, UK notice board, Ireland, and Scotland. Sandy (Talk) 21:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an older featured article, nominated with no discussion, a relic of the brilliant prose days. While it is not a bad article, it fails to meet two FA criteria.

• 1. (b). This article is not comprehensive. While the life of James II is indeed well-covered, the "Legacy" section is woefully inadaquate. There is no discussion whatsoever of different ways different groups of academic historians have seen James II. Which brings us to the second problem: sources
• 1 (c) The sources used here are severely lacking. Furthermore, the good sources cited are not properly used. We have two dated secondary sources, one general "bio" website and the EB1911. James II by John Miller, a good source, is not properly used. For instance, though this book discusses James' views on religious toleration and the way his subjects reacted to it (they saw it as insincere), this is not treated at all. Moreover, this article is almost entirely lacking in inline citations. In order to bring this article up to current FA standards, it's going to need to properly use books like James II by Miller and a lot more of them (see Miller's bibliography)

I'm not trying to be mean to the participants here; it's just that FA standards have (fortunately) risen quite a bit since this article was written. --Zantastik talk 21:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

and the style of good writing mentioned above is characteristic of all the old EB-based articles , and probably all of thems that are FA should be reviewed and , unless much rewritten, removed. Reason: 1(c) DGG 05:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Needs inline citations, obviously, but also major copyedit: what is the strange table and the cryptic 'Issue' section? 'Miscellaneous' = trivia = not encyclopedic, remove. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, diff since nom. Sandy (Talk) 14:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria are comprehensiveness and sources. Joelito (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Insufficient citations. LuciferMorgan 02:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove See my comments in the Review commentary section for my reasoning. --Zantastik talk 09:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - absolutely not enough inline citations.--Aldux 13:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Per Lucifer and Aldux.--Yannismarou 20:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove needs major rework: not comprehensive, weakly referenced, virtually no inline citations. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World War I

[edit] Review commentary

Brilliant prose promotion, no original editor. Messages left at Germany, MilHist, United States. Sandy (Talk) 19:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm nominating this for FAR because;

• It fails criterion 1. c. of "What is a featured article?" Lacks sufficient citations. LuciferMorgan 19:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree with the nominator. As a matter of fact I was also thinking to submit it here!--Yannismarou 22:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm unsurprised others thought of nomination, as there's been so much literature on World War I that this article's amount of cites is rather poor. LuciferMorgan 23:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I also agree with the nominator - the citations are incredibly weak, and the article could also use some polishing (the quality of the writing has, I think, slipped a little since it reached FA). I don't think it would be problematic to delist it while work is ongoing - it can always work its way back up. Carom 16:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note - If work is being made on an article, admins generally extend the allocated time to address the criteria concerns. LuciferMorgan 17:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment You're right, of course - slipped my mind for some reason. Carom 18:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment 109 kilobytes of info and thirteen measly citations? This article is the encyclopedic definition of unsourced, and if any one is curious, it has been nominated for removal at least three separate times. It's high time we put our credibility where our guidelines are and axe this article’s FA status. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Concur with nominator and above also, for reasons above and my nomination (the 2nd one). It seems that after my nomination, the article was improved (ex. article size went down to 65kb), but now it appears to be growing worse again. AZ _t 23:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: lots of paras without inline citations, the current footnotes include one named just 'web reference', and there are style issue (lots of tiny paras that should be merged or expanded).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria are citations and prose. Joelito (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Insufficient inline cites (1. c. violation). LuciferMorgan 13:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Remove, and fast; an article like this one should be loaded with inline citations, and it's not what I call "brilliant prose".--Aldux 18:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Remove for some of the reasons listed here and for the weak inline citations. The prose isn't that great either. Looking at the lead (guidelines suggest 4 paragraphs, btw), the first sentence is missing a comma, and the second paragraph (which is only 1 sentence) is somewhat unparallel. AZ _t 00:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per my previous comment. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove—Where are the references? Tony 12:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. No references. I'm surprised nobody is working on this article.--Yannismarou 19:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - lack of citations. Buckshot06 00:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bodyline

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Cricket and Australia. Sandy (Talk) 00:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant prose, but no inline citations. Yes, all articles need them, and so does this one. Tagged images are good, movie poster could use a fair use rationale. Could probably use a copyedit too. Judgesurreal777 00:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I've given it a light copyedit - as you say, the prose was pretty good already - and added a few refs. Hopefully someone from WP:CRIC with the books will help too. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I would like a little more time (a week or two) to work on this. I should be able to get Jack Fingleton's Cricket Crisis in a few days. Tintin (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c) and prose (1a). Marskell 07:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Tintin, you have two weeks more to work away—longer, if you feel it necessary, and you inform people here. Marskell 07:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as a featured article I can't agree with the prose comment. Even the nominator of the featured article review, Judgesurreal777, started his comments with "brilliant prose". ALoan has also commented favourably on it above. My own description would be that it is engaging prose. It's also clear that the citations are coming along and I'm sure they'll be at a sufficient standard really soon. jguk 18:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Still patches of uncited text. LuciferMorgan 20:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Give it a short while (another two weeks) and the text will all be referenced up, I'm sure. jguk 20:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. I cleaned up the TOC per WP:MOS, and cleaned up the few refs that were there, but the article is basically uncited and there doesn't appear to be a serious effort underway to correct the issues. Sandy (Talk) 15:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. The whole of the "Genesis" section is referenced. The "English tour 1932-33" section just needs a reference to most of the books already listed at the bottom to be added at the end, and then it will be fully referenced. The "In England" section is fully referenced. The "Origin of the term" section is fully referenced. The "Changes to the Laws of Cricket" is missing just one reference - namely to the change that happened 30 odd years after the event. So up to there, we're only missing two citations, one of which is largely already covered at the end. I agree that the "cultural impact" section is unsupported.

In terms of improvement. There have been many edits relating to referencing in recent days, showing clear improvement. jguk 16:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there has been improvement, but more is still needed. Can someone please add page nos to current ref numbers 3 and 6? And, as you mentioned, there are still uncited sections. Sandy (Talk) 18:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned that there was one uncited section. And I fully agree that it should be referenced. As you note, there has been improvement, and I trust that as long as that improvement continues, adequate time will be given for this article to get back up to standard. I should add that I myself proposed the format that WP:Verifiability currently takes, so I'm quite mindful of the need to allow others to check all substantive claims that have been made. At the same time, I trust WPians are mindful of the large amount of work put into FAs such as Bodyline, so that they are eager for it to retain FA status (and to make the improvements to allow it to do so) rather than rush to delisting. jguk 22:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If someone is working on it, please keep us posted - two weeks passed between Marskell's comment and my Remove vote. Sandy (Talk) 22:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as featured article. I have no idea how this page works (there's no explanation text, or link to any and all the headings are jargon - "FARC Commentary" hardly suggests that people should be nominating to keep / remove, but everyone else is, so I shall too) so apologies if this comment is out of line, or only admins should be "voting". This is a superb article. An exceptional number of issues need citation within it, and proportionately by far the majority are covered. The images are apt, well titled and enlightening. The text is of a quality you'd expect to find in a hardback book on the subject. It's one thing to suggest that some extra citations would be a good thing - noone could dissent. But to say that the article should lose its FA status because there's still a few outstanding does not seem right. And btw could someone who understands how to do these things suggest that an appropriate explanatory template is devised for these FAR pages - they're currently very exclusive. --Dweller 08:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

NB Before someone points out that there's a link at the top of the page to WP:FAR that page doesn't explain process on this one, that I could see. Besides, even if it overtly did, shouldn't it be obvious here too? --Dweller 09:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand the confusion: will raise the question on the WP:FAR talk page, but note that the same situation exists on individual FACs. Sandy (Talk) 14:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment If articles don't meet FA criteria after an FARC period, they're defeatured. I'm not a particular fan of this "good faith" attitude where people keep FAs on the basis they're improved in future. Since the month has finished up, I think this FARC should be closed real soon as no work is going on. LuciferMorgan 01:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree strongly that no real work has been going on. I have added references myself (or rather moved them from being listed at the bottom of the page to being inline citations). I am disappointed that it has been defeatured on something so minor when the text reads so well and (apart from one section at the end) is fully referenced. It seems that the delisting process is automatic and regardless of the goodwill employed to address what (as of today's date) are minor issues that are in the process of being addressed merely serves to dishearten people. Not everyone wants to live their lives by WP, we do this for fun. Assuming the aim is WP improvement rather than denigrating others' work, can there not at least be a holding bay where such articles go to, so they can be relisted as soon as reasonable objections are properly addressed? jguk 18:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I didn't realise this discussion was going on. I can add citations for all the missing bits if you give me a day to do it. I will do it when I get home from work tonight. -dmmaus 22:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The process is dreadful. If you check the article, it seems this process has been decided and closed. Not that anyone bothers to note as much here. Hugely unimpressed by my first experience of FAR. --Dweller 22:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It also seems to go against its own rules. It says those who have commented should re-appear towards the end of the process to update their comments. Only one commentator did that, and that was to edit out "Remove" from his comments. I see little point in having a review if articles are only going to get delisted anyway. jguk 13:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kept status

[edit] Chess

[edit] Review commentary

Brilliant prose promotion, no original author. Messages left at Board and table games and Chess. Sandy (Talk) 14:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Poor referencing. --Ideogram 09:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. No inline citations (see History section in particular), external link farm, section headings don't conform to WP:MOS, weasle words (e.g.; "has been described as", "is sometimes seen as", "another theory exists"), and some of the images are tagged and need attention. Sandy (Talk) 15:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• External links already cleaned--Ioannes Pragensis 15:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Sandy said it all, I'll just add that some small paras need expantion or merging to improve style.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Status? This article has been significantly improved by Bubba73, Ioannes Pragensis, and Andreas Kaufmann ( diff since nom), but I suggest moving to FARC only to keep it on track, as there is a bit more work to be done. History could use better citation, there are still some instances of weasle words, some of the References need to be expanded to full bibliographic style, there are still image tags which need to be addressed, and I'm not sure the word "Chess" should be re-used so often in the TOC (per WP:MOS). Some of the references appear to be to personal websites, rather than reliable sources, and one of the references is a Wiki. Leaving talk message for Ideogram. Sandy (Talk) 14:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• The rules say "The nomination should last two weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. " - The article is under work currently (40+ items in the changelog during the last 24 hours), so I suggest to let it still in the FAR phase.--Ioannes Pragensis 16:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds good as long as work is progressing. Sandy (Talk) 17:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comments Prose is terrible. "Variants of gameplay" is a grab bag of topics, the subsection "Ways to play" talks about time controls and variants, which don't belong together, and the "Computers" section could use expansion. "Strategy and tactics" section could use improvement. Consider adding a "Competitive play" section like that in Go (board game). Personally I don't give a fig for references, but since Go was de-featured for this (among other) reasons, I felt it would be fair to hold this article to the same standards. --Ideogram 19:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Terrible prose - agree, we need a good stylist. Variants of gameplay - I improved it already, thanks for the hint. Expansion of Computers - we do not have place for it, the article has already more than 35 kB. Competitive play - it is already described in the History section. References - agree, they are important; does somebody have good English books about Chess history? Cheers, --Ioannes Pragensis 20:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

35KB is not large, especially for a topic as important as Chess. I wouldn't worry about the size for now. --Ideogram 20:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:SIZE says that we should keep the length of the main body about 30 kB. Otherwise it is too long to read for average readers. We have a special article about Computer chess, so we need only brief intro here, I think.--Ioannes Pragensis 20:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That's just a guideline. Many featured articles, especially on important topics, are longer. The recently promoted Angelina Jolie is 71KB for instance. Which is more important?

The computer chess section doesn't have to be a lot longer, just more balanced. Right now it says too much about the history of creating chess playing machines, and nothing about how computers play chess differently than humans, and only one sentence each about computers as chess seconds and for internet play.

A "competitive play" section could talk about rating systems, how tournaments work, and generally inform new players who might want to participate.

"Strategy and tactics" is the heart of chess and this section really needs to shine. If you are worried about size you don't have to add a lot in the other areas I mentioned, but this should be much longer, and the majority of the article. --Ideogram 20:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course Angelina is more important. And she does not have sub-articles like we do, therefore all the stuff must be in the main article about her. :-) - But seriously, I agree with your ideas about Competitive play and Strategy and tactics. Moreover I think that we should better elaborate the post-war history of chess; I wrote a short outline only, but it should be enhanced.--Ioannes Pragensis 21:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If you can afford to wait, you might consider placing your outline in the article with sections labelled as stubs to invite other editors to contribute. I used this tactic with some success on operating system. --Ideogram 22:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the idea, I did it.--Ioannes Pragensis 22:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Size check Overall 36KB, prose size is under 30KB and doesn't show as size check - one of the shortest FAs I've seen in a long time, plenty of room to expand. Sandy (Talk) 22:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Active improvements ongoing, extend FAR. Concerned about the number of stub tags added, and hope those will be addressed during FAR? Sandy (Talk) 16:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• I added the stub tags, following Ideogram's advice, to mark the weaknesses of the article and places where it should be extended. In my opinion, these issues must be addressed soon, or the article will lose the FA status. I will work on it in hope that others will help, too.--Ioannes Pragensis 19:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wow, lots of work going on here, but where did the WP:LEAD go? Hope it will work its way back up to 3 or 4 summary paragraphs. Sandy (Talk) 16:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• It has been just destroyed by a vandal. I'll try to repair it.--Ioannes Pragensis 16:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I believe that the phase of raw cleaning is behind us (a horrible work). Now we need another input for the fine-tuning. Cheers, --Ioannes Pragensis 21:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I've done a small amount of work on the article, but a couple of editors have done a tremendous amount of work on it. I think it has impoved greatly. If you haven't looked at it lately, please take another look. Bubba73 (talk), 15:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), images (4), and MoS concerns (2). Marskell 14:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I wonder why you move it to FARC when the changes are still ongoing and moreover in my opinion many of the original concerns were already addressed?--Ioannes Pragensis 15:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Just to keep things on track timewise - FARC can also be extended beyond the two-week period as long as work is progressing, so don't be concerned. Sandy (Talk) 17:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Original concerns have been largely addressed, and the article has been massively rewritten. (I'm going to ping Tony to look at the prose.) Has anyone reviewed the issue with the images? If not, can someone ping Jkelly to have a look? The footnotes need to employ a standard bibliographic style - they're kind of all over the place, and need to be more consistent. Sandy (Talk) 17:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Size. I know I said earlier that size was fine, but now the article has grown a bit large. The overall size is 73KB, with 53KB prose, which is quite high. Can you make more use of Summary style in some sections, to get the prose size down around 40KB? Sandy (Talk) 17:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• I deleted about 7 kB of prose, i.e. we are slightly over 45 kB - is it OK?--Ioannes Pragensis 18:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Exactly 45 kB after I removed also the chess diagrams.--Ioannes Pragensis 19:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment -- Lots of images. Image:Garry kasparov.jpg is almost certainly a copyright infringement, and Image:Botvinnik.jpg fails our sourcing requirements. Otherwise the images seem to be fine. Jkelly 17:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Images deleted from the article.--Ioannes Pragensis 18:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. History and Culture sections could still use more inline citations - there are a lot of facts that aren't referenced. Sandy (Talk) 22:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Most of it are basic facts which are probably in every better book about history of chess - but my problem is that I do not have access to English books about chess and I do not think that it would be good to cite e.g. German ones if there is a lot of English books. Does somebody have access to such books and could cite them there, please?--Ioannes Pragensis 23:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Btw Amazon.com says: History of Chess by Harold J. Murray; Chess: The History of a Game (Hardinge Simpole Chess Classics) by Richard Eales; History of Chess by Jerzy Gizycki. So if you have one of these...--Ioannes Pragensis 23:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I already added two citation to History section. Please add {{cn}} to the places where you think citation is needed and I will try to verify them using Murray's or Edward Lasker's book, which I have, and add a citation accordingly. Andreas Kaufmann 11:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to add tags, since I don't play chess, but I'll add a few for now, and more depending on your feedback. Sandy (Talk) 03:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The entire section, Post-war era, is uncited - is it possible to put one cite per paragraph, or to give an indication inline of the source of that history? Sandy (Talk) 04:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way you can search inside in some books on Amazon, e.g. The genealogy of chess, so somtimes you can add references even if you don't have the book. Andreas Kaufmann 11:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Andreas. I discovered Google books (http://books.google.com/) for the same purpose. But they do not show all pages. Greetings,--Ioannes Pragensis 13:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have seen both Italy and Spain cited as places of birth of the modern chess. It should be better cited and perhaps a bit more elaborated in the article. It is possible, that there are different opinions in the circles of historians. I've added a cn tag there. Can someone look in the books, please?--Ioannes Pragensis 08:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't want to be boring, but the number of inline citations is still too small; many paragraphs are as yet unsourced.--Aldux 14:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am not against much more inline citations. But on the other side, WP:CITE says "Attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" and not "Attribution is required for every paragraph." The article is of very high-level nature, written for non-expert readers and much of the information here is in many chess books - so I do not expect that somebody would seriously challenge e.g. the paragraph about basics of endgames today... all the wisdom there is known already for 150 years or more. I could cite e.g. Euwe's major work about endings, but it would look like if somebody cites Einstein to source that "1+1=2". Non-experts cannot understand Euwe. What do you think about it?--Ioannes Pragensis 14:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with Aldux, but since I don't play chess, I could be wrong. It seeme to me that most of the uncited paragraphs are clearly rules and descriptions of how Chess is played, and that all of that info can be found in the FIDE rules or any of the books. I was asking for cites on specific information about the history, or stats on players, but I'm comfortable with not citing the basics of how to play the game. I'm not aware, though, if any of that could be challenged. Sandy (Talk) 19:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope that I solved it by adding some citations, mostly from books for beginners and slightly advanced players into the strategy/tactics section. It will not harm, I think, and those who seek citations will be content. :-) --Ioannes Pragensis 20:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I've just replaced the last remaining cn tag with a citation and every significant section has at least one reference. What next?--Ioannes Pragensis 21:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It's looking good, but I still don't see cites in the Post-War era. We need to get Tony and other copyeditors to look at the prose. Sandy (Talk) 21:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've overlooked it. This is a task mainly for Bubba :-).--Ioannes Pragensis 22:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Per Sandy, and the average subsection only has one inline citation. Good work on the part of those involved, but I vote Remove unless this is addressed. LuciferMorgan 03:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I count 54 footnotes and 22 subsections, about 2.45 footnotes per subsection. Bubba73 (talk), 04:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again: WP:CITE says "Attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged," which is already almost fulfilled. We need only citations for the modern history (Bubba73, please add them) and this will be OK. There are sections which should stay with one citation, that is Rules section or the short section about notation, because there is only one authoritative source for it, the official FIDE rules - I do not see a reason to add more citations there if the FIDE Handbook is already cited.Ioannes Pragensis 06:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment so thanks Bubba73 the Post-War era is referenced and our average number of references / paragraphs is about 3.5 (I do not count the intro, See alsos etc.). If you think that something can be challenged and therefore should be cited, use the cn tag please. - If I understand it right, the most important remaining problem is that the article should be copyedited; could you Sandy please contact somebody able and willing to do the work for us? Ioannes Pragensis 19:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll see what I can do. Sandy (Talk) 00:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Gzkn (talk · contribs) is a chess enthusiast, and agreed to copyedit, so you're in good hands ! Sandy (Talk) 01:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you very much, Gzkn and Sandy!--Ioannes Pragensis 07:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Just for comparison, this is how it looked before FAR (November 20, about 750 edits back in the history log, therefore not easy to find). It is also hard to find one single sentence unchanged since then...--Ioannes Pragensis 22:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment A number of us have made a lot of edits in the last few days and weeks to this article. It's been massively overhauled. What outstanding FARC issues are there? --Dweller 13:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I can't recall another article in FAR which has received as much effort as Chess. The article has been referenced, reorganized, and rewritten, with little prodding needed from FAR reviewers, and little input. I'd still like to see a few changes (I'm not thrilled with players - played in the lead, and liked some of the old lead wording better), but I believe this article has improved so dramatically that it shouldn't be delisted. Sandy (Talk) 00:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Has this FARC been closed? --Dweller 22:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Order of St. Patrick

Messages left at Lord Emsworth, Ireland and Nurismatics. Sandy (Talk) 15:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that a bunch of my FAR nominations have been reviewed, here is another one in need of in-line citations. Also, it has at least one deprecated image tag. Judgesurreal777 22:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Needs inline cites. LuciferMorgan 23:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment might be salvageable. The main problem seems to be that some of the references aren't what we now regard as reliable. I'll have a look at it if nobody picks it up (which judging from past FARs in this area is fairly likely). Yomangani^talk 18:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This would be the third "Order of ..." article to come through here, I believe. It's great if at least some of Emsworth's articles get saved. Jay32183 22:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment As with the Orders of the Garter and the Bath, I'll try to help cite this, but I'm very busy at the moment. --Dr pda 16:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Managed to find some time :) I've cited most of the article, and put {{fact}} tags in where I didn't have a reference. I've added some images (and removed the one with the deprecated tag, which was low resolution anyway). I haven't removed the references I didn't use (which were basically all of the existing ones) in case they're useful for the missing citations. The history section needs expanding though; I don't have time to compress 200-odd pages of Galloway's book into a few paragraphs. (I note in passing that both the other Order of... articles have now been kept, hopefully we can make it three from three) Dr pda 02:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll try and work on the few missing citations this week (do I sense the Thistle heading this way?). Yomangani^talk 10:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yomangani has made some decent work on these Order related FARs, so can we please not wear him out? If they come thick and fast, he might not be able to give them the attention they deserve. LuciferMorgan 22:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment, but Dr Pda has done most of the work on the Order articles so far and the nomination rate has already slowed down, so it isn't a problem for me at least. I'm having trouble finding supporting references for some of the claims in this particular article which is why work is somewhat slow. Yomangani^talk 22:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to get back to the library this weekend and have another look at Galloway's book to see if I can get the last couple of citations. It also has a colour version of the painting of the foundation installation banquet (I tried to take a photo last time, but it didn't work because of the glossy page). Re the issue of supporters, the reason I put a fact tag on it was because I didn't see this privilege mentioned in the original statutes. The reference which has been added for this doesn't explicitly mention the Order of St Patrick. Also as I understand it the stall plates of the Orders are usually brass with an enamelled coat of arms (see Image:Stall plates of Knights of the Thistle.jpg), so they would be colourful. I note in passing that Wikipedia:WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals now exists. Dr pda 12:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Status? This is almost at two weeks: should we move it down to keep on track, or is it close to a keep? Sandy (Talk) 18:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• We are trying to track down one last citation, after which it needs a copyedit at least. Yomangani^talk 18:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you get that last cite? A look tells me we might not need FARC. What does the nominator think? Marskell 15:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I found the last cite today. I'll add it, plus some more information and another picture when I have time tomorrow. Dr pda 16:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The article is now fully cited, some inaccuracies have been corrected, and all images have appropriate licences. Dr pda 17:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Should Chancery by capitalized at section heading, Chapel and Chancery ? Sandy (Talk) 18:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    • This one looks OK to close without FARC - another save! Sandy (Talk) 17:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hurray! I'm glad to see another one keep its star :) Judgesurreal777 22:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Downfall

[edit] Review commentary

Original author, Raul654, aware. Messages left at MilHist and Japan. Sandy (Talk) 21:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Has no in-line citations at all (1c) and contains weasel words ("Everybody has" in one of the paragraphs). It appeared on the Main Page in 2004, which leads me to believe that it's a very old-school article before in-line cites were required. Hbdragon88 20:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Both of the claims in this listing are wrong. There are 10-20 parenthatical citations. And the phrase "everybody has" does not occur anywhere in the article (which has not changed in over 2 weeks) Raul654 21:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say 1. c. isn't met here, regardless of whether the 10-20 parenthetical citations count or not. Also, the lead is rather short. LuciferMorgan 21:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the overall level of citation isn't really adequate, regardless of the exact number involved; for example, there are direct quotes (which is what I'm guessing the contents of the "Assumptions" section are) which aren't cited. Kirill Lokshin 02:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"Everyone" is in the section of casualties. "Everybody based their estimates on the experience of the preceding campaigns, but they could draw different lessons:" I thought this was a rather obvious fact, to introduce the various estimates done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by Adm. Nimitz's staff, by Gen. MacArthur's staff, etc., etc.

—wwoods 23:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If that is the case, the the person who made this FAR nom does not understand the concept of weasel words. Weasel words are a way to drop an unreferenced commentary or opinion into an article ("Some people say..." is the the canonical example). Saying "everybody did this" and then enumerating who did what is, as this article does, by definition, not weasel words. In fact, give how wrong both of the nominator's claims are, I'm starting to doubt he even read the article, and I'm tempted to remove this FAR listing. Raul654 03:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree with a removal, as the complete lack of inline citations in the beginning sections of this article would merit its listing here, regardless of what you may think of the nominator. Gzkn 06:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Raul654 has no right to remove this FAR listing - I don't care if he is the Featured article director. I'd like to say I read the article, and perhaps rather than criticising the reviewers here he should get to work. His attitude is rather unwelcome as far as I'm concerned. LuciferMorgan 16:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Lucifer, and it's absolutely nothing personal. Rather, it's a systemic issue: WP needs to be seen to be democratic, and part of that is that office bearers are, as far as possible, on the same functional level as the rest of us. Tony 07:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• I would suggest that this article remain under FAR. Here are my comments:

• For some suggestions on the citations, I just added some {{fact}} tags in the article.
• A description of the Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps would be needed. Or a wikilink if there is an article about this group. If this is an organisation of adult civilians, then it is unclear to me why the text about a high school girl follows it. If there was an organised mobilisation of children, then that should be described as well.
• Can something be done about the hyperlinks to the images on the CIA web site? Either obtain an licensed image or expand the text.
• The sentence, "This gave the United States a justification for their use..." sounds like speculation. Did someone say this? Or is this the opinion of the author?

--RelHistBuff 12:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. There are things to admire in this article, but there are problems with the prose. For this to be "among our very best", as required, the writing will need to be thoroughly copy-edited. Let's look at the lead.
  • "Later, in the spring of 1946, Coronet was the invasion of the Kanto plain near Toyko on the island of Honshu." Remove "later", since it's obvious that the spring of 1946 is later than "November 1945". More importantly, Operation Coronet "was" an invasion? Having correctly used the conditional "would" elsewhere, the same should apply here. Better: "would involve", because it surely consisted of not just invading. Or did this bit happen and the others didn't? I'm confused, and I shouldn't be.
• "Japan's geography made this invasion plan obvious to the Japanese as well,...". Just why this is the case isn't clear to me (perhaps I'm missing something obvious). And why "as well"? Unclear.
• "The Japanese planned an all-out defense of Kyushu, with little left in reserve for any subsequent defense operations. Casualty predictions, though varying widely, were extremely high for both sides.
• The stubby third para is more awkward for starting with "However,...".

This article is definitely worth retaining, so I hope that the writing can be improved. Tony 13:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that some copyediting would be good - I will if/when I have time. The last section in particular seems a bit choppy. It would also be nice to see the first few sections having the same level of citations as the last ones. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Can this sentence (containing external jumps) be converted to a cited statement to avoid the external jumps? Readers shouldn't have to access external websites when reading the article.
  • (Also, compare the estimate made in early July with the estimate made in early August.)
• Sandy (Talk) 14:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Waited a few days, no one else addressed it, converted the external jumps to prose myself. Sandy (Talk) 23:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

So, how are the footnotes looking? I agree that the links to the CIA website are awkward. I'd like to just copy the two maps, but the article (still) says,"Copyright pending. Not for distribution or reproduction without permission of the author, the Center for the Study of Intelligence, and Harvard University." (Although that hasn't stopped someone from adding them to de:Operation Downfall and fr:Opération Downfall.) The maps just illustrate the fact that the defending forces had tripled in strength, which is already stated in the paragraph.
—wwoods 06:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I am a little worried about the clause, "the fact that Japanese civilians were being encouraged to become suicide attackers". I had put a cite tag on that one, but it was removed with the edit summary that this was common knowledge. But I still wonder about this. I am aware that kamikaze attacks were planned among the military. As for civilians, the Japanese did commit suicide in Okinawa and other islands to avoid capture. But I was wondering if there was a campaign for Japanese civilians to become suicide attackers in the event of an invasion of the home islands. Hence, the cite tag. --RelHistBuff 10:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There's some description earlier, at the end of Operation Downfall#Ground forces. I suppose it could be expanded.

—wwoods 18:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, I believe that last quote concerning the high school girl should be removed. It is picking on one small shocking point of what is purportedly a national campaign. Even if the statement is sourced, having this isolated statement without the complete context is more worthy of tabloid journalism rather than an encyclopaedia. The description of organised civilian suicide attackers should cover its campaign and organisation on a high-level but properly detailled because this is clearly a controversial assertion. In any case, such a description should cite the source, because I do not believe this is common knowledge. --RelHistBuff 13:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Your reasons are, frankly, unconvincing. That particular incident is not out of the ordinary at all; removing it would reduce the quality of the article, so it will be staying in. Raul654 19:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Raul, I don't disagree with your reasoning, but I do object to your dictatorial "so it will be staying in". It's a wiki, so a more cooperative angle would be more productive. The risk is that some reviewers might ignore your point because of the last six words. Tony 14:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I do believe that a cite should be added to the clause, "the fact that Japanese civilians were being encouraged to become suicide attackers" and more information is needed for the “Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps”. If one googles “Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps”, there are only 236 results. Most of these are links to this article on mirror sites of Wikipedia. The rest are blogs and forums that discuss the corps using similar language to the article which may imply that the bloggers got the info from Wikipedia. Hence, it looks like WP:OR unless this is corrected by the cites and additional info. --RelHistBuff 08:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Status?? Diff since nom. Sandy (Talk) 14:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I would ask for an extension of the FAR deadline to address the concerns above. They are fixable, hence FARC is not necessary yet. --RelHistBuff 14:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added a bit to the paragraph about the militia forces. As for the name, I don't speak the language, but from googling around, my best guess is that “Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps”, "Peoples' Volunteer Fighting Corps", and "National Volunteer Combat Force" are variant translations of "Kokumin Giyu Sento-Tai".

—wwoods 21:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Looking up using the other terms produced a few more sites. Again mostly bloggers and private websites with similiar descriptions. I assume the differences in descriptions are that different books were used as a source. Anyway it is clearer now. With that info, I toned down the "suicide attackers" clause. As the corps description is now cited, there is no need for the clause to be cited. --RelHistBuff 08:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the sentence on Yukiko Kasai, as it is properly sourced and the source is well-known and accepted, it does satisfy WP:V and WP:RS. However, the reason I do not believe it is appropriate in an encyclopaedia is that it is an anecdote. In all military situations, one can find examples of extreme behaviour. A historian is able to study and make general conclusions (for example, on kamikaze). We should write on those conclusions. But to pull out some anecdotes that mainly illustrate a particular point-of-view on a battle, mobilisation, prisoner treatment, etc., would be a subtle violation of WP:NPOV. --RelHistBuff 09:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's a useful anecdote, illustrating the extreme fanaticism/desperation of the Japanese. When you have to stretch your definition of combatant down to 'schoolgirl' and of weapon down to 'pointed piece of metal'... Also, "the Japanese predilection for fanatical resistance" is an objective fact. Iwo Jima and Okinawa were the first battles in which more than 5% of the Japanese were taken prisoner.

—wwoods 19:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Wwoods. Yes, it's anecodatal; on the other hand, as Wwoods says, it's an objective historical fact that the Japanese resistance was fanatical by any definition ( fa·nat·i·cal (f…-n²t“¹-k…l) adj. Possessed with or motivated by excessive, irrational zeal.), and that the Japanese attempt to mobilize the population matched this zeal, and the anecdote serves to illustrate this finely. Raul654 02:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Status? Still a lot of uncited figures used in the article (I feel exact numbers usually need cites), and still paragraphs without citations. Move to FARC to keep momentum. LuciferMorgan 20:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The number of citations has now been doubled, and there isn't a significant uncited paragraph in the article. I think this one is good to go. Raul654 21:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I fixed some of the refs (updating URLs and adding access dates), and concur that the level of referencing is now adequate. I changed the awkward sentence mentioned above ("Everybody based their estimates on the experience of the preceding campaigns, but they could draw different lessons:" to "Casualty estimates were based on the experience of the preceding campaigns, drawing different lessons:") It looks like the phrases about suicide attackers, giving the U.S. a justification, and Patriotic Civilians Fighting Corp have been addressed - is that correct? I concur that the anecdote about Yukiko Kasai, the high school girl, is awkward and context is not provided; I think it should be better addressed, but I'm not sure how. I'd like an update from Tony on the prose before closing. Sandy (Talk) 20:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the anecdote, making equivalences of "Japanese population = fanatical" is a generalisation. The military leadership, I agree, the civilians, no. Just to be specific, I am concerned about the violation of criteria 1d. --RelHistBuff 09:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Anytime you talk about the overall feelings of a population, it is (by definition) a generalization; that doesn't make it any less of a fact in this case. It is commonly acknowledged that both the Japanase military and civilians were fanatical. Consider the example on Saipan, where hundreds (thousands?) of civilians literally threw themselves off cliffs rather than be captured. Raul654 15:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The Battle of Saipan article does not describe the Japanese as fanatical. In that battle, the civilians were told that they would suffer cruelties if captured, hence many committed suicide (not suicide attacks). One could say they were deluded, but not fanatical. The millions of civilians in Japan were not "fanatically" preparing for an invasion force. Most stayed in bomb shelters or turned off all lighting covering their windows and prayed for the war to end. This is not to deny that the Yukiko Kasai incident occurred nor that the military attempted to mobilise civilians. Yes, that did happen. However, I am concerned that including the anecdote and using phrasing such as the word "fanatic" will skew the opinion toward the effect that one might think the Japanese civilian population was "fanatical" in general. Hence my concern with critierion 1d. --RelHistBuff 17:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hrm, on second though, you might have a point there - that it might be worth making the distinction in the text between civilian and military. Raul654 21:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Per your request, Wwoods now has added a description of the patriotic fighting core, which now immediately preceedes the description of Yukiko Kasai. Raul654 23:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The characterization "fanatically" is now in a quote attributed to Americans. The quote about Yukiko-san doesn't actually give her opinion; quite possibly she — and the middle-aged men being issued satchel charges and bamboo spears to fight tanks — had mixed feelings, but decided to exercise "the better part of valour".

—wwoods 02:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I oppose closing this one. There's tons of exact numbers quoted of personnel etc., and they aren't cited. Where have these numbers come from? Thin air? No, they've come from sources, and should be inline cited. Move to FARC. LuciferMorgan 00:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Additionally I'd like to have it on the record that the number of inline citations an article has isn't indicative of an article being "well referenced", something the FA director should also remember when passing so many FAs. If everyone wishes to close this one then the FAR process as concerns cites is rather lax in my opinion - look at all the different numbers, ie. 35, 000 this, 1, 000 that etc., all stuff that can be easily mistaken. LuciferMorgan 00:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

From a quick scan, it seems to me that almost all of the numbers are in sourced paragraphs. Which ones concern you?

—wwoods 07:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

One cite means a whole paragraph is sourced? Since when? All of the numbers concern me - just because there's an inline cite at the end of a paragraph, it doesn't mean a specific number is cited. LuciferMorgan 16:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This is getting plain ridiculous. First, you complain about lack of citations. So Wwood and I more than double the number of citations. Then you complain that many specific numbers given in the article are not cited, when in fact we are hard pressed to find *any* that are not cited. And then when asked, rather than coming up with any specific examples, you simply complain about the ones that are clearly cited, because you can't be bothered to look any of them up. I think you've made YOUR opinion on the matter quite clear, in that you simply intend to complain ad nasueum about things that are perfectly good and proper. Raul654 16:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

When a whole paragraph is drawn from one source, I don't see much point of putting in multiple references to, e.g., "Frank, Downfall, p. 209–10."

—wwoods 02:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Utter rubbish. You were the one complaining like a baby about FAR in the first place, and thought as the FA director you could simply stop the FAR - simply you're the one who can't be bothered to cite the specific numbers, and also this is coming from the same person who passes FAs like Smarties. Your opinion sways nothing with me, because I don't think your term as FA director is something to be proud of. If you want fact tags, you'll have them - feel free to whine afterwards like you did in the first place. And by the way, this is my opinion on this specific FAR and your obnoxious attitude in general. LuciferMorgan 20:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way I'd also like to add that there's a lot of one sentence statements occurring which creates disjointed prose, meaning the article is in breach of 1. a. also. Raul is free to complain about this too - he's invited. LuciferMorgan 20:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

A lot of repetitive style prose occurs also, specifically the endless of the words "would" and "was", which get's tiring. Many sentences either read "would have" or "was to" - another 1. a. violation. I'll be sure to vigilantly look for more flaws in "good faith". LuciferMorgan 20:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It does make it easier to respond to criticism if it is precise, so adding {{fact}} templates to uncited facts does help. But not if you carpet-bomb the article with them, like this Are you really asking for every single clause in the article to have a footnote? It is pretty damn clear to me where the information in this article comes from already.

"A lot of one sentence statements" and "repetitive style"? Most sentences are single statements - sentences that make more than one statement are apt to be criticised as "snakes". Are you complaining that there are one-sentence paragraphs? Similarly, forms of the verb "to be " are rather common in English prose. Perhaps you would like to contribute by copyediting the article to correct its perceived structural and grammatical faults, rather than throwing stones from the sidelines? -- ALoan (Talk) 20:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Adding cite tags to every sentence which does not have a reference (and some which do, if you had paid more attention to the citations) is simple disruption to prove a point, and I have reverted.

Second, as to "would have" and "was to", there are only so many ways in the english language to conjugate verbs about events which never took place but were supposed to. Raul654 20:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

And third - there is no requirement that every sentence in an article be cited. In fact, other than a few one sentence stubs, there are no articles at all that are completely cited. Raul654 20:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I added cite tags and they've been reverted - I didn't do it to prove a point, but to answer wwoods question above as to which ones concern me. This is disruptive and belligerent, and frankly an utter joke. Since it seems the FA director throwing his weight around like a clown is condoned here, I have no intentions of further contributing at FAR at all - Raul's attitude is frankly disgusting, and I hope his term as FA director comes to a swift halt. Indeed all he thinks is in terms of numbers - ie. more FAs the better, merely adding more cites to just about everything, etc. 1. a. and 1. c. is clearly at fault here, not that anyone cares. Goodbye and good riddance. LuciferMorgan 20:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

PS - As to ALoan's statement, I have no intentions of copyediting the article in this environment, and if he feels that compelled maybe he should copyedit it himself. LuciferMorgan 20:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If you insist - I have done some fiddling, but the article was pretty good already, IMHO. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; that was helpful.

—wwoods 02:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comments—My feeling is that this should not go to FARC, but should stay here just a little longer while it receives its final polish. Here are the changes since Sandy's status comment on 30 Nov, and here are the changes since nomination. But I'd be happy for a little sprucing up. For example:
  • Why "three (3)" etc.? I've never understood why any text includes both, and there's certainly no reason to here. (The usual practice is to spell out single-digit numbers only, unless there's a good reason not to.)
  • "Olympic was to be mounted with resources already in the Pacific, including the British Pacific Fleet, which was actually a Commonwealth formation which included at least a dozen aircraft carriers and several battleships." Remove "which was actually"; either it was or it wasn't, and there are two "whiches". Possibly insert "stationed" after "already"? Replace "which included" with "of", but only if what is specified was the basis of the formation.

See what I mean? That last one is just a single sentence, and while many sentences are well written, there's a case for asking someone different to run over it. This is such a good article that it's worth polishing. Tony 02:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The number is spelled out because it's a direct quote from a cited source. That's what the source does, so that's what the article quotes. Raul654 03:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That last sentence was my fault, I think. I knew it wasn't ideal, but was at a loss for an elegant rephrasing. I have had another go - "Olympic was to be mounted with resources already present in the Pacific, including the British Pacific Fleet, a Commonwealth formation that included at least a dozen aircraft carriers and several battleships." -- ALoan (Talk) 12:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see the quote marks; you're right. Tony 11:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As to why it's "three (3)", I figure it's a style adopted to ensure that the information doesn't get lost. Essentially the same reason we have to write out the amount of a check in words as well as numerals. —wwoods 17:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Status: Well, this looks like it's been around the block a few times. Can we close it? Is the nominator still watching with an opinion by any chance? Marskell 18:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Close it - nobody cares what I think anyway. LuciferMorgan 23:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that —wwoods and Raul654 have addressed some of the issues I brought up. I still have strong concerns about NPOV in its current state. However, as noonly one other editor has spoken up, then please take the consensus decision without me included. My comments remain neither support or object, but simply neutral. --RelHistBuff 07:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), and POV (1d). Marskell 22:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: This is a tough one given all the comments, but it didn't seem right to close it as the comments on status were "yes, but" or "no, but". As always, moving it down is not a comment on the article condition, but just a desire to keep things moving. If Rel can list specifics on POV we can still move to a keep quickly and clear it out. Marskell 22:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - consistent with my comments above. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per above. Raul654 23:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I have just two concerns.

The first one is about the use of the Yukiko Kasai anecdote. I do appreciate that wwoods has added the context surrounding the anecdote (description of the mobilisation of the militia). In my opinion, this description is sufficient in describing the rather desperate measures undertaken by the Japanese leadership. The anecdote, however, does not give any additional facts but rather adds an emotional element (due to her age) and perhaps some shock value. Military history articles are very careful in the inclusion of such anecdotes because they can be used to subtly push a POV. I suggest the anecdote be dropped for the sake of criterion 1d.

The second concern is about the use of term “fanatical” for describing the Japanese civilian population. I toned down a phrase so as to match the description of the militia and my result is as follows:

• Given the large number of Japanese troops to be faced and the organized resistance among Japanese civilians ... (italics added)

This has been changed by wwoods to

• Given the large number of Japanese troops to be faced and the organized resistance among Japan's "fanatically hostile population" ... (italics added)

Although the latter is sourced, I believe my formulation is sufficient and avoids an unintended push of a POV that all civilians were fanatical. As the quoted description of the civilian population is already in the “Assumptions” section, repeating it here does not add to the article.

If these two concerns are addressed, then I would vote keep. --RelHistBuff 12:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• • RelHistBuff's suggestion that the anecdote be removed has been discussed extensively, and rejected as being detrimental to the article. Also, about the "fanatically hostile population", it comes from a cited primary source, and it is an objective fact. He might not agree with it, but that's the way it is. Raul654 18:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Rel, I checked the PDF and "fanatically hostile" is indeed the phrase; your point is good faith, but it would actually be an error to change that and "leave it in quotes". Given that the quote comes from the U.S. military, I don't think the reader will be led to POV assumptions—what kind of wording would you expect, really? I'm neither here nor there on the anecdote. Marskell 20:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm still troubled by the high school girl anecdote (because of my work on medical articles, I'm usually troubled by any kind of anecdote :-). It seems that the "fanatically hostile population" can be dealt with in the same way many POV concerns are dealt with in articles - by specifically stating whose opinion it is, so it doesn't appear to be asserted as fact. The article says "planners" (clearly implying military planners), but perhaps it could be made more clear that this is an assumption made by the US military - a properly attributed phrase would feel less like "fact" about the entire Japanese population, and more like US opinion. Sandy (Talk) 20:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
        • The fanatically hostile population part is already properly attributed. If you click on the [6] link, it goes to the ref which says: Sutherland, Richard K. et al, "DOWNFALL": Strategic Plan for Operations in the Japanese Archipelago Raul654 20:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
          • I made a slight change "planners" --> "U.S. military planners". Really, I think this one is fine; I can't imagine how anyone will be led astray, especially with the PDF sitting there to look at.
          • On the anecdote, I suppose the only question would be whether you're sure it's not apocryphal. Marskell 20:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
            • The historian whose book it comes from, Richard Frank, is probably the greatest living authority on Japan at the time of the surrender. I have no doubt of either its authenticity, or that thousands of similiar incidents occured. Raul654 21:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

(indent off) I believe Sandy’s idea of noting that this was the military planners’ assumption would remove the appearance of POV. Rather than paraphrasing and focusing only on the “fanatic” part, it would be better to include the complete sentence as stated in the source. I made a change reflecting this. --RelHistBuff 10:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I totally missed that second use. Your change seems appropriate. Marskell 17:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

As for the anecdote, I was not noting whether it truly occurred or not. In fact, I would assume it was true, although I would also note that Richard B. Frank’s book is known for pushing its own POV. My objection is that it is precisely what it is: an anecdote. I would object to any anecdote especially in war articles. Usually they cause problems in lower-quality articles and are a source of POV-wars. Featured articles, if they are written well, do not need them. The paragraph describing the Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps is excellent and is sufficient. It describes persons including girls of high school age (17 years old) were equipped with primitive weapons (such as an awl). The anecdote does not add additional information. --RelHistBuff 10:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above. --Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am going to close this as keep. Moving it elicited comments as hoped but the discussion of the anecdote isn't producing anything new; I think due diligence was done here and it's within criteria. Marskell 04:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toilets in Japan

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Chris 73, Yelyos, and Japan. Sandy (Talk) 16:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Lacks citations, lead needs expansion, and images need better captions. Gzkn 06:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. While I am quite fond of this article, it was promoted during a time when we had lesser standards for verifiability. I am not sure this is well-referenced enough that it would pass GA today. —ptk✰fgs 06:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It has plenty of citations, just not inline citations. I'm working to change that right now. I've just saved the beginning of the conversion. It's a big article, so will take some time to do so. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Insufficient inline citations (1. c. violation). LuciferMorgan 23:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Lead needs expansion, and a lot more inline citations are required. When I read this article through (before looking at the talk page), I thought of entering this into featured article review. CloudNine 15:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Changes: Since I am the primary author, I am very interested in keeping the article's FA status. I greatly expanded the citations (following User:Nihonjoe's work), and expanded the lead section. I also expanded the intro section. I also did some small changes in the captions, although I thought the captions were not bad to begin with. What further improvements if any do you feel necessary? Detailed feedback would be appreciated. Many thanks -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Whole paragraphs still remain uncited, so I want this FAR to remain Open. LuciferMorgan 23:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I will keep on working on it. Should be possible to find a citation for every paragraph -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - citations start off OK, but then tail off. "Environmental aspects" is stubby and the two "A website...achieved some internet fame" paragraphs are horrible. It was heavily overlinked (an obsession with urinal, vulva and the TOTO company) - I've fixed a lot of this, but it could probably still do with another pass. Yomangani^talk 16:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved the Tokyo Toilet Map to the External links -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Still adding more refs, even finding good sources that I have missed when I first wrote the article. I will keep on working during the next few days as I have time -- Chris 73 | Talk

• Request for Comment: Could I get a feedback about the current status of the article? Many more refs were added recently, citing a total of 42 sources. -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - a lot better. Some sections are still light on references though. Inline citations should follow punctuation per the manual of style and be in numerical order. At times it reads like a how-to-guide for foreigners: "You can also try an upscale department store..."; "Alternatively, users can seek a handicapped bathroom (if one is available)", etc. Yomangani^talk 02:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Footnote placements have been fixed. Joelito (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Added refs for the fact templates. For one claim I could not find refs, so i moved it to the talk page. Another claim (squat-washlet) was added by me based on discussions with the TOTO show room manager in Shinjuku L Building. he even showed me the catalog for it, but unfortunately my japanese is not good enough to find it on their webpage. I will work on some wordings next. Also, thanks to Joelito for fixing the foot note placements -- Chris 73 | Talk 20:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I found this page, which shows an adapter for converting a squat to a standard sit-down. I can't find any others, though. Do you remember the catalog number? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should add this link to the article, too. The missing citation however is a regular squat toilet, which includes a washlet like nozzle that comes out from one end (not the "dome" side but the other one). The manager said that the sales of these devices are near zero. He gave me a copy of the catalog page, but I don't have it anymore. -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Added information and link -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I would be okay if someone showed me another toilet in x country article. I think that this is pretty ridiculous & funny @ same time. (Wikimachine 02:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC))

Haha, I think it's hilarious as well, but also an indication of how distinctive Wikipedia really is. You'd be hard pressed to find a better or more comprehensive article on Japanese toilets. Also, where else would I have turned to for such high quality information on those exploding whales? By the way, Chris and Nihonjoe, you guys are making great progress on those citations! Keep it up. Gzkn 03:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are insufficient citations (1c), LEAD (2a), and images (3). Marskell 06:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Question: Why is this already moved to FARC? The changes are still in process, would it be possible to keep this in FAR for now? The citation request seems to be fixed (plusminus a citation here and there). I am planning to update the wording on some sections a bit soon (am busy with work and have time only on a few evenings). What I don't like about the FARC is that it feels like the focus is on removing the article, not on trying to keep it a FA. Thanks. -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Articles are moved to FARC only to keep on schedule, and it doesn't mean there is any more emphasis on removing the article: if you need more time in the FARC section, and work is progressing on the article, it is granted. You're doing a great job. Sandy (Talk) 16:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Status? This article is vastly improved: I'm adding it to the Urgent FAR template so we can get other views as to any additional work needed. Sandy (Talk) 15:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comments & Votes? The article should by now have enough citations for a FA. The last //fact// open point is based on an interview with a showroom manager, of which I have unfortunately no written reference. If there is anything else that needs improvement, please let me know and I will see what I can do. BTW: Thanks for the positive feedback, Sandy. -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - it still has the "user guide" style writing I pointed out earlier, but if that can be corrected it's not far away from a keep as far as I'm concerned. Yomangani^talk 18:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Changed some wordings and removed some redundant or POV information, especially in the Public toilets section. I think it is more descriptive now and less of an user guide. Any thoughts? -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Vastly improved since it was nominated. Well done. I'd still like to see the one remaining uncited statement removed until it can be sourced though. Yomangani^talk 01:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: I made a minor correction, but I see no other issues. --RelHistBuff 12:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I added a few "citation needed" tags, but those aren't enough to merit a remove vote. Well done. Gzkn 13:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: I removed the uncited voyeurism statement to the talk page, and hope the other two uncited statements will be addressed very soon, or removed. Sandy (Talk) 16:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Wikipedia:Reliable sources says that "Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources". It seems that several of the sources used in this article are personal websites and blogs. It additionally uses a retailer's website and a newsletter as sources. I also find it strange that it uses an article from "Kids Web Japan", a website intended for children, to back up 9 claims. I realize that this is an esoteric topic but perhaps the reliable sources available should dictate the content that should be included in the article, rather than stretching to find sources for what is already written. On a side note, there seem to be some errors/redundancies and inconsistent style within the references section.
• I also have problems specifically with the Terminology section. It arbitrarily provides footnotes for some terms but not others. But, more broadly, I'm not sure why the section exists at all. Wikipedia is not a "usage guide or slang and idiom guide", and this section seems to be just that: a usage guide for Japanese bathroom terminology. I find it difficult to imagine that a general, English-speaking audience would have any use for this information. Punctured Bicycle 18:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The terminology section in this article provides relevant information about toilets in Japanese culture. Ordinarily I'd agree with you, but this is an exception. A mere usage guide wouldn't illustrate the parallels between toilet terminology and the "tagged out" place in children's games, for example. Perel 05:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Joyce

Messages left at Filiocht, Bio, Authors, Ireland, Books, Irish literature, and Novels. Sandy (Talk) 21:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn. A very old nomination. No inline references, short lead, some short paragraphs, no fair use rationale on copyrighted images, and badly needs Wikifying (linking technical terms). Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: It certainly doesn't need Wikifying (avoid linking common terms). The lead is not short. The paragraphs are not particularly problematic. As for the citations, the article is built from information gathered from the books listed at the end. Richard Ellmann is the source for almost all biographical information on Joyce that you will see by anyone, as it is widely considered the best biography of the 20th century, certainly of a literary figure. Burgess's book has information on critical themes, and particularly the language games of Finnegans Wake. Citing to this page here, that page there, the other page another place is far more than any print encyclopedia does. From Britanica to the DNB to any other source you'd consult, you will see a list of works that provided the information, but citations only if the information is controversial. There are no claims in the article that are controversial. Geogre 03:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: By Wikifying I meant it contains many nearly linkless paragraphs and technical terms are left unlinked. Yes, I do believe a two small paragraph lead is very short for a biography article. The references at the bottom might cover the article entirely but per criteria 1c it has to have inline citations. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It doesn't appear that the original author/nominator has edited in a year and a half (last version edited by Filiocht,) the talk page indicates some doubt about some of the content, and the article history shows no editor appears to be actively following the article. Inline citations are required for FAs on Wikipedia, which can't be compared to other encyclopedias, since anyone can edit: this article does not include them, and there are numerous statements that should be cited. The end of the article contains an external jump, and uses mixed reference styles (some of the references inserted towards the end may not be to reliable sources). The References section appears to contain what may be a link farm rather than actual sources for the article, and the External links section may need attention. Per WP:LEAD, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Sandy (Talk) 06:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Link farm? I see the names of the major works on Joyce. Please be sure that you are reading "References" and not "External links" and that you read the lead itself. Additionally, the fact that the people on the talk page were not turned back does not make them correct in their "concerns." People will say the darnedest things. Geogre 13:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: This is a very well written and sourced featured article, and I can see no reason why it should not remain one. There are no false or controversial facts at all in the page. The only thing that need fixing is the bio-box which is redundant as it contains information easily assimilated from the lead. It is ugly and falls into the section below spoiling the layout. Other than that it seems a perfect page, and I can see no legitimate or worthwhile reason for it being listed here. Giano 14:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: It has no inline cites, this is the primary reason for the FAR. Per Sandy, these are very important to the encyclopedia and without them it is nearly impossible to identify which statements are not covered by the references. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The infobox is well aligned on my browser, and doesn't fall into the text below; perhaps this is a browser issue ? Sandy (Talk) 19:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Don't worry Sandy, perhaps you just have a small screen. I've sorted the problem now, vast improvement. Great FA. Giano 21:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• It has nine authorative books on the subject listed as references. None of the facts are contraversial. Giano 16:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm no expert on the subject, but this appears to me to be a well-written, well-structured and comprehensive article on Joyce. I'm actually quite impressed with the way the bottom-of-the-page stuff is laid out; I think it's clear, logical and helpful. I tend to agree that the lead could perhaps be a bit longer, but it's not problematically short and all the important stuff is set out in it in a well-thought out way. And well done Giano II for deleting the ugly and useless infobox. Palmiro | Talk 02:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note I would advise all editors and people who have commented here to switch from defending/praising the article to addressing the concerns of this review. Past experience assures me that the article will be demoted if in-line citations are not added. There are many reasons for the necessity of in-line citations, some of which have been mentioned above. In-line citations are an actionable objection and a fair reason for removal of FA status. Joelito (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The FA criteria, say that an FA should have in-line citations "where appropriate". The burden is on those who think this needs in-line citations, to demonstrate that. This article is one of our very best, and continues to deserves its FA status. Paul August ☎ 01:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought inline citations are basically a requirement for all FA's. If this article was to go through the FAC process in its current state, I'm pretty sure it would not pass due to the lack of inline citations. Gzkn 06:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well not according to the Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. The relevant passage is:

Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations (see verifiability and reliable sources); this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations.

Paul August ☎ 08:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Then perhaps WP:WIAFA needs some clarification, as I thought consensus had been reached numerous times in the past (see the talk page of FAR, for instance) that FAs need inline citations. And FACs that lack them are routinely rejected. I did always think that the "where appropriate" led to vastly different interpretations. Perhaps its time we cleared up the confusion and state with clarity in WIAFA whether FAs need inline citations or not. (I happen to think they do, but all the arguments in this particular FAR lead me to wonder if my view is indeed consensus.) Gzkn 12:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• I think (IMO) that if a fact is controversial, or newly discovered then it does need a firm clear reference preferably with a page number to a certain edition. However when the subject is a long dead much researched noncontroversial figure then the footnote is not necessary. " For instance Henry VIII had six wives" does not need citing - "Nicholas II had s secret wife" would need citing. However. listing references used is always essential. I see nothing on James Joyce that makes me want to say "hang on a moment here". Admittedly I have taken to citing almost every verb, my current work is only half finished and already has 117 - but the subject is almost unknown. Joyce is a much researched and reported figure, and that is why this page is fine as it is. It is all there in the references. Now if an anon comes along and inserts a controversial fact, then he must be asked to verify with a detailed ref, but at the moment there is nothing to warrant demoting this page. Giano 12:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

  I agree with this summary. Case closed. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That's understandable. I'm not going to get into whether or not the lack of citations warrants demoting James Joyce, but I do think the article needs inline citations. Perhaps those who are familiar with him are comfortable with this article, but what about readers who don't know much about James Joyce? How are they able to figure out whether to trust this article or not? For example, I don't know his early life, so how do I go about verifying the stuff in Dublin, 1882-1904? Which facts belong to which sources? How do I know they are all true? Let's take a random statement: Joyce refused to pray at her bedside but this seems to have had more to do with Joyce's agnosticism than antagonism for his mother. Doesn't this call for a citation? Gzkn 13:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

As you wish. You have been warned and have decided not to take my advice. Joelito (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm all in favour of requiring in-line references for current featured article candidates, but in the current state of Wikipedia it seems premature to say the least to question the status of a long-standing featured article for lack of something that has only relatively lately come to be seen as a requirement. This is a featured article review, so I think people are entitled to bring up whatever issues they feel are relevant in support of that article's status; furthermore, the request for review cites several other issues which are addressed in the replies here, not just the question of references. Palmiro | Talk 23:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

All FAs are held to the same standards. If by relatively lately you mean since January 2005 then you are correct. Long-standing FA status has little to do with current standards. Again, it's your choice if you wish to conform to the current FA guidelines or not. As I have said before, past experience shows that the article will get demoted if editors choose not to add the in-line citations.

Also see this thread where the majority of FAR reviewers express their thoughts on the issue. Joelito (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• several pages have passed FAC successfully since Jan 2005 with no inline cites at all Giano 16:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Have any passed recently? I really wish to stop this argument. Experience in FAR says no in-line = no longer FA. Joelito (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I bet you do. You were the one who brought up the subject of the date. Giano 16:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If there's really a problem with uncited information, you could also use the citation requested template (or even <gasp> the talk page) to indicate where the dubious statements are that need references. Palmiro | Talk 01:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Certainly it needs inline citations, and it could use some copyedit: last para begins with 'Not everyone is eager to expand upon academic study of Joyce' but in effect it mentions only one of his relatives, that's hardly justifies suggestion that there is some widespread movement - seems like journalism style.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Can someone advocating for FAC status removal please reassure me that they have recently read a book (that's one of those rectangular things made from processed tree that taste so much like cardboard and are encountered in a library) and are converstant with the academic practice of footnoting! I just checked a couple: in all cases there is an extensive bibliography at the end, and those things that might raise eyebrows or are generally in need of explanation are annotated at the bottom of the page with a footnote. Folks, we are writing an encyclopedia, not a review article or a term paper! Dr Zak 20:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

How many people wrote that book? Can anyone edit it? Don't compare oranges with bottles. In-line citations are an FA criteria. If you wish to argue them go to the talk page of WP:WIAFA.

Furthermore, books have in-line citations. For example my The Tainos:Rise and Decline of the people who greeted Columbus. Yale Univeristy Press. ISBN 0300056966 uses in-line citations (parenthetical citations). Joelito (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

How many in-line citations does the FA criteria say an FA needs exactly? Paul August ☎ 21:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Paul, please see the relevant policy at WP:V, Sandy (Talk) 22:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• The page is perfectly well referenced, can we now close this futile debate which should never have been opened. Giano 21:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• No we will not close the review. An editor has expressed the concern that the article lacks in-line citations (A criteria of What is a featured article?) and we will, therefore, review the article. Joelito (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

  Joelr3143, please stop whining about lack of inline citations. It would be much more helpful if you provided inline citations for the entire article instead. For my own part, I don't know any encyclopaedias with inline citations. Look at the Britannica, for instance. We cannot apply recently-adopted guidelines retroactively. This is not an improvement but a mess. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I move that we re-factor this page, to remove the discussion of FA criteria to its talk page: inline citations are a current requirement for FAs, and arguing WIAFA on the FAR isn't useful. Sandy (Talk) 22:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur that we should move the discussion of FA criteria to the talk page. Joelito (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

No. We will not shunt the discussion off to the sidelines. You have nominated because of lack of citations, therefore well discuss lack if citations. The long and the short of it is than some editors have commented they do not agree. Those same editors who have chosen to comment feel the page should retain its FA status. Regardless of any ambiguous rules and regulations dreamt up wherever. You are quite rightly going to struggle to achieve consensus to demote here. In fact their seems to be no consensus concerning any of the reasons given in the nomination. Taking away FA status because of inline cites is not automatic otherwise we would not be having this conversation. So the subject stays here. Giano 08:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: This is a review (FAR) and not FARC. No one wants to see the removal of FA status for this article. However, many would like to see this article attain our current standards. In order to demonstrate that this article may need additional inline citations, I have placed a {{fact}} tag based on a comment from someone in the talk page. --RelHistBuff 10:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

  If you had written a featured article, you should know that it's impossible to provide inline citations after the article is completed (let alone written by another editor). If you want to dispute some fact and think it needs to be sourced, you are welcome to add citations like I did with your tag, rather than litter the page with reckless tags. Such facile approach to editing is simply not acceptable. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

it's impossible to provide inline citations after the article is completed (let alone written by another editor) Please don't tell this secret to Yomangani (talk · contribs) - he seems to be doing a fine job. Sandy (Talk) 17:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the cite. The tag was not meant to be reckless; I placed it as a point of demonstration. In any case, the idea was to show that there are potential areas of dispute which is why inline cites may be needed. This is the advantage of having the article under review. --RelHistBuff 12:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

"Where appropriate" is not in the criteria accidentally. It would be counterproductive to demand that every factual statement has a citation - do we really want every article would turn into a forest of citations? The sky is blue; Paris is in France; Queen Elizabeth II of the Queen of the UK; and gravity makes apples fall off trees. End of story.

Would the persons advocating "review" of this article please indicate which specific factual statements in this article they find sufficiently surprising, unusual, controversial or confusing to require specific inline citation. (The inline external links in the last section could quickly be turned into footnotes, for those who like to count them.) -- ALoan (Talk) 13:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• I've only read the first page or so. The writing looks pretty good to me. (The bit about dogs is a little awkward in the first para of his life, but that's a trivial matter.) All FAs must meet the current requirements for referencing. Tony 14:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I've expanded the lead a bit, and tried to make it reflect a better sense of where JJ fits in to literary history. Adding inline citations would primarily be a matter of flipping through Ellman (it has an index, after all). I have no stake in the question of whether all featured articles need them, but if anyone who has Ellman at hand (Geogre, I assume you do; ALoan? Paul?) would track down a couple of the assertions in the article--I'll happily do a bunch myself, though not for a few days most likely--we'll have this thing properly referenced in no time. As for the notion that there's nothing controversial, I haven't read the article carefully enough to say, but given Stephen Joyce's recent insanity I'd say we can't be too careful. That blighter will sue anyone in a heartbeat. Chick Bowen 05:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I am happy to cite appropriate pages from Ellman, if someone will say which statements they think need a citation. Paul August ☎ 17:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the offer to help, Chick Bowen. Paul, I am (in fact many of the reviewers here are) usually reluctant to pepper a well-written article with cite tags, but if folks are now offering to do the sourcing, would you like for us to add cite tags to the article (which is the easiest way of doing this), or would you prefer we put a list on the article talk page? (I'm also wondering if anyone is looking into the tags on the images?) Sandy (Talk) 19:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll bow to others' preferences about cite tags vs. talk page. I've gone through the images, though. Detailed fair use rationales would be good, and I can add those later. The only one that is of real concern is the lead image, Image:JamesJoyce1904.jpg. It includes the date it was taken, but of course we need the date it was first published to verify that it's PD. The photographer (Constantine Curran) published a book in 1968 and was evidently still alive then, so that suggests it's not PD by creator's death. It might not be PD. In the meantime I'll look around for a good portrait we can absolutely certify is PD. Chick Bowen 05:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
      • There are a number of great images here that are definitely PD by virtue of publication. Also the portrait by unknown photographer I believe would be PD but I'm not sure--I'll ask someone who would know. Chick Bowen 06:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm still working on images, and making progress. See my talk page for details. Chick Bowen 17:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Very nice improvement on the image ! Sandy (Talk) 23:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This appears to be a well written, instructive article worthy of its status. The debate here seems to relate largely to whether or not the article should receive inline citations in order to maintain its FA. Inline citations are not an FA criteria because of the where appropriate aspect of WP:WIAFA. It seems that there are those here who seek to make in-line citations a defacto criteria for FA status, despite it not being policy. We should wait until it becomes a hard and fast consensual policy before arbitrarily demoting articles because the referencing style doesn't comform to some peoples preferences. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations list

• Comment Ok. I am sick and tired of people defending the article and stating that they do not find any places that need in-line citations. Here are a few examples:
  • "Reaction to the early sections that appeared in transition was mixed, including negative comment from early supporters of Joyce's work, such as Pound and the author's brother Stanislaus Joyce." Cite this negative reaction.
    • Done. Paul August ☎ 20:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "This has led many readers and critics to apply Joyce's oft-quoted description in the Wake of Ulysses as his usylessly unreadable Blue Book of Eccles to the Wake itself. " Weasel words, should be cited.
    • Done. Paul August ☎ 20:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "Indeed, Joyce said that the ideal reader of the Wake would suffer from ideal insomnia and, on completing the book, would turn to page one and start again, and so on in an endless cycle of reading." Is this a direct quote?
    • Done Paul August ☎ 20:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "For some years, Joyce nursed the eccentric plan of turning over the book to his friend James Stephens to complete, on the grounds that Stephens was born in the same hospital as Joyce exactly one week later, and shared the first name of both Joyce and of Joyce's fictional alter-ego (this is one example of Joyce's numerous superstitions)." This sound like it needs a citation since I cannot verify it easily.
    • Done. Paul August ☎ 20:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "He has also been an important influence on writers and scholars as diverse as Samuel Beckett, Jorge Luis Borges, Flann O'Brien, Máirtín Ó Cadhain, Salman Rushdie, Thomas Pynchon, William Burroughs, Robert Anton Wilson, and Joseph Campbell." Citations that he is/was an influence for some of these writers is needed.
    • Done. Paul August ☎ 06:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "Countless critics over the past century have argued that Joyce's work has had a harmful effect on modern and post-modern fiction, creating generations of writers who have eschewed storytelling, proper grammar, and coherence in favour of self-indulgent rambling." Which critics? Cite.
    • I took this out. I'm not sure it's true, actually ("countless"?). Someone can revert me, but I'll try to replace it with something I can cite. Chick Bowen 01:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "Some scholars, most notably Vladimir Nabokov, have mixed feelings on his work, often championing some of his fiction while condemning others (in Nabokov's case, Ulysses was brilliant, Finnegans Wake horrible)." Cite this scholar.
    • Done (by Chick Bowen). Paul August ☎ 01:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "The phrase "Three Quarks for Muster Mark" in Joyce's Finnegans Wake is often called the source of the physicists' word "quark", the name of one of the main kinds of elementary particles, proposed by the physicist Murray Gell-Mann. (James Gleick's book Genius suggests that Gell-Mann found the Joycean antecedent after the fact, as physicists have pronounced quark to rhyme with cork and not with Mark.)" If this sentence is true cite the book and page number.
    • Done. This sentence has been removed, since according to the cite provided, Gell-Mann based the name on the line from Finnegans Wake. Paul August ☎ 00:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "However, Nabokov was less than thrilled with Finnegans Wake (see Strong Opinions, The Annotated Lolita or Pale Fire), an attitude Jorge Luis Borges shared." Cite since we are stating the opinion of someone.
    • Done. Paul August ☎ 01:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The in-line external jumps at the end of Legacy should be converted to appropiate ref format.
    • Done (by Sandy and me). Paul August ☎ 18:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I could go into more detail but I think this is enough to prove my point. The article is well written but to someone that knows very little of Joyce and his works the referencing is inadequate. Joelito (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Joelr31. We'll work on those. To others--giving us concrete ways of improving the article is much more helpful than sniping about the validity of this review. Chick Bowen 17:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have to agree that the lack of citiations in this article and in general should be a disqualification for featured article status. Without extensive citations, it makes it much easier for someone to coverly slip in either false or misleading information and/or assert a specific point of view which is not clearly supported by quality sources. Also, it raises the question just how accurate an article is if it cannot be verified by specificly cited sources. Without such verification being available, it really is hard to tell whether it is fair, accurate, and NPOV or not. On this basis, I have to agree with those above that this article right now needs a number of citations to keep it at featured article status. Otherwise, if the data were supported, the article itself looks good. Has anyone contacted the Unreferenced Good Articles WikiProject for help? I think they might make a priority of this one. Badbilltucker 15:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Legacy section I began to convert the inline refs, but one of the sources for the lawsuits is a blog (reliable?), and the rest are dead links. Another knowledgeable editor might know where to source these edits, or whether they should be deleted. Sandy (Talk) 16:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy. I think these all have proper citations now. Paul August ☎ 18:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New look?

Chick Bowen and Paul August have done a lot of work on the article (diff). Can we get a review from other editors of what, if anything, remains to be done? I'll leave a note for the original nominator. Sandy (Talk) 13:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Whoa, what an improvement. All my concerns have been fixed. I'll withdraw this for now. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Michaelas10, but I don't think the review can be considered withdrawn until all reviewers are satisfied. Sandy (Talk) 16:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Statements about medical conditions, diagnoses, phobias, and details of one's personal life without citations concern me, whether in BLPs or wrt the deceased. I'd like to see inline cites on the canine phobia, fear of thunderstorms - God's wrath, John's drinking and financial mismanagement, rejection of Catholicism, squandered money his family could ill afford, mother's cancer - drinking at home - conditions grew appalling, and Stanislaus and Joyce strained relations - frivolity - drinking habits. With those, I'll be satisfied that we can avoid FARC. Sandy (Talk) 16:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That's easy enough to do, but it just means a dozen more citations of Ellman. Would a broader footnote with some explanation at the beginning of each sentence do? As a scholar, if I were writing something like this, once I established that all my biographical info was coming from the same source I would more or less leave it at that. Chick Bowen 16:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not fond of the idea of broad covering footnotes, because future editors might insert something that isn't covered. I just don't like opening the door to anything about diagnoses, conditions, alcoholism, cause of death - issues of that nature - not being cited, guess it's my work on medical articles. Whatever you think best: I know that would work in a hard copy or other academic environment, but we have to confront the dynamic nature of an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and any statement that isn't ref'd might be challenged by a future editor. Sandy (Talk) 21:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I've done what I could. Some things just are too general to cite, I think. The drinking particularly; it's hard to find a page of any biographical text on Joyce that doesn't mention it, so we cite particularly notable incidents of it, like the Phoenix Park fight. Chick Bowen 22:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the work done - thanks to all who rolled up their sleeves and dug in, Sandy (Talk) 23:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we clean up the references and external links? Maybe add a further reading section. Joelito (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I can do the work of cleaning up the Footnotes, but I don't know what to do about the listy stuff after the print references, some of which is repeated in External links, and a lot of which may not be needed. Perhaps one of the Joyce-knowledgeable editors can clean out some of that (I mentioned early on that it appeared to be a link farm, it looks like too many web sources are listed, not sure if they are really used in refs) - I'll expand the footnotes. Sandy (Talk) 16:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Not properly cited-Not FA right now: The article has still serious referencing problems. But first of all let me stress something, answering to those who don't regard inline citations as a prerequisite for FA status: Wikipedia is not Britannica, where almost all important articles have the signature of a prominent scholar, who guarantees for their accuracy. Here the articles are written by anonymous editors. If we do not provide (verifiable) citations, we offer no guarantee to the reader that what we write is accurate. If we want to compete encyclopedias like Britannica or Larousse, we have to adopt higher standards because of the nature of Wikipedia. That is why I strongly believe that every assessment, quote or historical fact should be cited. Bibliography is not enough, because if you don't mention a specific page your biblography is not verifiable (see a similar discussion during the FAC of Finnish Civil War). Yes, other scientific books do not have detailed citations, but they do have an eponymous editor! Fortunately or unfortunately, Wikipedia has anonymous editors, whose signature is not enough in order to guarantee and verify what they assess.

Let's go to the article now. These are the problems I found out:

• The biography section is under-cited. I chose not to tag it with citationneeded, because I did not want to overdo it. But for me, each paragraph should have at least one inline citation. I strongly believe that we should verify all historical facts mentioned there.
• In the next sections I added some tags in uncited assessments and quotes. It is wrong for me to cite Joyce's own words or to use terms such as "one of tthe most influential works" etc., without verifying them. Who guarantees me that these assessments are accurate or that the quotes are true?
• Obviously, the online references and external links need cleaning.
• I don't like some stubby or one-sentence paragraphs within the text, but this is not a major issue.

The article is good, but, in order to become FA, it definitely needs some more work. I see many dedicated editors here, and I feel confident that everything will be fixed.--Yannismarou 07:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There are forty three inline citations in the article. Under such circumstances, it is difficult to assume good faith of those who continue to clamor for the article's demotion on the basis of its lack of inline citations. This is simply not true. I also object to such phrases as "in order to become FA, this article needs..." Please remember that this is not WP:FAC. The community has already identified this article as featured. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla, I'm not referring to the official status. Officially, of course, it is FA. But for me it does not fulfil the current FA criteria. So, for me it needs more work in order to attain FA status. And I must confess that I'm really sad you do not assume good faith. I did not expect such a poignant remark (a remark obviously offending for me) from such an experienced and respected editor of Wikipedia. Please, try to understand that my only interest is the quality of the article. There is no reason to take it personally. And I honestly hope that you will reconsider your opinion of my not assuming good faith.--Yannismarou 10:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yannis, I've got an impression that your nebulous requirements to FAs are not shared by our community. So far, you opinion that each FA should have at least sixty inline citations remains... your personal opinion. I respect your opinion but I don't fathom how you expect to defeature the article alone. Since the nomination has been withdrawn, I don't see any point in contributing to this page. There is nothing left to discuss. Best, Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• I do not try to defeature the article. After all this is not FARC but FAR. Here we review; we defeature in FARC. And, as Sandy noticed, the fact that the nomination is withdrawn does not influence the course of the review. Until all the concerns are addressed the review is open. And it is not just the references as you can see. After all, it is another reviewer (Sandy) not me who spoke about the "listy stuff after the print references". Thus, as you can see, the review is still open and there is much more to discuss. If the concerns are addressed, the article keeps its stat; if not it goes to FARC. But this is something to be decided later. Not now.--Yannismarou 10:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oh! And I did not say that each FA should have 60 citations. You interpreted in a different way what I say. I said that an article of such length should have 60+. These are two different things.--Yannismarou 11:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

To the point, I'm happy the referencing is imroved and my tags are replaced with citations, but my belief remains that the biography section still needs more referencing. And of course references (the online sources) and external links (are they all necessary? And, if yes, shouldn't they be categorized or alphabetized?) still need cleaning.--Yannismarou 10:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

<Sigh.> Thanks to Ghirla for providing additional referencing. I am happy to trim down the external links section. However, I must join with some of the grumpier people on this page and say that the statement, "The article still has serious referencing problems" is completely innaccurate. It might have been true when this review began; it is certainly not true now. I would characterize Yannismarou's objections as quite minor indeed. Chick Bowen 02:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You can choose any characterization you want, but my "objections" are actionable. A question about the References: I still see a long list of external links even after Chick Bowen's cleaning. Are all of them used in footnotes? Because, if they are not, these links are not references but external links, where they should be placed. The distinction must be clear here.--Yannismarou 07:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Links fixed, thanks (all external links mentioned in footnotes are linked separately there). I never said they weren't actionable, and I never said I wasn't grateful for any advice, but you do understand after several of us have put so much work in that we'd be a bit put off by (in my mind) unduly sharp criticism. All constructive comments are very welcome of course, and we'll do the best we can to continue to improve the article. Chick Bowen 07:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

OK! It looks much better. I still have some (let's say "minor") reservations about the level of referencing, but the article has been indeed improved.--Yannismarou 08:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another new look

Move to close FAR. Thank you, Chick Bowen - this is so much better. This addresses the concern I raised earlier, Yannis seems generally satisfied, the original nominator is satisfied, and if the final changes address Joel's concern, I move that we close this FAR. Sandy (Talk) 09:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If other reviewers do not have the same opinion with me and do not think that the Biography section should be a bit more referenced, I won't insist and I won't ask for moving it to FARC.--Yannismarou 07:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Order of the Garter

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Emsworth, UK notice board, Middle Ages, and Nurismatics. Sandy (Talk) 20:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The article has no inline citations (1c) and the image in the lead has an inappropriate copyright tag (3). Jay32183 20:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I'd like to know how Lord Emsworth feels when he returns to Wikipedia and sees so many of his FAs defeatured or at FAR/C. LuciferMorgan 23:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I hope he doesn't shoot the messenger <eeek> Sandy (Talk) 00:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as far as the image, I don't know. But I'm sure an article doesn't have to have inline citations(altough it would be nice). Suffencient references are given in the appropiate section. Joe I 09:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a review, not a removal candidate, so we aren't voting yet. Inline citations are required to verify specific facts. Right now a non-expert can't verify anything. You are right that if the image were the only problem that the article wouldn't be listed here, but it still needs to be fixed. Jay32183 13:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Please see above.  :) Joe I 10:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Needs inline citations (1. c.) and I feel it may possibly be too listy which makes the article disjointed (1. a.). LuciferMorgan 09:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This is a great article! The lack of inline is because he didn't write it when inline was required, or even available (it was a problematic template system). He lists the references used in writing it, and this is how legitimate academic scholarly works are done. The level of inline citation that seems to be the "norm" now at Wikipedia is at the far end of the extreme in scholarly works - and inline citations don't mean an article is of good quality. -- Stbalbach 15:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comments Uncited, extremely listy, some version of something that looks like it wants to be See also or Notables but is just a long list, does not conform to WP:LAYOUT. Sandy (Talk) 16:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the lists of the members could be split off into its own article unless anybody objects, but I don't think the bullet points in the body are a particular problem. Should be easy to cite - I'll come back to it in FARC if nobody does anything on it. Yomangani^talk 01:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • A list of all the members ever already exists at List of Knights and Ladies of the Garter. Given that it's such an exclusive Order (26 members + royal extras) I don't think it's inappropriate to list all the current members in the article; it's certainly the sort of thing someone looking up the subject would probably want to know. Maybe a two-column format would make it look better. A lot of the other bulleted sections in the text (e.g. vestments) could easily have the bullets removed. What layout problems specifically did you have in mind, Sandy? I may be able to help cite this, but I'm quite busy at the moment. Dr pda 03:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The *order* of the sections doesn't conform to WP:LAYOUT - easy to change as long as no one objects. Sandy (Talk) 03:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: Discussion on citations moved to talk page. Sandy (Talk) 19:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• I've mostly finished on this. I've split off the current member list just because it was easier to handle that way. There are two paragraphs that I haven't been able to reference which I think must come from the Begent and Chesshyre book - I'll try and get hold of this, but feel free to move it to FARC in the meantime. Yomangani^talk 16:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm impressed. Good work. Jay32183 19:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are insufficient citations (1c) and images (3). Marskell 06:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Much work already done. Moving it down to keep it on track. Marskell 06:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I've added references from Begent and Chesshyre to the remaining paragraphs so just about everything is cited now (although a unsourced statement about a possible link to Sir Gawain and the Green Knight was recently added). I removed the assertion that some of the vestments were designed for the coronation of George IV because this wasn't mentioned in B&C, and is indeed inconsistent with the details given in the article about each item (the hat may well have been, though). I've also replaced the picture of the Queen Mother, which was a copyvio (painted in 1938 by an artist who died in 1972, so not "no rights due of age" as stated on the image page). The image of the garter needs to be properly tagged or replaced. I notice the section about the chapel of the Order got split off to its own article some time ago. For consistency with the articles on the other orders I think there should at least be a paragraph with a {{Main}} tag. Dr pda 14:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I removed the header picture, as I don't see how we can claim fair use just because it is a better picture than the ones we already have. I've also removed the Sir Gawain statement, as "a presumed link" sounds like OR to me (and I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere so it isn't generally presumed). I've also cancelled my order for the C&B book! Yomangani^talk 15:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep A lot of work has been done, and I think at this point I can say this is a keeper. The image I originally had a problem with is gone, and there are now lots of inline citations. Good job! Jay32183 19:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per references added by Yomangani, and other improvements. Sandy (Talk) 14:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. It's mostly very well written, but the prose needs cleaning up in places (sorry to sound like a broken gramaphone record). Take the opening:

The Most Noble Order of the Garter is an English order of chivalry with a history stretching back to mediæval times; today it is the world's oldest national order of knighthood in continuous existence and the pinnacle of the British honours system. Its membership is extremely limited, consisting of the Sovereign and not more than twenty-five full members, or Companions. Male members are known as Knights Companion, whilst female members are known as Ladies Companion (not Dames, as in most other British chivalric orders).

• • Remove "with a history of".
  • The use of semicolons throughout is problematic. Needs an audit to ensure that the closeness of statements is logically expressed by semicolons vs stops. The first one here, I think, should be a stop.
  • "oldest national order of knighthood in continuous existence"—try "oldest continuous order ...".
  • Remove "extremely" (what does it mean here?)
  • "Whilst" is a personal hate of mine: why not simply "and" as a link?

And further on:

• • Again, the relationship between statements is a problem: "The Order was founded in 1348 by King Edward III as "a society, fellowship and college of knights."[1] Various dates ranging from 1344 to 1351 have also been proposed." It's a contrastive, isn't it? "The Order was (or "appears to have been") founded ..., although other dates have been proposed, from ...".

A 30-minute run-through by fresh eyes should be enough. Tony 01:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Dr pda and I have both run through it (eyes at least, if not exactly fresh). I've asked a few people to have a go, but it will be a while before they can get to it, so if anybody wants to volunteer... I've left "oldest national order of knighthood in continuous existence" as I think that it makes it clear that the order's existence is continuous rather than the order being a honour that can continue by being passed down through the generations - I couldn't see how to rephrase it and maintain that distinction (fresh eyes will deal with that appropriately, I guess). Yomangani^talk 14:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I know the review has passed now, but since you mention this early sentence: I reduced it to simply "It is the world's oldest national order of knighthood, and the pinnacle of the British honours system", but perhaps that oversimplifies it. I figured that "is" adequately says that it currently exists. I may have misunderstood the meaning of "continuous" here. I saw it as the excess verbosity one often sees. ("My grandma is the oldest member of my family in continuous existence.") I'll try something else, and make Tony's suggested changes also. –Outriggr § 08:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Changed my mind. "Continuous" is staying out unless someone wishes to put it back, and most of the other comments above look to have been addressed. –Outriggr § 08:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)