Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/July 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Kept status 1.1 Medal of Honor 1.2 Final Fantasy X 1.3 The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker 1.3.1 Major review commentary 1.3.2 FARC commentary 1.4 Antarctica 1.4.1 Minor review commentary 1.4.2 Major review commentary 1.5 Indian Institutes of Technology 1.5.1 Major review commentary 1.5.2 FARC commentary 1.6 Super Mario 64 1.7 Iranian peoples 2 Removed status 2.1 Sealand 2.1.1 Review commentary 2.1.2 FARC commentary 2.2 George II of Great Britain 2.2.1 Review commentary 2.2.2 FARC commentary 2.3 Java programming language 2.3.1 Review commentary 2.3.2 FARC commentary 2.4 C programming language 2.4.1 Review commentary 2.4.2 FARC commentary 2.4.3 Miscellaneous commentary 2.5 Volkswagen Type 2 2.5.1 Review commentary 2.5.2 FARC commentary 2.6 United States Electoral College 2.6.1 Review commentary 2.6.2 FARC commentary 2.7 Linus Pauling 2.7.1 Review commentary 2.7.2 FARC commentary 2.8 Vanilla Ninja 2.8.1 Major review commentary 2.8.2 FARC commentary 2.9 Coca-Cola 2.9.1 Major review commentary 2.9.2 FARC commentary 2.10 Humphrey Bogart 2.10.1 Review commentary 2.10.2 FARC commentary 2.11 Jim Henson 2.11.1 Review commentary 2.11.2 FARC commentary 2.12 King James Version of the Bible 2.12.1 Major review commentary 2.12.2 FARC commentary 2.13 Peerage 2.13.1 Major review commentary 2.13.2 FARC commentary 2.14 H.P. Lovecraft 2.14.1 Major review commentary 2.14.2 FARC commentary 2.15 Hero of Belarus 2.15.1 Major review commentary 2.15.2 FARC commentary 2.16 Space Race 2.16.1 Major review commentary 2.16.2 FARC commentary

[edit] Kept status

[edit] Medal of Honor

Article is still a featured article

This article is quite well written, but the prose can be improved. In particular, a cursory reading of the first few paragraphs revealed the following problems with respect to Criterion 2a.

• "All branches of the U.S. military are eligible to receive the medal, though each branch has a special design." "Though" in wrong here, since it doesn't contradict the preceding clause.

• "The Congressional Space Medal of Honor is a separate award and not equivalent." Insert "is" before "not"; "equivalent" to what needs to be explicated for ease of reading.

• "Scott did not approve the medal; however, such a medal found support in the Navy." Either "approve of the medal" or "approve the proposal" is required here, whichever conveys the intended meaning.

• "In the rare cases (19 so far) where a service member has been awarded more than one Medal of Honor, regulations specify that an appropriate award device will be centered on the MOH ribbon and neck medal." The parenthetical phrase would be less intrusive if place after "Honor" (i.e., before the comma). Remove "will".

• Stubby, one-sentence paragraphs, including one in the lead and quite a few further down.

I note that Medal of Honor is displayed as the example of FA-class articles at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, next to the statement that these articles require "no further editing ... unless new published information has come to light."

The problems listed above suggest that the article needs a close copy-edit if it's to continue to be held up as a shining example of the pinnacle of Wikipedia's achievements. Tony 16:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to fix some of the specific problems you listed, but I'll still have the following content issues with the article:

• Not enough references. Unverified sections include Origin, Appearance, Versions of the medal, Flag, Evolution of criteria, and Similar decorations.
• Accounts of the meaning of the medal contradict each other. The quotation in the first paragraph leaves no clue as to its source, and the quotation in "Authority and privileges" is similar but different. The latter seems to quote the 1862 law, but it is inconsistent with the quotation at the end of "Origin".
• The introduction contradicts itself on the awarding body; does the President act on behalf of Congress or the people? What precisely does being commander-in-chief have to do with it?
• The image layout in "Appearance" obscures the connection between image and text.
• Data tables in "Recipients" should be moved to the subarticle and/or replaced with prose.

Melchoir 16:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Sandy 23:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It's been a week with no progress, so I'll move this to a major review. Melchoir 19:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note that this comment was made just before the minor/major review processes were merged. Tony 12:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Work is being done, though it is slow. Please give it time. — ERcheck (talk) 01:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• I just fixed the refs. There may be a few stragglers.Rlevse 02:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• I've added several refs and others have been working on this too. Rlevse 00:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Could someone please list remaining concerns as of this time. Thanks. Rlevse 02:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure! The following elements need either citations or revision to meet 2(a), 2(c), and 3(a). Feel free to interleave your own indented notes, but please wait for me to strike out items on my own. (fm Rlevse, those would be well-written, accurate, and lead section)

• All of the quotations:
  • "for conspicuous gallantry ... enemy force" (1p intro, infobox)
    • This quotation still needs help. It's currectly cited to [1], which doesn't have the same wording. Perhaps some brackets and ellipses are in order...? Melchoir 22:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • made quote exact Rlevse 23:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "any singularly meritorious action" (1p Origin) Not found at website cited at the end of the paragraph.
  • "to be bestowed ... the present war" (3p Origin)
  • "to such noncommissioned ... present insurrection (3p Origin)
  • "The President may award ... call of duty." (1p Authority and privileges) This needs a citation including a date, since the U.S. Code may be amended. Or if this is the 1862 language, it needs to be identified as such; it isn't clear, especially upon comparing with the rest of the article.
    • found and added refs for all these, plus found one you missed-;) Rlevse
• Specific facts:
  • "awarded by the President on behalf of the Congress ... presented by the President of the United States, who acts as commander-in-chief on behalf of the American people." (1p-2p intro) This doesn't add up, and it's glaring. Does the President really change hats between "awarding" and "presenting"? Is he specifically acting "as commander-in-chief", and does that theoretically mean something?
    • It's better now but still not perfect. For example, do we really mean to say that the President signs the medal? And I still wonder if "as commander-in-chief" has some content or if it's fluff. Melchoir 23:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • The President IS the commander-in-chief of the US military, yes, that means he is in charge of them. Neither the Sec. of Defense, nor the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is the top dog. I reworded it too.Rlevse 23:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't question that the President is the commander-in-chief, but for all I know some constitutional expert at the White House has written an authoritative report stating that while the President exercises his commander-in-chief powers by approving a medal, during an awarding ceremony he is actually functioning as head of state. In fact, are you sure that isn't the case? Melchoir 00:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
          • I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill on this one.Rlevse 02:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Well, it is the fifth sentence of a Featured Article. I'll just remove the detail. It's not discussed in the body anyway. Melchoir 02:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "The Medal of Honor is one of only two U.S. military decorations that are presented as neck orders." (3p intro)
    • Wording is better but I'd still like some verification. How do we know that MoH and LoM are really the only two neck orders? Perhaps they're simply the only two that Wikipedia knows about? Melchoir 23:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • reworded so we don't have this problem.Rlevse 23:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "This decoration is considered America's first combat award (and the second oldest, after the Fidelity Medallion)" (1p Origin) In what organization's consideration is there a distinction between first and oldest?
  • "Scott did not approve the proposal, but such a medal found support in the Navy." (3p Origin) Who in the Navy supported the medal?
    • It's a bit of a stretch to point to Secretary Gideon Welles; [2] only has him requesting the Philadelphia Mint to work on the design.
      • If he didn't approve it, he wouldn't have asked the mint to work on it and as the Sec Nav, he'd have to approve any new medal. You're splitting hairs here.Rlevse 23:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
        • The paragraph states that Lincoln signed a "Public Resolution"; I don't know what that means, but it doesn't sound like it comes from the Secretary of the Navy. The current wording, in its context, suggests that Welles was given the same opportunity as Scott to reject the medal. Was he really, if Lincoln was ordering him around? Melchoir 00:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Things get approved at every step of chain.Rlevse 02:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
            • You don't mean it was some enlisted sailor's idea? Now, I don't know who proposed what to whom, and I don't know how Lincoln's cabinet operated. How's this instead? Melchoir 02:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "The Air Force Medal of Honor is unchanged in appearance since its inception in 1965." (2p Appearance)
    • Uh, where in [3] does it say this?
      • It simply hasn't and it's implied by that you can not find any mention of change anywhere. In the US military, this is well known. If it's a problem, remove it if you like. Rlevse 23:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Okay, I removed it.[4] Melchoir 00:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "It is considered a conjectural decoration by the Institute of Heraldry." (3p Appearance)
    • Sorry, but [5] is an old Wikipedia mirror![6] Melchoir 23:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • OK, removed it. Rlevse 23:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "On special occasions, the medal can be worn on civilian attire." (5p Appearance) Is this unusual for a medal? Who decided it?
    • (A) It's not only unusual, it's the only exception (lapel pins are provided for civilian attire for lesser decorations) (B) Nobody "decided it". It's part of previously cited Army regs. footnote added.--Buckboard 07:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
      • That would be an excellent addition to the article, but are you sure it's true? Army §578.4 only says the rosette is for wear on civilian clothing. The claim "Medal of Honor recipients also wear the Medal itself around the neck of civilian attire for special occasions" is, as far as I know, an invention of the website [7] that was blindly copied by [8]. Melchoir 07:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I erred and footnoted the wrong regulation. AR 670-1 is the governing regulation. I added the proper footnote (it's in pdf) with the exact page number and also discovered something else--the Army allows retired soldiers to wear any of their medals with "appropriate" civilian clothing! 578.4 and AR 670-1 forbid only active duty personnel from wearing their medals except on the uniform--otherwise they must wear the rosette or pin. I changed the text to read "former military members".--Buckboard 08:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Ah, that clears things up! I'll merge the information into the relevant item under "Privileges". Melchoir 17:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "Many stayed four days extra, and then were discharged." (2p Evolution of criteria)
  • For that matter, every example in "Evolution of criteria" needs a citation.
  • "Since the beginning of World War II, the medal has been awarded for extreme bravery beyond the call of duty, where a service member consistently and persistently put his comrades' safety foremost, to the utter disregard of his own life, while engaged in action against an enemy." (6p Evolution of criteria) Is this a quotation? Where is it from?
    • I don't see it in [9]. Melchoir 23:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • changed ref. Rlevse 23:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
        • It isn't in [10] either. (I've since moved that ref to the following sentence.) Melchoir 00:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I've simply removed the wording that can't be found elsewhere, so I don't have a problem with it now. Melchoir 08:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "Due to these criteria, the medal is often, although not always, awarded posthumously." (6p Evolution of criteria) How often is "often"?
    • Now it seems to imply that McGonagle is the only recipient to survive the medal.
      • reworded.Rlevse 23:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I looked at older versions of the article, and this seems to be the intent of the passage. I think it's fine now. Melchoir 00:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "Various times after the Vietnam War, past heroism was recognized and previous awards have been upgraded to the Medal of Honor." (7p Evolution of criteria) How many times is "various"?
  • "A 1992 study commissioned by the Army described systematic racial discrimination in the criteria for awarding medals during World War II." (1p Controversies) Does this study have a name?
    • The reference [11] is extremely troubling. See below in a few minutes... Melchoir 23:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • REMOVED ALL REFS USING THAT SITE, used official army cite that discusses the racial issues.Rlevse 02:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Same for "A similar study of Asian Americans in 1998".
  • "The American Indian Movement has asked that the 20 medals awarded at the Wounded Knee massacre be rescinded." (2p Controversies)
  • The section "Authority and privileges" still has no citations. (added, see USC template links too, RLEVSE)
  • "The Medal of Honor is the only service decoration that cannot be privately bought, traded, or sold." (1p Legal protection)
  • "When the patent expired, the Federal government enacted a law making it illegal to produce, wear, or distribute the Medal of Honor without proper authority." (2p Legal protection) What law?
    • I guess this can now be inferred from context, but it ought to be explicit.
  • "In 2003 Edward and Gisela Fedora were charged with violating 18USC704(b) - Unlawful Sale of a Medal of Honor. They sold medals..." (3p Legal protection) Does that mean they were convicted...?
  • "However, legislation has been proposed to sanction those who falsely represent themselves as Medal of Honor recipients." (1p Impostors) Proposed when, and by whom?
  • The statistics in the first paragraph of "Recipients".
  • The second paragraph of "Recipients".
  • "While current regulations explicitly state that recipients must be serving in the U.S. Armed Forces at the time of performing a valorous act that warrants the award of the Medal of Honor, exceptions have been made." (3p Recipients) Were these medals awarded before current regulations? If so, how are they exceptions?
  • "The Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor is also typically considered the police equivalent to the Medal of Honor." (Similar decorations) Considered by whom?
    • Reference added. — ERcheck (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • A connection to the MoH is not asserted at [12]. Melchoir 23:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • This one was reworded too.Rlevse 02:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Ah, so it was. The President bit isn't found until the subpage [13], but it's close enough for me. Melchoir 02:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "The highest civilian honor of all is the Presidential Medal of Freedom, considered to be a direct civilian equivalent of the Medal of Honor." (Similar decorations) Considered by whom?
    • Reference added. — ERcheck (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • A connection to the MoH is not asserted at [14] or at [15]. Melchoir 23:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • reworded to show all awarded by President. Rlevse 00:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "The following obsolete military decorations were equivalent to the Medal of Honor" (Similar decorations) Equivalent? Surely not in their awarding criteria? If their only similarity is that they're all top-level military awards, doesn't this information belong at List of highest military awards and not at the American article?
    • No problem now, but I wonder, would anyone else like a list article? Melchoir 23:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Worked every specific facts. Rlevse
• Editorial problems:
  • The lead section contains stub paragraphs.
  • The lead section does not summarize the article.
  • The image layout in "Appearance" obscures the connection between image and text.
  • Most of "Versions of the medal" is a duplicate of previous material in "Appearance".
  • Why is the second paragraph of "Versions of the medal" in the past tense?
  • The "Flag" section reads like a newspaper article. It's out of order, it consists of stub paragraphs, and it repeats itself.
  • "Awarding the medal" starts with three disconnected stub paragraphs.
  • "Nomenclature" is just one short paragraph long -- too short for a subsection -- and it is misplaced. It needs to be worked into the prose elsewhere or else just deleted for being redundant.
  • Most of "Evolution of criteria" is passive voice.
  • "Legal protection" consists of stub paragraphs.
  • The "By conflict" table in "Recipients" creates too much white space for being in the body of the article.
    • addressed all in "Editorial problems". Rlevse

Eh, that's enough. Melchoir 07:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I've acted on each of Melchoir's inputs in some way. Rlevse 19:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well, here's something disturbing. http://www.medalofhonor.com/Summary.htm is such a good source for those hard-to-verify details because it's a copy of this version of our article! Note the minor edits not too long before and after that version and the provenance of the images, such as Image:KY Medal of Honor.jpg, for proof that they copied us and not the other way around. So, the good news is we're not committing a copyright violation. That bad news is that at least the page [16] is an unreliable source, and you've got to wonder about the entire website. Thoughts? Melchoir 01:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I found Army Center for Military History refs for the racial citations, they're better info anyway. I also removed the question web site refs (GOOD CATCH!), using governemtn sites for that, again better anyway. Rlevse 02:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Great! If you're looking for more reliable sources, I wonder if you'd be willing to replace http://neptune.spaceports.com/~kjb/medal.htm and http://www.homeofheroes.com/? Melchoir 03:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Even better, I replaced it with 3 refs, two of them government ones. Are there any issues left, anyone? If so, place them below here so they're easier to find. I'm okay with all changes at this point.Rlevse 10:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Actually, one more reference issue that I neglected to mention before: http://www.pownetwork.org/phonies/phonies1065.htm is currently our only source for the statement that the MoH is the only unbuyable medal. Any document that makes its point through varying combinations of center alignment, multiple fonts in various sizes and colors, SHOUTING, underlines, and italics... well, I find it hard to take seriously. Melchoir 18:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • • • • Actually, if you click on the US Code link ((18 U.S.C. § 704)(b) - click on the "704"), it shows you the actual law from a Cornell University web site. The U.S. Code templates all link there , so I consider them valid references from a highly regarded university. If you prefer, convert the USC templates to cite php, but I prefer the USC templates. Rlevse 20:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
          • So, our reasoning is that the MoH is the only protected decoration because if there were another, it would be listed in §704? (I'd buy that, but I'd want to change the wording a bit.) Melchoir 20:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Feel free to change. The MOH has special protections, yes. Note that 704a says "any decoration", but that section b specifically addresses the MOH. Rlevse 21:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Right, done. Melchoir 22:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I still intend to have a hard look at the lead section and copyedit the article one last time. Meanwhile, I wonder if anyone is interested in the following low-priority avenues for improvement:

• Is it possible to tighten up the "Statistics" section of the infobox, vertically speaking?
  • not without changing the template, which would affect other articles. Rlevse 12:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Is it possible to place the two tables in "Recipients" side-by-side?
  • done Rlevse 12:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• For all the cite templates, it would be nice to determine if any of the empty fields can be filled out, and to delete those that can't. The latter would make the source code more readable.
• Apart from the new material in the lead section, there are still four paragraphs without inline citations: Origin 2 and Appearance 3, 4, 5. I'm pretty sure they're covered by existing references, so could someone tack on the appropriate ref tags on the ends?
  • • added refs Rlevse 10:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• What's the rectangular thing in commons:Image:MedalofHonor-3.jpg? Would that image be appropriate to left-float in "Legal protection"? Melchoir 02:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • That is the case that holds the medal, it's not a book or anything like that. While a nice picture, I would not add it into the legal section.Rlevse 10:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to cry FARC over any of those, but as long as we're here... Melchoir 02:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have two comments about the lead section. First, the Coast Guard MOH is not the same as the Navy's. My understanding is that the Coast Guard has authority to award their own medal, although they have never done so. Second, the wording Since it was first awarded during the American Civil War, the medal has been presented 3,461 times is misleading. It was awarded another 700+ times, but then later rescinded. Otherwise, this seems like great work. Ydorb 17:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The approval for the CG MOH didn't come until 1963 or so. The CG sailor who has the MOH, Munro, got it during WWII, so he was given the Navy version of it. Reworded the CG intro and the rescinded ones are discussed later in text. Rlevse 17:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Status? A lot of work has been done to this article. Where does the copy edit stand? A quick look at a random section in the middle of the article reveals: "President Abraham Lincoln signed Public Resolution 82 into law by on December 21, 1861, containing a provision for a Navy medal of valor." Sandy 13:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct That statement is correct, PR 82 called it a Medal of Valor. I've clarified the confusion now in the article text. I'd like someone to state a valid reason this should not continue to be a FA or close this FAR out as I certainly think it is now still FA status. Rlevse 17:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been dragging my feet on copyediting the article. The article is definitely a FA. I'm ambivalent over closing the FAR. Melchoir 18:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's definitely FA, why not close the FAR? That does not make sense. Who decides to close a FAR anyway?Rlevse 21:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

For example, a quick check shows that the statement into law by on is still there: when will a thorough copy edit be completed? I'll be glad to have a second look: please let us know. Sandy 13:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see the other instance of that, so I've now reworded it. I also went through the whole article and tweaked some more copy. If you have more concerns, please be specific as I'm not a mind reader.Rlevse 14:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've started going through the references for bibliographic details, and #3 turns out not to be the Army after all. It's actually Army.com, which says at the bottom "This website is not affiliated, endorsed, authorized, or associated in any way with any government, military or country." The article itself doesn't include an author or a dateline, which you'd expect from a news source. And, for that matter, it doesn't contain the quote "in the name of Congress", for which it is cited in the opening sentence. So, can we get a replacement? Melchoir 00:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've copy-edited the article and left a few inline queries. Once these have been addressed, I'm fine with closing the review. Tony 02:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Tony left 3 questions, and in IMHO two are for whomever decides to close this to decide which of two wording choices he offers (like "have been" or "were"). The other, which appears first, is about Munro, the lone Coast Guardsman again. Munro was in the CG in WWII and got the Navy version of the medal as the CG version hadn't been conceived yet. The text clearly states this. In the "by service" chart he's listed as CG, just as Marines are listed as Marines, who also get the Navy version. Rlevse 02:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• I'm also fine with closing this review: nice work! Sandy 03:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool, that's 4 votes that all the work by several of us results in a keep, with no objections. I'll close it now.Rlevse 14:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final Fantasy X

Article is still a featured article

Yesterday, Silence, Ryu Kaze, and myself attempted to improve the article's comprehensiveness. Consiquently, we had to expand several sections and redo many aspects of the plot synopsis. Despite clear improvements, the article's length may raise a few red flags, as people complained about the length during the FAC. Although the new information has been compressed as much as possible, we must ensure that the article still upholds the guidelines/consensus and is still fit to be featured on the main page in three days. — Deckiller 22:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The pre-edits and post-edits versions can be compared at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Final_Fantasy_X&oldid=63861357 and Final Fantasy X. It should also be noted: that five additional fair-use images (all with rationales) have been added to the article; that the article is scheduled to appear on the Main Page in 3 days, hence the rush to FAR to see if there are any potential objections ahead of time; that a new "Mythology" section has been added to the article (summarized from some of the more important information at daughter article Spira (Final Fantasy X)), and the character and setting sections have been reorganized and rewritten along with the "plot" section (which received the most severe rewrite); and that overall, the article has gone from 46 KB to 54 KB long over the last day. This may also raise concerns about content stability, a requirement for any FA, though direct criticisms of the article's status are more important to address right now than stability issues. -Silence 00:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to the article's prose, the three of us have gone through the article several times, performing various copyedits and tightening. However, the article clearly needs another set of eyes, especially since the three of us have no strategic distance right now. — Deckiller 00:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to comment concerning the stability of the article if there are any concerns there. From the time the article achieved FA status on May 10 until yesterday, July 15, there were hardly any changes to it whatsoever. It was only after Silence brought to us concerns that the article's lack of comprehensiveness regarding the plot (something imposed during FAC, despite explanations that FFX's plot and backstory are vast) and illustrations of the various aspects of gameplay through fair-use images might detract from its quality given that it should be an example of everything any article on Wikipedia should be. Silence suggested that -- whatever concerns some editors might have regarding length -- maintaining that example of a comprehensive nature was more important.

With all now said and done, I have to agree, and I don't feel that the article becoming comprehensive where it was lacking before should in any way detract from its quality. In fact, I feel that it is now more deserving than ever of its status as a Featured Article, and is certainly ready to be presented on the front page in a couple of days. Ryu Kaze 01:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well-said. Tony, do you have any comments on the prose of the article? — Deckiller 01:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree. The article has been quite stable overall; it is only in the last day that it has undergone significant change, hence this last-minute review. The focus of this review should be the article's content, and particularly what areas still need improvement and whether we should delay displaying the article on Wikipedia's main page to let the dust settle/make more fixes. -Silence 01:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's now on the front page, so the purpose of this mini review is passed. Thanks for hearing us out. Ryu Kaze 00:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The article's length is fine. Raul654 17:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree there, I think that 54kb is enormously long and that very few topics warrant such an amount of text. I complained during its FA nomination about the length. One area that I still feel should be cut greatly is the plot. I looked at lots of other FAs on works of literature, plays and films, and found that all summarised their plots in 3-5 paragraphs. This one has 9 very long paragraphs. It would always be possible to argue that a plot section is not comprehensive, because inevitably it can't contain everything. The important thing to remember is that this is an encyclopaedia, which needs to summarise the most important information. Plot summaries are a kind of original research which is tolerated, but they should definitely be kept as concise as possible.

Another major problem I have with the article at the moment is its referencing. About half the 'references' seem to be snippets of dialogue. These can't, surely, be considered reliable sources, and it's not really clear how they back up what they are citing. Worldtraveller 20:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's going to be comprehensive, it should touch on all the major plot arcs. And that's all it's doing right now. Touching on those plot arcs. During the FAC, I remember your suggestions of cutting, and — eager to please — I went along with it, despite my concerns. But, really, I don't think those edits were right. These things should always be taken on a case-by-case basis. There should not be a "one size fits all" standard when not all plots are one size. Something I don't think most people in the FAC considered about this game is that it doesn't have as short a story as most films and books. There's a lot there, both in backstory and in what takes place during the game's present.

As for the dialogue references, those are quotes from the game itself. They back up what they're citing in that they offer the verbal illustration of the concept, as seen/read/heard in the game. Those are quite often needed, actually. I'm not sure if you're big into RPGs or not, but there's plenty of people who are going to make story-related edits if they're unfamiliar with certain bits of dialogue that solidify what's being detailed in the article. Ryu Kaze 00:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• This is really starting to become an issue. We have a group of editors trying to get us to expand the plot, and a group trying to get us to reduce it. The current verison is about as close to a compromise as we'll get. The key to consensus in this case is compromise; as an editor during a featured article push/review, all I care about is upholding consensus, which usually involves a compromise. — Deckiller 01:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Being terribly honest, I agree that what we have is a compromise. We touch on each major arc and its resolution while supplying sufficient backstory to make sense of what's happening. There's still a lot that's not being brought up, so inclusionists and deletionists alike (not sure if using those words or not is a no-no, but at the moment, I'm not too sure I care given that — like Deckiller — I'm starting to become frustrated with the matter) should be happy.

There's a lot more we could add to the Plot section. We could mention how Seymour's mother is his Final Aeon. We could mention how she sacrificed her life when he was only 10 years old and how his father exiled him for political reasons and that this is why he has such a bleak outlook on the world. We could talk about how Yuna is half-Al Bhed, and how Wakka has long hated the Al Bhed both because the Yevon order speaks badly of them and because his brother, Chappu, died while fighting with an Al Bhed weapon instead of the sword he had given him (which he gives to Tidus during the game). Hell, we probably should be mentioning some of that stuff as it is. We could mention how Wakka's brother was also Lulu's boyfriend. We could mention that one of the Crusaders from Besaid is the guy responsible for Wakka's brother being part in the battle that cost him his life. We could mention Yuna's rival summoner, Donna. We could mention that Auron despises himself because he feels like it's his fault that Braska and Jecht died. We could mention how Tidus' mother was an immature putz and let herself die after she believed Jecht was dead, leaving her dependent child to grow up without both of his parents. We could mention that the reason Seymour's inside Sin at the end of the game is because Sin sucked up his pyreflies after Seymour's third battle with Yuna and her guardians. We could mention that most of Kimahri's people get slaughtered by Seymour because they choose to defend Yuna from him. We could mention that Braska became a summoner in the first place because Sin killed his wife (the sister of the Al Bhed leader, by the way; naturally his marriage to her caused him to be looked down upon by the rest of Yevon, and no one believed that he could defeat Sin). We could mention that Jecht was hard on his son, but that it was because he wanted him to be tough and that he actually loved him more than anything in the world. We could mention how the fayth did nothing to prevent the cycle of Sin's rebirth for 1000 years until Jecht became one of them and through him they came to understand the suffering Sin's existance was causing and that it should stop, whatever might become of them. We could mention that Tidus and Wakka's team won the blitzball tournament that barely gets mentioned.

There's a lot of things we could mention that we haven't, and that's because we kept things to the major story arcs. Seriously, we are being concise. Ryu Kaze 02:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, the comprehensiveness criterion calls for all major aspects of a topic — which includes the story — to be explained. Fancruft is excess, trivial details. We're mentioning the major plot arcs to provide the reader with a sense of overall plot structure and progress, not to bloat the article with "cruft". If a person reads the summary and does not have a gist of the plot and its major arcs, then we fail to meet the comprehensiveness standard. Similarly, if we bloat the article with excess, we give the reader too much to ingest, which also causes us to fail the comprehensiveness standard. We've provided something in the middle, and I'm proud of the balance we've attained here. — Deckiller 02:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In another expansion comment, we have articles like Final Fantasy magic and Final Fantasy items, which provide a general overview of a minor aspect of the series. Granted, it's notable enough, but not so important as to list every item in each game. On the other hand, when we're talking about a full, notable game, we have to cover all major aspects enough. RPGs have lengthy, detailed stories. They are 40 hours long, and are essensially interactive novels. Heck, this game has a 362 488 page-long script in microsoft word (not to mention the fact that the article also details non-script information, such as interviews, scenery, and characterization). I think there's a common impression that RPG stories are "just video game tales" like Mario; this is not the case — some are more encompassing than most trilogies, and most are in a format with several arcs going on at once to provide a variety for both gameplay and story. Hence, more major arcs to mention. — Deckiller 02:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• 54kb is "enormously long"? I thought it was rather average-length, even on the short side. Past FAs on the main page have been as long as 80kb, even approaching 100kb. In any case, conciseness and comprehensiveness, not "length", is what matters for an FA. It should be exactly as long as its content merits; there are no arbitrary, specific limits on how long any article should be.
• By the way, which FAs on fictional works are you referring to that only spend 3 to 5 paragraphs on the actual plot? Calvin and Hobbes spends almost 50 paragraphs on various story elements. The Old Man and the Sea spends 7 paragraphs on its plot, despite being an exceedingly short, straightforward book plot. The Giver, similarly, spends 9 paragraphs on summarizing the plot (and another page discussing the individual characters, plus 3 lengthy paragraphs on "themes"), despite also having a much shorter plotline and less elaborate storyline than Final Fantasy X. Where are these 3-to-5-paragraph summaries? -Silence 02:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Silence, those features of The Giver aren't acceptable, they're some of the reasons I just listed it for review above. Hmm, perhaps I should take a look at The Old Man and the Sea. Bishonen | talk 20:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC).

• Also, Ryu Kaze, your list of important storylines we aren't currently mentioning in the article is not even half-finished. There are a huge number of major storylines that aren't even mentioned for one word in the current article. The problem is, although Final Fantasy X is a relatively "short" game, it's also an exceedingly dense one; people have complained about its being such a linear, dialogue/cutscene-heavy game because it's so exceedingly plot-focused, even for Final Fantasy, a series famous for its convoluted plots. The article currently ignores almost the entire middle segment of the game for the sake of brevity, only alluding to one or two of the most significant occurrences. Djose, Moonflow, Guadosalam, Thunder Plains, Macalania, Bikanel, Home, the Calm Lands, Mt. Gagazet, and the airship are virtually ignored; only a couple of words are devoted to the major confrontations with Sin at Kilika and Mushroom Rock, the collection of the individual Aeons is ignored altogether, the running plotline involving the Fayth child is ignored, the optional side-plots are all ignored, and a large number of the most important side-characters in the game (most notably Cid) are never once mentioned. I agree that the current state is an acceptable compromise; it could still use some significant tidying up, but it's neither dramatically overlong nor dramatically overshort. -Silence 02:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It is for these reasons why I stopped working on the Xenogears and Xenosaga articles. I know they can never be featured articles, because in order to make the articles comprehensive, I would have to spend at LEAST ten paragaphs on the plot. If it was too short, half of the people would object because it's a confusing summary of a confusing story. If it was too long, people would (obviously) complain that it was too long, regardless of content. If a compromise was made, it would be sacrificing too much on either side to even stand a chance. FFX, fortunately, has the luxury to provide a compromise. — Deckiller 02:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In such a situation, where the story consumes too much space, it is recommended to create a daughter article (like Story of Final Fantasy X) or create subsections. For example I think you'd get a lot less objection to an article with a 9-paragraph plot summary if it is divided into 3 meaningful, 3-paragraph-long sections. Notice that Worldtraveller only objected to the "story" section, not to the other three sections, which add up to be quite lengthy, which also deal with the game's plot ("setting", "characters", and "mythology"). We could do even more trickery like that if we wanted to allay further criticism, like having a 2-to-3-paragraph "history" section explaining the backstory of Zanarkand and Yevon, rather than including that information in the "plot" section at the point in the game where it's revealed. It makes no substantial difference. -Silence 02:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that deception tactic was used with The Wind Waker, which seemed to work. — Deckiller 02:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As it stands, the page already links to Spira (Final Fantasy X), which does a lot that isn't done here, and since the only backstory elements we really saved for revealing in the "Story" section were the biggies, I don't think there's really much cause for concern. And, really, the biggies that are in the Story section are far more compelling when revealed there. While this is an encyclopedia article, the concept of the "Perfect Article" does suggest that it be interesting. Ryu Kaze 14:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• The prose: It's so close, so why not fix silly things like:
  • "Spira is very different from the mainly European-style worlds found in previous Final Fantasy games, being much more closely modeled on Southeast Asia, most notably with respect to its vegetation, topography, architecture and names."
  • "in excess of 7.93 million copies": Ugly expression - what's wrong with "more than"?
  • Remove "Additionally" from the lead - it adds absolutely nothing.

This is a great opportunity to polish it. Please do. Tony 15:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Ryu Kaze 19:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony, as always, thank you for your constructive and civil feedback. — Deckiller 05:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Cover images/infobox. Why does the infobox have four fair-use images? Per WP:FUC #3, we should use as few fair-use images as is absolutely necessary to illustrate the subject, and per #8 we should avoid the decorative use of fair-use images. This is a borderline-copyvio issue, and it's been used to argue that other infoboxes should have multiple images (despite the fact that WP:CVG practice is to use the first or best-selling English-language cover). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  In particular, two of these images are identical but for trade dress. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  Aren't the four images there to illustrate the four different versions? — Deckiller 01:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  Why use four images when one suffices? (Especially given that two of them are nearly identical.) Book articles don't have galleries of fair-use images for each different publishing variation, movie articles don't have galleries of every VHS/DVD cover or every poster, and game articles shouldn't have multiple fair-use images of game covers when one would suffice. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  I've learned to ignore trivial issues like image/format disputes, because it really takes away from the true meat and potatoes of the article — the stuff I personally care about. Besides, the LAST thing I want is two sides starting an image/format dispute, thus putting we editors between a rock and a hard place. If we don't get any objections to this before this minor review has concluded, the change should be made. And then, if we have a camp forming on the other side, I'll personally nip it in the bud with something aong the lines of Raul's common sense brick. — Deckiller 01:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  Even if the consensus is to use multiple images (and some way of satisfying WP:FUC is devised), the two nearly-identical images need to be dealt with. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  Honestly, I don't think I can participate in a discussion on image placement and exclusion and all, since it's my achilles' heel on the site. I've never been into image uploading and other image-related issues, except deleting orphaned fairuses. — Deckiller 01:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  If they go, they go, I guess. Personally, I think it's good to illustrate all the different regional covers, but if there's some kind of fair-use infringment at work ,I guess they should go. Of course, this means it'll have to be done on several Final Fantasy pages. Ryu Kaze 02:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  And let us pray people won't be looking to set stability objections. — Deckiller 02:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  I don't think changes that come of a FAC/FAR/FARC can really be considered as making an article unstable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  Let's hope not. That would be the most ridiculus argument ever cast: "Your article isn't worthy of being FA because you're taking measures to meet fair-use criteria, which arguably has some bearing on FA criteria in the first place!" Let's just remove them from all the pages if there's no objections and have done with the matter. I don't imagine we'll see any "instability" cries, and if we do, we'll put the common sense brick in a pillowcase and go to town. Ryu Kaze 02:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  ...and maybe get Raul's common sense brick award, as well :-) — Deckiller 02:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Usually, one cover is allowed for identification and the preference is to use the one an english speaking audience is most likely to recognize in the marketplace. Combination 09:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Status. So how do people feel about this? Concerns addressed or do we need to go to FARC? Marskell 21:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • There's definitely no need for an FARC. The main purpose for this FAR was to make sure the page was up-to-par for its stint on the front page (now come and gone), and we've gotten the fair-use matter taken care of (removed the extra box covers). Everything's fine. Ryu Kaze 01:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker

Article is still a featured article

[edit] Major review commentary

The prose of this article is not "compelling, even brilliant", and it therefore fails to meet Criterion 2a. Here are some examples.

• • A few more commas throughout would help our long-suffering readers, e.g., "struggling against his nemesis Ganondorf for control of a holy relic known as the Triforce that grants the wishes of its holder".
  • "Unlike most Zelda games that take place predominately on land, The Wind Waker places the hero Link on an island." Um ... but an island is land. Unclear.
  • "Link lives with his grandmother and younger sister Aryll on Outset Island, one of many islands in the Great Sea, although few are inhabited." "Although" is wrong here.
  • "The people of the Great Sea pass down a legend of a prosperous kingdom with a hidden golden power." Is it the people, the legend or the kingdom that possess the hidden golden power?
  • "The elders of Outset Island customarily dress their youths in green like the Hero of Time when they come of age, hoping to inspire in them the courage the Hero of Time knew." Who's coming of age: the elders or the youths? I guess we can work it out, but good prose doesn't force us to. Who's hoping to inspire in whom?

Nearly every sentence needs some kind of fixing. And why are dictionary items, such as "green", "boat" and "sail" linked?

I hope that the contributors can enlist support for a thorough audit of the prose over the next two weeks. Tony 07:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

How could nearly every sentence require some kind of correction? This leads me to believe that all of the content that I have read is wrong one way or another. I disagree with "nearly". —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I would like a reference for the It has also been confirmed that a novelization of the game is a WIP (work in progress). comment. -- ReyBrujo 12:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Added by a anon so I removed it. — Ian Moody ^(talk) 13:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've fixed some of your concerns, but you (or someone else) may need to point out any other problems, as I wrote most of this article and won't be able to see my own mistakes.
• The first sentence you mention -- adding commas to that section wouldn't be correct. It seems readable to me, but that's just my opinion. Pagrashtak 03:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral: the article is well-referenced, features images with proper copyright rationale, and is very enjoyable to read. However, I do not believe that the writing is of an unreadable standard, and I find most of the examples which User:Tony1 provided to be quite clear within the article (with exception to the "island" and "land" bit). Therefore, I remain netural. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the problems I agree with and haven't heard any input in a few days, so I suggest closing this review unless anyone else has something to add. Pagrashtak 18:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• More examples of substandard prose, from a section chosen at random:
  • "a very realistic looking Ganon and Link"—"a"? Aren't there two of them? Should "realistic-looking" be hyphenated? Or changed to "realistic"?
    • Fixed.
  • "fall 2000"—see WP's guidelines on avoiding hemisphere-centric expressions.
    • You'd have to talk to Sony about hemisphere-centric expressions, as this is a direct quote. However, the Japanese release date is earlier, so I switched to that, which avoids the problem.
  • "Nintendo had several software demonstrations to showcase the power of their new system"—had demonstrations? This is not compelling prose.
    • I'm using had in the sense of possessed; I've added the phrase "on hand" to make it more clear.
  • Spell out "IGN" on first occurrence, even if it is linked.
    • Just like KFC, there's nothing to spell out.
      • I believe he is referring to the fact that the article supposes the casual reader knows what IGN is. In example, instead of "Staff at IGN referred...", it would be better to say "Staff at IGN, an online website dedicated to videogame reviews, referred..." or similar. Just like the first time Famitsu is mentioned it is clarified that it is a magazine (although it would also help wikifying it and stating it is a japanese magazine dedicated to videogames. Remember that a casual reader should understand everything without needing to click wikilinks. -- ReyBrujo 16:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • "The official translation of The Wind Waker was given on 2 December 2002"—to give a translation?
    • I've reworded it.
  • "A new Zelda game using a heavily modified version of the Wind Waker engine is currently in development"—I guess that commas aren't compulsory, but they'd make it easier for our readers. Perhaps even change the word order.
    • I'm not sure what to do, this sentence seems perfectly readable to me. This may just be a style preference problem. Pagrashtak 16:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is good enough yet. The challenge is to fix all of the article, not just the examples I've provided. Tony 02:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I realize that the examples you gave were just examples and not the entire problem; however, as I mentioned, I wrote this article and have a hard time finding my own problems, so I must rely on you (or another editor) to point out what needs fixing. I'm more than happy to keep this review open and improve the article as long as someone can tell me what can be improved. Pagrashtak 16:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Spell out? Well, what does IGN mean? Tony 01:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, IGN doesn't mean anything. It's a company without an unabbreviated name. Pagrashtak 14:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I just gave a small hand and changed all dates from dd mm yyyy to mm dd, yyyy format, per date formatting guidelines. If you find some more, please fix them on sight. -- ReyBrujo 02:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that a good number of dates are in both formats, that is not really nice to see. -- ReyBrujo 16:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've copyedited the article. I fixed many of the example problems listed here and any other places I thought could be tightened. The dates should be consistent unless I've missed some. Please let me know what other problems you see, and I would appreciate it if addressed objections could be struck out for clarity. Tony, could you clarify the meaning behind "spell out" above? Thanks, Pagrashtak 04:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

FA criteria concern is quality of prose (2a) Marskell 15:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - This article is in better shape now than when it was featured. Pagrashtak 03:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist - Quality of prose is a current requirement: standards have improved. Sandy 22:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Quality of prose was also a requirement in February 2006 when this article was featured. I don't think the prose standards today are that different than they were a few months ago. Would you mind pointing out the parts of the article that you feel do not meet the standard? Pagrashtak 01:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral for now. This could get there and Pagra seems interested in continuing to work. I placed a fact request in the intro. Also, is it Ganon or Ganondorf (or are they used interchangeably)? This should be mentioned early. I'm also a little concerned that the citations don't start appearing until the article is more than half over. Marskell 16:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'm more than willing to continue addressing any complaints about the article. I removed the fact request in the lead, as the lead is a summary of the entire article, which is itself referenced. If others also feel that the lead needs to have citations, it should just be a matter of copying them from the text. The story and gameplay sections do not have any references because everything in those sections is directly supported by the game itself. Pagrashtak 01:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Pagra, I re-inserted the fact request. As noted in the edit summary, it shouldn't be up to the reader to have to hunt through the article for a ref. I also removed some redundancy at the top (it's mentioned about four times that the game is set on a group of islands). I'll try and do more later and I would note that I'm still not convinced this needs to be removed. Marskell 09:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Fair enough then, I've copied a ref from the body to the lead for the fact request. I also mentioned that Ganon is Ganondorf in the lead and changed a "Ganon" to "Ganondorf" in a section title to be consistent. Thanks for the copyedit. Pagrashtak 15:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per Tony, Sandy Zzzzz 18:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Tony has not voted to remove. I have fixed his examples and more and have not received any futher comments from him for several days. Would you mind pointing out the parts of the article that you feel do not meet the standard? Pagrashtak 01:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Tony has now: Remove. More random examples of substandard writing from just one section:
  • "One new addition"—pick the redundant word.
  • "He wishes for a future for Link and Zelda"—odd.
  • "With the ocean falling all around the tower,"—odd.
  • "in a body of water known as the Great Sea"—spot the six redundant words.

This is not FA material. Tony 01:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Well, those examples came from two sections, but that's beside the point. Fixed, reworded, reworded, and fixed, in that order. However, I might note that any sentence about a falling ocean could be expected to have the word "odd" applied to it. Pagrashtak 15:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixing just the examples misses the point: they're intended as evidence of a wider problem. Tony 02:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. But he is fixing them. I think we should keep this open until the concerns have been exhausted. Marskell 09:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixing the examples improves the article, even if slightly. The examples you've provided here all (or at least nearly all) existed during both the peer review and the FAC without mention. This would indicate that few editors have the capability/time/energy to spot these problems. Since I wrote the majority of the text of this article, I'm at a disadvantage - it's hard to copyedit one's own writing, as you are surely aware. Therefore, I appear to be left with only two options - fix the examples you present or leave them as is. I think I'm choosing the better option, given the circumstances.

You have made it clear several times that you feel the article is poorly written; you don't have to tell me again. I understand that fixing the examples is not correcting the entire problem, it's just the best I can do right now. Pagrashtak 00:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

And a question: what do we generally do with fictional character and place names? Quotes or italics or just leave it? Here things like "King of Red Lions" and "Din's Pearl" are simply presented as is. Marskell 09:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the current presentation is correct, just as one would write "Bilbo Baggins stole the One Ring from Gollum" instead of "'Bilbo Baggins' stole the 'One Ring' from 'Gollum'", but correct me if I'm wrong. Pagrashtak 00:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: this sentence is odd: "This disc, The Legend of Zelda: Collector's Edition, could be had by purchasing a special GameCube bundle containing the disc, by registering a GameCube and two games at Nintendo's website, or by subscribing or renewing a subscription to Nintendo Power." I don't know how to go about fixing this one. — Deckiller 23:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I rewrote it. I think it's better, but you might be able to improve it further. Pagrashtak 23:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Overall, I think this clearly meets 2a in relation to the majority of the featured articles out there. — Deckiller 01:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The prose is looking a lot better. Tony 04:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to make another run through the prose tomorrow. — Deckiller 04:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep After the various copyedits, I am comfortable moving to a keep. Marskell 06:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep after copyedits Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as the prose was improved greatly. :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antarctica

Article is still a featured article

[edit] Minor review commentary

This is overall a worthy FA, but needs a copy-edit (Criterion 2a). Here are examples of problems in the lead.

• • The lead states that Antarctica is the "highest" continent (whatever that means), and then that it's the "third highest" continent.

• • "The continent was largely neglected in the 19th century"; then we read "it was mostly unexplored until the 19th century". These statements are slightly inconsistent, and the second implies that it was mostly explored during the 19th century, which I don't think was the case.

• • "The Antarctic Treaty, which was signed in 1959 by 12 countries and prohibits any military activity, supports scientific research, and protects the continent's ecozone." "Any" is redundant. What is claimed for the treaty might be an overstatement; whether it does in fact protect the ecozone is a matter of debate, even if the intention is there, and "supports scientific research" is ambiguous—does it provide the funding?

• • "Ongoing experiments are conducted by more than 4000 scientists of many different nationalities and with many different research interests." Does it mean to say the more than 4000 scientists at any one time are conducting ...? It's unclear. "Many different" occurs twice in seven words.

The whole article needs a massage. Tony 05:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"Highest" means "highest average elevation"? I'll remove that from the lead because it's uncertain enough and post a talk point. Marskell 21:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reworded the "third highest" comment to clarify what it means. -- Avenue 23:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Have you managed to garner support for a quality-audit on the whole text? Tony 07:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• The article is great, set asise the sentence "highest of all the continents" which I don't understand. Plus, what does the last image mean? It looks like an ad. Plus the article could use a map which shows clearly the Transantarctic Mountains, the Ross Sea and other geographical features described in the Geography and Geology section. CG 15:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Further comment—Please keep working on the prose. I should not be able to pick out poor sentences at random. They're everywhere. Here are some:
  • "Physically, it is divided in two by the Transantarctic Mountains close to the neck between the Ross Sea and the Weddell Sea." Since this starts a paragraph, "it" should not be used; it could refer to a number of items in the previous sentence. "Divided in two"—spot the two redundant words.
  • "Belief in the existence of a Terra Australis — a vast continent located in the far south of the globe to "balance" the northern lands of Europe, Asia and north Africa — had existed since Ptolemy suggested the idea in order to preserve ...". Belief had existed? And there's "existence" and "existed" in the same sentence. "In order to"—spot the two redundant words.
  • "The continent of Antarctica is located mostly south of the Antarctic Circle, surrounded by the Southern Ocean." Why do we need to be told again that it's a continent. Isn't it almost entirely south of the Antarctic Circle, not just "mostly"? Is it the Antarctic Circle or the Antarctica that is surrounded by the Southern Ocean?

Someone needs to go through the whole text to reword repetitions; I see "sailed" in one sentence, then in the next. It ends up being laboured. But that's only a fraction of what needs to be done to satisfy Criterion 2a. Since only a patchy attempt has been made to address the problems (see [[17]]), I'm transferring the listing to major review. Tony 12:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major review commentary

Please note that the intention was to move this nomination from minor to major review, rather than FARC. The first two comments here are the result of the temporary move to FARC a few days ago. Please now make comments relevant to the major review. Tony 09:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep FA I think all in all this remains a fine article. The "highest" business has been addressed. Copy-edit always welcome, of course, but this probably should have remained a minor review. Marskell 13:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep FA per above. — Deckiller 04:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

As noted to you Tony, I did a copy edit. Even managed to find a date and a couple of extra comments to add. It's a fine article I think, with nicely balanced sections. Marskell 10:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be like a terrier at someone's ankle, but the first thing my eyes came to rest on was:

• "scientists from many nationalities", in the lead.

It's better than it was, but I don't want to find sentences that can easily be improved, such as:

• "The continent of Antarctica is located mostly south of the Antarctic Circle, surrounded by the Southern Ocean." (Try: "Most of Antarctica lies south of the Antarctic Circle; the continent is surrounded by the Southern Ocean."
• "About 98% of Antarctica is covered by the Antarctic ice sheet. The ice sheet is, on average, 2.5 kilometers (1.6 miles) thick." Merge these two sentences to save words.
• "If the sheet were to break down ocean levels would rise by several meters"—"break down ocean levels"? Insert a comma to be kind to our readers. Is it written in AmEng or what? "Meters" and "metres" are used, and we're not talking coin-in-the-slot machines here. And see WP's policy on abbreviations where imperial equivalents are provided in parentheses.
• "Due to the lake's similarity to Europa, a moon of Jupiter, confirming that life can survive in Lake Vostok might strengthen the argument for the possibility of life on Europa." Hmm, nice grammar.

Not entirely happy yet. It's such a good article in other respects—I agree with Marskell—that I wonder why some of the contributors don't want to feel proud of the writing. Tony 03:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"From" --> "of" in first. I dropped "continent of" in the second to make it simpler. I had actually noticed the redundancy noted in your third bullet earlier, but I left it so that both "Antarctic ice sheet" and plain "ice sheet" are dabbed; perhaps that's unneeded.

Where is the policy (or guideline) on metric and imperial? Marskell 06:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Institutes of Technology

Article is still a featured article

[edit] Major review commentary

Although promoted recently, the article fails by a long shot to meet:

• Criterion 2a ("compelling, even brilliant" prose); and
• Criterion 2d (proper use of external citations);

with a possible question mark hanging over POV (2e). Please see my comments here.

A serious copy-edit is required, at the very least. Given the hard work that has gone into this article, perhaps you might consider asking one or more members of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team for assistance. Tony 10:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the objections raised by Tony. Please give me some time to improve the article based on your suggestions. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Update. I have addressed almost all concerns raised by Tony. I have even made the changes where I felt they were required but not specifically asked. I have copyedited the article to use the references to illustrate only what is being told and not use non-neutral source for passing a judgement. Again, addressing the objections by other editors, Nichalp raised concerns over referening and copy-editing and gave his support after {{inotes}} were added and Taxman copyedited it. Regarding Anwar's objection, I am not sure why selective quoting was done. Reading the full sentence, "But I am more concerned about absolute lack of information as to how/why IITs are considered superior to other educational institutions and varsitites with reference to syllabuses, pedagogical techniques, placements, associated stats, etc." is what Anwar wrote. The reply I wrote in the FAC still stands. The IITs are NOT considered superior in syllabuses and pedagogical technique. They used to be superior in placement, but nowadays the NITs also have similar placement scenarios. Of course it was a surprise to see Anwar put in a lot of hard work in finding faults with the article and though most of them weren't actioned upon, they could be taken as genuine criticisms. I have worked upon all his actionable concerns, wherever appropriate. Spangineer initially opposed, but later supporting after copyediting himself. Of course he mentioned that Tony would come up with more problems (and he did), which is the reason why this article has been brought up for FAR. Finally I would like to know why 2(e) is considered relevant in this context as I couldn't find any relevance of it myself. Will you please elucidate. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

More updates. I have done another round of copyediting per WP:WTA. Please give your views on the current state of the article. Without any more suggestions/observations, I don't know if any more issues are present. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

FA criteria concerns are quality of writing (2a) and use of citations (2b) Marskell 10:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I think the article does not have the above problems anymore -- Lost 13:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep- I am confused. What are the issues? Tony started a review earlier but from what I understand the editors have been working with Tony and some others to rectify the matter and have been making good progress. No reason to bring this for FARC at this stage. --Blacksun 16:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I had asked Tony to review the progress, but he had some deadlines to attend to. Meanwhile, the "deadline" for FAR expired and since Tony hadn't commented again on the progress and outstanding issues, the FARC was started by Marskell. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I've done some cleaning up of part of it; see my inline queries, please. Tony 16:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Reply to inline querries. Wherever applicable, I have copyedited to make the sentences clearer. Regarding the issues I left unfixed, I am replying point-wise.
  • You left comment on the vagueness of proposals of Nalini Ranjan Sarkar Committee. It is possible for me to make things clearer, but since the committee itself was not clear in its recommendations, I haven't copyedited it (as it would include adding Original Research).

The word "possible" is the problem. Do you see it now?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs)

I saw it earlier also, but do you want me to remove the word? The source mentions the word "possibly", will it be wise to remove it. Anyway, since it was causing too much confusion and bad prose, I removed the sub-phrase without altering the meaning of the sentence. No OR added; nothing important left out. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Central government comprises of the ruling parties (in multi-party democracy) while the parliament consists of all elected members (both of ruling parties and opposition). Am I allowed to remove the comment now. Frankly speaking I don't know what needs to be clarified.

These terms are not universally understood as your explain them. "Central" was the word that concerned me; is it a federal system in India? Many people would refer to "federal government".—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs)

India is a federation and hence has a federal government. However in India, it is either referred to as "Central government" or "Union government", but rarely as a "Federal government". I have changed the former (central govt) to latter (union govt), which I feel is another widely understood word. If it is not, I am ready to change to "Federal government". The only problem that might arise is that the Indians viewing the page might not understand what "Federal government" means: Whether it is Union government of State government? — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I must add that Central government is the word used even by the government sites [18]. -- Lost 18:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Academic senate members are nominated, not elected by elections. The article never says that IITs are unique in this regard. Anyway, I have removed it.
• — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

To put this out of its misery, I've copy-edited more of it, but am tiring. The quality was way below FA requirements, still. Why am I finding things like: "Since the IITs get only a few overseas faculty and students" (I think I see what it means from the context), "The cultural festivals too last 3 to 4 days", " large panels of an event, or a concept", and "All the IITs have playgrounds of popular sports". Spell out numbers less than 10. Get rid of "variety". Avoid "get". "20 feet": use metric and provide imperial equivalent if necessary—doesn't India have the metric system? Tony 03:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have copyedited the article to fix the issues raised. However, to copyedit and eradicate "get" from "Former IIT students get greater respect from their peers..." is beyond me. I can use "command" instead, but I think it is even more un-encyclopedic. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep the big picture still looks good. This Fire Burns....Always 04:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Let's keep refining it from time to time, don't you think? Tony 08:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Definitely, that's the spirit of wikipedia :) -- Lost 08:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Yes, we should refine the article as needed, and probably the article meets the FA criteria right now. I use "probably" because Tony, as a professional copyeditor, is a much better judge of the quality of the prose that we genaerally are. Thanks to Tony for pointing out the faults the article had! And thanks to Ambuj and others for trying their best to rectify the faults.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Super Mario 64

Article is still a featured article

It's been nearly a year and a half since this appeared on the main page, and in that period nearly 700 edits have taken place. I've tried to remove the worst excesses of cruft when they appear on my recent changes list, but I'm currently being overwhelmed at the German Tranlsation Project and I don't have the time (or the patience, let's be honest) to go through this entire article. It still seems FA standard, but a good scrubbing never hurt anyone. When it comes to specifc criteria, I would have to say:

• Video game articles tend toward cruft, so I doubt the prose is still brillaint, although it is still quite good,
• I'm not sure its current formatting is in complaince with WP:MOS
• The article had a previous removal nomination, which failed, but still could give helpful suggestions. The article's original, and ancient, FAC nomination, can be found here.

Just a bit of maintenance, nothing too serious. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 19:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Yeah, it doesn't look too bad, but it is a bit crufty. I'm not sure about the list of levels. I don't want to spin it off, because it's a big chunk of the article, but it is a bit long. I'll give this a good copyedit tomorrow, but regarding the list of levels: what does everybody else think? The Disco King 02:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It's been in the article a long time, and was in while the article appeared on the main page. The formatting of the list has changed numerous times, but I remember it used to be a lot shorter. I would vote in favor of keeping it, if we can satisfactorily de-cruft it. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 02:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see this article as being particularly long, so I see no need to shorten or remove the list, personally. Everyking 13:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've gone through the article on my sub-page (see the diff here), and I've tried to cut out some cruft and tighten up the language. I may have cut too much, though; what do people think? The Disco King 14:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

In general, I don't see why your changes -- or really any changes -- are necessary. Andre (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That was a much needed copy edit and cruftectomy, Disco King. I support your changes. The article could no doubt use with another check by a fresh pair of eyes, as well. — BrianSmithson 13:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the changes, but wonder whether some of the information that has been removed should be preserved somewhere else? It may be cruft, but someone, somewhere may want to read it. They are unlikely to find it in the page history. Carcharoth 12:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a Wikibook for SM64? That'd be a natural home for, say, the "list of glitches" that I cut a couple days ago and the like. — BrianSmithson 12:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Too many lists, need converting into prose, and some sections are rather short. Some parts of the article are unreferenced as well. — Wackymacs
  • Agreed. The list of remakes and sequels is the most glaring example of something that needs to be converted to prose. — BrianSmithson 13:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The article's references are okay, but there are a number of good print video game histories available nowadays. These could be used to widen the scope of this article away from a simple blow-by-blow of the levels and a description of the gameplay. They would be more solid, in my opinion, than the the online sources that were apparently used to write the article. — BrianSmithson 13:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm going to implement the changes on my subpage now, barring any objections. The Disco King 14:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm still quite upset with this article. It does not meet the criteria in several ways.

1. As I noted at the first removal nomination, there are a lack of references. Perhaps the editors should see other featured articles on video games such as Perfect Dark, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask and The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker? The references are required in sections such as "Development", where currently there are only three.
2. Is the basic controls section really necessary? I do believe that Image:Super Mario 64 jumping.jpg is a treat to include, but other video games articles do not devote an entire section on jumping and somersaulting. I think this portion needs to be trimmed.
3. The "impact" secton — all of its content is unsourced.
4. The "reviews" section should be expanded and reformatted to appear identical to the ones in the other featured article video games. Additionally, more reviews should be collected since there are many well-renowned gaming magazines.
5. "Super Mario 64 set many precedents for 3D platformers to follow." — reference? The entire "Innovation" section needs references.
6. "Voices" should be merged since the section is only two lines.
7. Too many images; are twelve pictures required to illustrate the visuals of the video game?
8. Awkward pieces of prose here and there: "The player is free to wander around and discover the environment without time limits, and may go in all directions within the boundaries of the world" — this could just be me, but does anybody else believe that this sentence sounds a bit strange?

—Eternal Equinox | talk 13:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've tagged some of the uncited sections you mentioned, and currently looking for some sources.--Kingston Jr. 04:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: There are definitely too many fair use images in this article. The screenshots are the main problem, but this can be remedied pretty easily if someone could sort through them and take out the ones that don't illustrate a significant point.--Kingston Jr. 12:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've trimmed the screenshots as best I could, though feel free to shift them around if you don't like my arrangement.--Kingston Jr. 04:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Status How do people feel about this one? It seems to have gotten some attention and I wonder if the nominator and others think it's back up to par. Marskell 08:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's good. A section or two without references, although now it would mean death in FAC, shouldn't lose this articles it's status, considering it's been here for such a long time, as FA standards have gone through the roof. I think we're back on track. By the way, sorry for the slow response, I was out of state and didn't have internet access for almost a week. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 17:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I looked and noticed the fact request in the lead is taken care of and that "citation needed" sections do in fact have some citations. This isn't our weightiest FA to be sure but I think it's up to standard and that the review has helped. Marskell 18:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iranian peoples

Article is still a featured article

From a look at the recent history of the article, and its talk page, the article can be seen not to be stable, its neutrality being disputed on various issues (notably of religious and ethnic nature), and not being well-sourced, since the introduction of the article cites sources which after careful evaluation, do not supoort its content. This article thus does not meet the criteria of either a good or a featured article, and should be removed from the list or edited accordingly. Shervink 16:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)shervink

• Keep just because one user disputes it doesn't mean it's "unstable". —Khoikhoi 16:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but improve I believe Shervink's concern is true to a certain extent that intro needs better referencing in order to support the subject matter and make the article more stable, but it remains of good quality. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep There's no reason to dispute the neutrality of the article, and obvious POV of including Turkic Azeris as Iranian people cannot be considered a good reason. Grandmaster 06:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please. This period isn't meant for keep/remove comments. Please try to point out things that need editing etc. Marskell 08:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• The article's main improvement should be to clarify the wording rather than references. And I would like to reiterate that the complaints are coming from one user Shervink who consistently seeks to inject his own POV regarding the Azeris as an Iranian people, which is simply not supported by references. So on the one hand we have a demand for better sources to support the definition of the Iranian peoples (not needed as each reference explains who they are even if in piecemeal form as in ancients to modern), whereas a veritable landslide of sources define the Azeris as a Turkic people in comparison to an editorial and a cultural definition of the Azeris as having a lot of Persian cultural traits (which I agree with). The wording insisted upon with the Azeris is that some sources support them as an Iranian people (really only one editorial that I've seen as the other reference is to their Persian culture) and that some support them as a Turkic people (which in reality should read that most sources define them as a Turkic people which I've proven with references and can produce many more if needed). As for improvements to the article, more info. on the impact of Islam might be needed which is something I'm figuring out how to incorporate and the history and settlement section will have to be given subsections which is also something I will try to work out as well. Tombseye 18:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and improve Article needs a modest expansion and some infinitesimal modification. Amir85 16:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note: Major reviews do not concern declarations to keep or remove. Tony 12:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Status. I'm tempted to close this one without the FARC period. It certainly looks stable now and the nom appears frankly "pointish". Well-referenced and a very recent FA (our 1000th). Any new comments before closure? Marskell 09:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed status

[edit] Sealand

Article is no longer a featured article.

[edit] Review commentary

There's a glaringly high amount of citations needed in this article, and in general it's a mess. SushiGeek 00:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Also Sealand is a country, not a micronation, and that should be corrected throughout the article. Insulting is intolerable. Watercool 09:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If you truly believe that, it would be in the best interest of the rest of Wikipedia if you refrained from editting micro"nation" articles. —Nightstallion (?) 09:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it isn't a FA, at least at its current point. However, due to recent events I think it should be given a month or so to improve, as it needs to be updated. Computerjoe's talk 11:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. If it's still as bad in two weeks, de-FA it. —Nightstallion (?) 09:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The prose needs a good audit. Here are examples.

• "post-war it was not until 1956 that the last full-time personnel were taken off HM Fort Roughs and marking of its position as a shipping hazard was left to Trinity House." It just a bit awkward/unrefined.
• "an interesting case study of how various principles of international law"—spot the redundant word.
• "UK" appears and is subsequently spelt out.
• "the court possessed no jurisdiction"—is there a less high-fallutin' word than "possessed"?
• "In 1978, while Bates was away, the "Prime Minister" of Sealand, Alexander G. Achenbach, and several German and Dutch citizens, staged a forcible takeover of Roughs Tower, holding Bates' son Michael captive, before releasing him several days later in the Netherlands." Too many commas—stop-start effect; re-organise.
• "thereupon"? Go simple and plain, please. Tony 02:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, a topic like this needs inline citations. Honestly I think this article should be removed as a FA. Cedars 17:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Main featured article criteria concern is citations (2c). Marskell 18:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unrecognized countries, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. Sandy 22:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

thus far. Tony 23:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong remove. A topic like this needs inline citations. In general, this article is not up to featured article standards. Cedars 06:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove as per Cedars; also fails 2a. Tony 13:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove: a critical lack of referencing (and a link farm). Sandy 19:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George II of Great Britain

Article is no longer a featured article.

[edit] Review commentary

These two immediately stand out:

• Does not exemplify 'our best work' (1)
• No inline citations (2c)

- FrancisTyers · 08:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. It needs greater depth and length, and inline citations. --Oldak Quill 10:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not in the voting process yet. But good points. :) - 139.222.127.232 10:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah well, It's changed since I last did this! :) --Oldak Quill 12:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Fails Criterion 2a. Here are examples.
  • "George II exercised little control over policy during his early reign, the government instead being controlled by ..." After the comma, it's awkward.
  • " He was the second British monarch of the House of Hanover, and the last British monarch to personally lead his troops into battle (at Dettingen in 1743). He was also the last British monarch to have been born outside of Great Britain." In the second sentence, pick the two redundant words.
  • "The Act of Settlement 1701 devised the British Crown to the Hereditary Prince's grandmother Sophia of Hanover if the then-ruling monarch, William III, and his sister-in-law, the Princess Anne of Denmark, both died without issue." "Devised"? "Without issue"?
  • "shortly after the demise of the Electress Sophia (d. 8 June 1714)"—that's a ridiculous euphemism for "death".

Please copy-edit the whole article thoroughly. Tony 03:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concerns are not Wikipedia's best work (1) and citations (2c). Marskell 16:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. Sandy 22:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Here is the compare since the article was nominated June 26. Negligible activity, no improvement to references or prose. Sandy 18:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove as per Sandy and my previous comments. Tony 13:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Java programming language

Article is no longer a featured article.

[edit] Review commentary

Not enough citations. Ideogram 08:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There are two many external links too, which should maybe be put in a separate article. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 08:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Criterion 2a is not met. Examples:
  • "compilers by compiling"
  • "Note that, although there's an explicit ..."—Please don't tell our readers what and what not to note.
  • "$20M"—New Zealand dollars? Which court gave the order?
  • "success at that goal"—"at"?
  • Some commas would make for easier reading.
  • "Although it is indeed possible"—Avoid "indeed" in this register.
  • "the burden of having to perform manual memory management"—Remove the three redundant words.

And much more. Please clean up the whole article. Tony 08:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concerns are citations (2c) and quality of writing (2a). Marskell 16:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Programming languages, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing. Sandy 22:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove three weeks, negligible edits, no change in citations and prose, no indication anyone is working on it. Sandy 03:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. Someone's had a poke around it, but none of the substantial problems has been addressed in all of this time. I notice a prominent "The above example merits a bit of explanation." Tony 02:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. This fails the criteria in 3 especially. I don't believe an article with large bullet point sections is in keeping with the style manual and the bullets are deployed even where not necessary (such as the criticism section). Shortish LEAD, lack of citations, and something of a link farm at the end. Marskell 12:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] C programming language

Article is no longer a featured article.

[edit] Review commentary

Not enough citations. Ideogram 08:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Good, but not featured. I believe it could be a good article, but it has to cite more sources to be featured. Also, I'm not entirely comfortable with how the article covers C. This is an encyclopedia article on C, not a tutorial. The "hello world" example should not be so long. 70.17.41.123 17:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comprehensive, and packed with useful information. But it sorely needs inline citations, both for some of the more controversial claims related to influence and usage, and for the history and philosophy sections. --Allan McInnes (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concerns are citations (2c) and encyclopedic style (5). Marskell 16:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Programming languages, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject C++. Sandy 22:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove three weeks, very few edits, almost no changes, no indication anyone is taking it on. The article needs to be referenced. Sandy 03:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove as per Sandy. In addition, the prose needs a lot of work; for such a complicated subject, our readers need utter clarity. Take the second half of the lead.

"C has also had a great influence on most other popular languages[1], especially C++ which was originally designed as an enhancement to C. It is distinguished for the efficiency of the code it produces, and is the most commonly used programming language for writing system software [2] [3], though it is also widely used for writing applications. Though not originally designed as a language for teaching, and despite its somewhat unforgiving character, C is commonly used in computer science education, in part because the language is so pervasive. Note that C# is a very different programming language.

• • It would be stronger without the "alsos".
  • "Great" might be better as "significant".
  • Comma after "C++" is required.
  • "distinguished for" better as "distinguished by", I think.
  • The second sentence is longish and needs to articulate the relationship between the three separate ideas. Ideas 2 and 3 are very close (contrastive), so why not: "C is distinguished by the efficiency of the code it produces; it is the most commonly used programming language for writing system software [2] [3], although it is widely used for writing applications."
  • Two "thoughs" in a row; two "commonly used"s.
  • "The language is so pervasive" is unclear; so is "somewhat unforgiving". Tony 02:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Good article, but lots of opinion and too much of a how-to. Has a lot of good parts, and the subject is close to my heart :). In addition to the above, I'll add a few random points:

1. "Maintenance" seems very opinionated ("drastically increases build times" [a comparison would be nice as well]).
2. "Although the list of built-in features C lacks is long, this has contributed significantly to its acceptance" without attribution, this is probably a POV violator (I agree with it though after using C++ for several years, but that is besides the point :))
3. The last paragraph of "Philosophy" is just too much of a how-to and an unneccesary reference to its popular cousin, C++.

RN 03:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellaneous commentary

For what it's worth, this article is a textbook example of a Wikipedia phenomenon which, if it hasn't been named, should be called the "too many cooks spoil the broth syndrome". Many, many editors who know something about C have added (or deleted) their favorite hot-button statements, with the inevitable result being an undisciplined mishmash. Someone needs to (and I've wanted to) mount a concerted cleanup effort, though of course this (a) will take a lot of time and effort and (b) is guaranteed to result in N tedious discussions with various of those hot-button editors who won't be happy with the way the coverage of their issues has been resolved. (But I'm merely observing here, neither apologizing nor complaining, and of course the situation here is little different from any number of other Wikipedia articles, plenty of which have managed to overcome these difficulties.) —Steve Summit (talk) 04:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Volkswagen Type 2

Article is no longer a featured article.

[edit] Review commentary

• Introduction is too brief and vague, it doesn't mention the specific models/variants at all.
• Many stubby paragraphs that only introduce a topic without discussing it.
• The "Variants" section is only a list and doesn't talk about each of these different types in detail.
• An almost complete lack of references (the two that are there are done improperly).
• Excess bolding of words.
• The article ends "open-endedly" at the end of the history section, leaving the reader to say "so what makes these cars special?" --SCHZMO ✍ 03:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concerns are LEAD (3a), comprehensiveness (2b), and citations (2c). Marskell 16:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. Sandy 22:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove—Not much activity since listing for review [[19]]. It passes 2a, IMV, but can someone fix things such as:
  • Grammar: "just like the Beetle has".
    • Sentence has been rearranged, improving grammar but not changing the basic content. -71.131.223.24 07:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • A snake to chop up: "Kombi, however, is not only the name of the passenger variant, but is also the Australasian and Brazilian term for the whole Type 2 family in much the same way that they are all called VW-Bus in Germany, even the pickup truck variations." Tony 02:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Holy shit—what a sentence ;). Marskell 16:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - the lack of references and insufficient lead is enough to warrant removal. Pagrashtak 01:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove lack of refs Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Is not even up to par for a good article. misses the FA mark by a mile. Karrmann 23:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove I must say I have been wondering what is this doing among FAs for a long time now, but I didn't want the one to blow the whistle. But now that even Karrmann says so, I feel free to say it loud :D Bravada, talk - 00:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States Electoral College

Article is no longer a featured article.

[edit] Review commentary

This article appears to have undergone some changes, or perhaps was made a featured article when standards differed.

Current issues:

• Introduction is too short.
• Article is poorly structured and needs substantial readability work.
• Patchy in its coverage. For example, mentions the Maine method, how long it's been used, and that it's also used by Nebraska, but does not mention what the Maine method is.
• There appears to be a brewing NPOV dispute.

--Barberio 23:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to emphasize the patchy in its coverage point (your third point). If I were to read this article with an interest in being elected as an elector, I would not be able to figure out the process. I think substantially more space should be devoted to discussing today's selection process, what qualifications are set for electors, how they are chosen, how they meet to cast their votes, etc., and substantially less to a series of pro and con articles. Indeed, a short, concise summary of pros and cons with good references should take less than 10% of the article.

As to other issues, I had no problem finding the discussion of what the Maine method is, and I think the NPOV issues being discussed on the talk page are subsidiary to the need to cut deeply in those sections in any case.

--Sam 21:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Re, the Maine Method, the article does discuss the Maine Method, but never actualy defines what the Maine Method is. Reducing the reader to having to guess what the Maine Method is from how it is discussed. --Barberio 12:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, except on the pro and con arguments, this article makes the reader work pretty hard throughout. I agree with Tony below that this should go to FARC. For a new successful FA, I would expect a heavy refactoring with a considerable change in emphasis. In particular, I'd want to see the whole pro and con discussion turned into a pithy summary; in present form, the pro and con section is virtually an article itself. Sam 11:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• This should go to FARC: the prose is substandard. Examples:
  • "The United States Electoral College is the electoral college"—Not a promising opening, and I see "electoral college" for a third time in the subsequent clause. Other repetitions too.
  • "[the College] ... votes every four years with electors from each state"—No it doesn't.
  • "Election of President of the United States and Vice President of the United States is indirect." This might have been better at the top, since it's a key concept necessary to understand the topic. But first, get rid of the repetition and add "the" (twice, please).
  • A few commas throughout would make it easier to read.
  • Stubby paragraphs.

It's pretty bad throughout. Tony 08:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted this: "By far, most of the electoral votes that would be a part of this compact, so far, were pledged to the Kerry in 2004 and Gore in 2000, and much of the interest in this plan has grown from the dissastisfaction with the 2000 election. But the plan could backfire: for example, if it had been in effect in 2004, when John Kerry lost both the "national popular vote" and the Electoral College vote, and Kerry had managed to win the Electoral College vote by winning Ohio, and nothing else changed, then this plan would have handed the victory to Bush, who won the "popular vote" handily."

There is simply no evidence presented that "much of the interest in this plan has grown from the dissatisfaction with the 2000 election." (News coverage has shown that the legislation has bipartisan cosponsors in many states.) Also, if the goal of the interstate compact is to make the winner of the national popular vote the president, the plan would not have "backfired" if Bush had been elected under it in the Ohio scenario described. It would have done precisely what was intended -- make the national popular vote winner the president.

[edit] FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concerns are LEAD section (3a), readability (2a), comprehensiveness (2b), and NPOV (2d). Marskell 12:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Message left on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. Sandy 01:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. A few paragraphs have been rewritten [[20]] since the article was listed for major review. This is a small proportion of the total text, and reveals gems such as: "Each state has as many electors as it has Members of Congress and Senators." Hmmm, how would 45 million Senators and Members representing California fit into just two chambers? I see what "electors" means now, but my overarching point remains. The rewritten and untouched prose is significantly below the required standard. Tony 13:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. Lack of comperhensiveness is significant. There is no discussion of how an individual elector is selected, how the rules for selecting electors are implemented every four years, or what the role of the political parties is in selecting electors. If someone wants to adopt this article and restore it, I would suggest a few sources:

• [21] (National Archives, which oversees the process nationally)
• [22] (a plain english language overview)
• The web sites for the political parties in each state (not on the national level); and
• the statutes for each state to see what the selection rules on a state-by-state basis.

There may be a good secondary source that has done some of these things as well. Sam 14:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. No improvement in the above deficiencies over the review period, and negligible edit activity. Overwhelming TOC, stubby short sections (3); prose problems, (2a); and not comprehensive (2b). Sandy 15:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linus Pauling

Article is no longer a featured article.

[edit] Review commentary

I am nominating this article for review due to a lack of references and the existence of incomplete facts. For example, the claim that Pauling was awarded his high school diploma after he was awarded his Nobel prizes. The other such example is the Marriage heading which is a two sentence paragraph. MyNameIsNotBob 10:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I did the tiniest bit of work on this but there are indeed problems. Only eight refs and seven of them in the alternative medicine section... I'm not knowledgeable with this though. Maybe contact the initial nominator? Marskell 07:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The criteria have changed sense 2004. I'll work on referencing this article. Thanks for bringing this review to my attention. Gentgeen 18:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Like a lot of the reviews without in-line refs, I "trust" this article having looked it over but I think it needs a going over by a person who can actually cite specific claims. Any work would be great Gent and we'll leave this review open for a while. Marskell 22:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• POV: "widely regarded as the premier chemist of the twentieth century"—I know chemists who would violently object to that statement. No reference, either.

perhaps "popularly", Pauling in the press and even in my organic textbook (M&B was #1?) would be cited as father of something - Modern Chemistry, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. As a kid I thought I would be ill with all the public adoration of LP (even though Pauling was extrememly politically controversial).--69.178.41.55 22:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Prose needs fixing throughout, e.g.,:
  • "Pauling was a pioneer in the application"—what's wrong with "Pauling pioneered the application"?
  • "moved his family to and from a number of different cities"—"to and from" is an odd expression here.
  • "Frances Lucille Pauling (1904-?)"—The question mark is not the standard way of indicating that a person hasn't yet died.
  • "and at one point his father wrote a letter to a local paper"—Tell us when, please; we're in the business of providing accurate information.
  • "Pauling failed to take some required American history courses"—spot the redundant word. Tony 02:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And it just lost it's intro pic. I think this should be taken to FARC as nothing is happening and the concerns are major rather than minor. Marskell 07:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Tony 08:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concerns are citations (2c) and the comprehensive of info under headings (2b and 3b). Marskell 15:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove unless the prose and POV are fixed. Tony 16:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove again, I object more to lack of references than to prose problems. Good prose can camouflage POV. FAs must have inline citations. There are mentions of POV on the talk page, and a request to reference the article going back to April 2005. For gosh sakes, the article is part of History of Science WikiProject: they should have been able to muster the resources to reference the article by now. Sandy 22:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vanilla Ninja

Article is no longer a featured article.

[edit] Major review commentary

I'm nominating this for FAR for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I've become too irregular an editor of Wikipedia as is, but I'm now leaving as a full-time user entirely. I am the only editor of this article, and as un-Wiki as it sounds, I wrote it (check the contributions). If I'm not here it's going to end up out of date (it is already, as it happens). Secondly, I'm very, very annoyed about the requirement for inline citations. When it was made an FA, it wasn't required. Seems like they are now. Well, I know I'm not going to do that, because I think a list of sites used suffices. Regardless, this article therefore is allegedly not referenced properly. Plus the fair use policy has some problem with the images. Feel free to maul my article, but it's never going to meet your FA criteria again. Remove, and thanks. Esteffect 12:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Remove as all images lack fair use rationales. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 19:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed all but one of the "fair use" images. Jkelly 04:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This does obviously have some problems with refs and pics. It's also a bit underweight. Este, why don't you look at the music section on WP:FA and see if there's something you can use as template there to bring this back up to standard. Marskell 10:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concerns are citations (2c) and image copyright status (4). Marskell 10:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove - insufficient citations and Image:Kivi-v-kivilaan.jpg lacks fair use rationale. Given the comments from Esteffect, this article seems unlikely to be improved to the featured standard. I understand that the band originally comprised four members, but it's confusing to the reader to have "Vanilla Ninja are a three-piece Estonian girl band..." as the first sentence with a picture of four girls right beside it. Pagrashtak 01:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - lack of citations, no improvement over a month. Sandy 16:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coca-Cola

Article is no longer a featured article.

[edit] Major review commentary

For these reasons:

• Doesn't comply to LEAD criteria.
• Not enough references.
• Biased article in POVness and in criticism/good points. Lincher 15:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment References seem adequate although some should in-line references should be converted to footnotes. Also please specify where there is biased and POV. Joelito (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• More reasons and answer :

  As per POVness :

  1. However, widespread outrage and boycotts after the announcement of the rollout led the company to restore the original drink, while keeping New Coke on the market.
  2. for the first eight months only an average of nine drinks were sold each day.
  3. thanks to a belief that carbonated water was good for the health.
  4. Goizueta claims that Woodruff endorsed it a few months before his death in 1985.
  5. As a publicity marketing strategy started by Robert W. Woodruff, the company presents the formula of Coca-Cola as one of the most closely held trade secrets in modern business that only a few employees know or have access to. In particular, the secret ingredient "7X" has long been touted an integral component of Coca Cola's formula though it has never been established what, if anything, the "X" refers to. It has been stated that Coca-Cola had employees mix the drink by numbers assigned to specific ingredients rather than by name, to avoid the possibility of employees reverse-engineering the recipe. However, experienced perfumers and food scientists — today aided by modern analytical methods — can easily identify the composition of food products, a fact that is further supported by the many cola flavorings and competing soft drinks like Pepsi. is not NPOV to me.
  6. Advertising for Coke is now almost ubiquitous, especially in southern areas of North America, such as Atlanta, where Coke was invented., what does that mean, ads are the same everywhere or they show the same amount of ads everywhere in the world?

• • Could there be citations for the history section?
  • There is also no relevancy for the link The Coca-Cola Company#History as it doesn't go into further details of the history but talks about WWII coca-cola.
  • There is also no relevancy for the link Coca-Cola Company#Criticisms as it doesn't go into further details of the criticisms but states the same thing.
  • Coca-Cola was the first-ever sponsor of the Olympic games, who says that? 1924 there was RBC read that [23].
  • Coca Cola Also took over sponsorship from nationwaide of Division 1 2 & 3 in English Football in 2004 (Now Known As Coca Cola Championship,League 1 & League 2) Coca-Cola has a long history of sports marketing relationships, which over the years have included several major sports leagues both in the United States and internationally. needs copyedit.
  • Too many red links. Lincher 16:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I suppose this article on MSNBC is quite relevant to this review. Presumably the nominator read it, bringing the issue to his/her attention... DJR (Talk) 16:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Sure, I have read it, though this nomination of the article on Coke was done back in July of 2004 which is not the article that is up now. It has changed in all and every aspect. I was mentionning more than their biased criticism, mentioned in the article and that is why I ask for a review. Anyway, if the article would be re-assessed for FA with the present criterias then it would simply fail. Lincher 20:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  Plus, I normally work on GA articles, it wouldn't even qualify for that. Lincher 20:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• I totally agree. The lead alone is woefully POV, and the fact that the page has got external sources referring it as overly critical should really send alarm bells ringing. Demote from me - defs. DJR (Talk) 20:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• (No idea what the FAR jargon is, so I'll go with FARC terminology here.) Keep as a featured article. The lead was not biased; read any account of the New Coke controversy or of urban legends surrounding Coke, and in the end, you will still be able to distill it to the two sentences which were originally removed from the lead. It's impossible to deny that Pepsi claimed it was superior to Coke based on taste testing. It's impossible to deny that Coke rolled out New Coke because of this challenge, because the executives themselves said so, and not a single account of the issue challenges this depiction. And there was widespread outrage over the New Coke rollout, although perhaps those of us who did not live in America at the time/weren't alive at all at the time probably won't understand it. (To get an idea of the outrage, pick up a decent book, such as one of those listed in the references, or just read the Snopes articles cited as sources. People were forming clubs like the Old Coke Drinkers of America - or something of that sort - and smashing cases of New Coke in the streets.) I've since rewritten the lead, redone the criticisms section (which did not need such a major pruning; all you had to do was cut the cruft, and you get the core of the issues - and anyone who thinks that including things like Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola, the major pesticide controversy over Coke in India that made headlines even here in Malaysia, or Mecca Cola, in the article constitutes bias needs to get their head checked). I will try to get citations for the history section, but that means I'll need to make another trip to the library (which isn't that near my home)...you'll need to give me at least two weeks for that. (And in any case, there's been a longstanding agreement on FARC that we wouldn't defeature articles with no references at all - this was only recently revoked, with significant opposition. There is/was something of a consensus as well that articles which collate references but don't have inline citations, and were promoted prior to the implementation of footnoting systems, should remain featured.) All in all, I see no reason not to maintain this article as an FA. Compared to other WP articles on Coke, it's actually the most neutral of all (probably because we dumped all the POV cruft from this article to those other ones). If this is defeatured for POV issues, then I'll finally see why people claim Wikipedia has a pro-Coke bias, because I can't see how the original article prior to the recent spate of edits due to the MSNBC article was significantly anti-Coke. It is not anti-Coke to mention a major court case against Coke, nor is it biased to mention major competition in the Arab world for Coke's ostensible pro-Israel policies, nor is it biased to mention (and refute) claims that Coke is bad for your health. IMO, if we actually have people complaining that the article is pro-Coke (as happened about a month ago - the revision then was almost the same as the one prior to the recent controversy) and anti-Coke, we're probably rather neutral on this. (Oh, and it's not external sources - it's just MSNBC. For all we know, they themselves might not be exactly neutral on this, although this is more of a point about how we can't assume something is right just because someone said it than a point about MSNBC being biased, which it likely isn't.) Johnleemk | Talk 10:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

John, see Wikipedia:Lead section on how and what a lead section is. It is a balanced summary of the entire article body contents. Criticisms should constitute a sentence at most in the lead section, it is just once section of many, every company has criticisms, even your favorite company, why are you making such a big deal over it, do you not like the company? The MSNBC article is accurate, the article was a screed against Coke and a discredit to Wikipedias claim to neutrality. -- Stbalbach 02:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What are you getting at? If you're insinuating that I haven't been informed of the policies and guidelines in question, I have been since they were established and publicised. What you're missing is that you haven't given examples of how the lead as it stands is biased. You have not given any sound reasoning for your suggestion that criticism should be limited to just one sentence in the lead; if anything, this would constitute a bias in favour of the company. 20% of the article is currently about criticisms of the drink (a reasonable amount, considering the numerous and prolific urban legends related to the drink's ostensible health effects), but a three-paragraph lead should have only one sentence about criticism? Smells like pro-Coke POV to me. Anyone who has been remotely familiar with my involvement in the article since 2004 knows that I have been accused on more than one occasion of being a pro-Coke POV pusher, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. And does it matter whether I like the Coca-Cola company or not? What does this have to do with my argument? In the first place, why should I have to like the company? If anyone is having a bias here, I dare say it is you. Johnleemk | Talk 05:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• This article needs a good gutting, which I'm giving it now. But there are some things I'm not in a position to fix. Take the "International appeal" section; for all practical purposes, Coca-cola's only major competitor as a drink is water. Yet this section spends far more time talking about countries where, at one point or another, it isn't the bestselling drink. This misleads the reader about Coke's dominating international influence. There isn't enough "meat" here to justify featuring the article. About 15% of the article is editorializing. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. The article was featured around Jul 25 2004. here is what it looked like. IMO the article has not changed much (except some anti-Coke activist who hijecked it while no one was paying attention). If it was up for FA vote today it would never pass, in its old state, or todays condition. I think it should be delisted. -- Stbalbach 01:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • That's activists; there are far too many anti-Coke POV pushers out there to deal with. And considering no reasonable argument has been presented for defeaturing this article (excess detail on criticisms has been dealt with; there is no consensus on defeaturing articles with insufficient inline citations, and defeaturing an article with a clear and ongoing effort to deal with the problem would appear to violate the consensus that has been built among editors intimately involved in the defeaturing process over the past months). There have been only two arguments presented for defeaturing, neither of which apply. I would like to see a detailed explanation of why they do apply, because as far as I'm concerned, it seems me and Ryan Delaney are the only ones who are reading the current version of the article, with everyone else stuck on the version before we rewrote it. Johnleemk | Talk 05:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree major changes have happened since I asked for them so the FA status should stay.

I still think there aren't enough citations (though not a good criteria to de-feature)

There are inline external links that should be added to the Notes and references section.

It is more NPOV than it has been before.

A tad too many redlinks.

Good work you wpdians who worked so hard on the article. Lincher 15:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Demote - I just went through the first section of the article - "History" - with the intention of adding {{fact}} tags all over the place. However, closer inspection unearthed lines and lines of what can only be described as poor English. I appreciate that lots of work has gone into this article and lots of editors have been improving its POVness, but the amount of changes I ended up making without the intention of making any was disturbing. It has been said several times before - if this article, in its current state, came to WP:FAC, it would not stand a chance. If taken on the basis of the work done and commitment of its editors, it should remain an FA. However, if that was the universal basis for decisions then one hell of a lot of articles would become featured. Featured articles should represent the very best content on Wikipedia, and the moment an article slips beneath the standard expected it should be demoted. At the moment, this article definitely does, and it is something more inherent than surface text. If it deserves it, it will be able to quickly re-obtain featured status through WP:FA. I personally feel that all featured articles should have to be re-submitted annually in order to conform to ever-increasing base standards. DJR (Talk) 17:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to elaborate, I believe the article fails on the following WP:WIAFA criteria:

1 - in its current form, definitely does not "exemplify the very best work of Wikipedia"

2a - as I have stated above, the quality of English in many places is not great.

2b - going through the article, there are several hidden messages regarding omitted information

2c - all of the "citation needed" tags need to be addressed.

I really do not see the harm in demotion - if the article regains featured status then it will then thoroughly deserve it. DJR (Talk) 18:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for building a reasoned argument for defeaturing based on comprehensiveness and language. I do not think language is an issue; as far as I can ascertain, this problem is confined to only the history section, and it's not a very major problem. Many of the {{fact}} tags appear to be based on a failure to take the whole article into context; it doesn't make sense to tag a particular sentence with {{fact}} when everything in that whole paragraph is corroborated by a couple of footnotes at the end of the same paragraph. (I've removed the apparently invalid ones.) As I said before, there has been a strong consensus built only very recently among those involved in defeaturing not to defeature an article as long as it is clear that there is ongoing work on the article. (The main problem with FAs is not that they do not meet the FA criteria anymore, but that they don't have anyone actively interested in bringing them up to par. To avoid defeaturing articles under active maintenance, FARC enjoined nominations filed prior to a determination of whether anyone was actively interested in improving the article back to FA standard. Since FAR is essentially a combination of FARC with peer review for FAs, I assume the same requirements are in effect.) As a result, I don't think a FARC nom should be filed as long as it is clear that work is ongoing; this major review can remain open for some time still. It is not mission critical to defeature FAs with active work ongoing, especially when they are being overhauled. The two main issues - comprehensiveness and citations (the latter being a questionable removal criteria) - will be very easily addressed within two or three weeks when I can get my grubby hands back on Pendergrast's book and any other books on Coke/Pepsi my library might have. (If the concern is that this will take too long, not to brag but I have gotten newly created articles to FA status within a week of creation, and also successfully rewritten several FAs nominated for removal in the past before the FARC nomination expired. Coca-Cola is a relatively straightforward topic as long as the various gossip issues regarding the company are kept out, so I think a good weekend's work would be enough, even if I worked alone.) Johnleemk | Talk 18:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the important thing here is that this article does not leave review with the status of "featured article" unless it deserves that status. Wikipedia now has over 1000 featured articles, and it is harrowingly important that this unique status is not trivialised by sub-standard articles. Assuming you do bring it up to scratch, then fine. However, I am not sure I agree with a convention to avoid demoting a sub-standard article simply because "there is ongoing work on it". Featured status is the pinnacle of Wikipedia, and that pinnacle is undermined by articles that have a de facto title that, de jure, they should not hold. If they later made good enough to deserve the status then as I said, it is not difficult to get them re-instated. DJR (Talk) 20:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This also has to do with the fact that users in general will go for FA first thing first without considering other avenues. The Good article status would be nice for the article but considering demoting it is too frustrating for people who work on the FAC. If there were other level of achievement in the articles progression then it wouldn't mind being kicked a notch down but as there is only FA and nothing else thus leaving old FA articles the way they are and not bothering to reconsider their nomination. It would be nice to see articles fluctuate between levels. Even the PR isn't necessary anymore when these articles have achieved such status as the best being FA. Lincher 20:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Goes back to my annual review idea really... IMHO, it should be compulsory in order to preserve the integrity of the status. The best articles wouldn't take two seconds to pass, while articles such as these are filtered out and improved by brute force. That gonna have to happen in the future. DJR (Talk) 20:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delist per other users' reasons and too many redlinks, poor writing and cluttered images. -- getcrunkjuice 02:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note: Major reviews do not concern declarations to keep or remove. Tony 12:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It should then be listed in the FARC since people have started voting on keeping or removal. Lincher 17:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not use colors as it is a bit abusive and breaks the flow of reading.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lincher (talk • contribs)

I used red to alert reviewers to a significant procedural misunderstanding; there's nothing abusive about it. An article should go through a major review before being listed as a FARC, if at all. The purpose of this is to allow time for contributors to address the concerns raised here, and thus to minimise the number of FARCs. Tony 09:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

FA criteria concerns are LEAD section (3a), citations (2c), and POV (2d). Marskell 10:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Also image status (4). Pagrashtak 21:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove per all of the above, unaddressed during the FAR. Sandy 12:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Remove—2a. Here are examples.
  • "whose distinctive shape have become a part of the drink's branding"—ungrammatical.
  • "as a major soft drink first in the United States and later around the world."—Where are the commas?
  • "this was removed a long time ago as health regulations were tightened. Nevertheless, Coca-Cola has been criticized for its possible negative health effects, with many urban myths surrounding it." What's the logic of "Nevertheless"? What does "it" refer to? (Coca-Cola? If so, I'm confused.)
  • "heavily-publicised"—No hyphens after -ly words.
  • "The most famous of these is Diet Coke, which has become a major diet cola, but others exist, such as Cherry Coke." Does "but" contradict the previous statement? It should.

Not good enough. Tony 13:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. This is at time but I'd like a few more comments before closing. The LEAD has been expanded, for instance, while I'm not noticing any remaining fact requests. I'll make a note on the talk and maybe we can wait two more days. Marskell 14:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• (Weak) Remove There are several image problems, so it fails criterion 4:
  • Image:CocaCola.gif, Image:Newcoke.jpg, and Image:Diet Coke FOOTBALL.jpg have no fair use rationale.
  • Image:Camel-3.jpg has no source.
  • Image:Cokebottles.jpg can be replaced with a free alternative, which invalidates the fair use claim.
  • Image:Shark tale coral cola.PNG has no fair use rationale and the use of the {{logo}} tag is questionable.

I've listed my remove as weak, as I haven't read the article to see if it fails any other criteria. If these problems are fixed or the images removed, count my vote as neutral. Pagrashtak 21:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Humphrey Bogart

Article is no longer a featured article.

[edit] Review commentary

Previously nominated at Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Humphrey Bogart/archive1, but the main points raised related to a lack of references, due to the fact that the article was written before this was a requirement.

I believe it needs to be reviewed for the following reasons :

1. Insubstantial lead paragraph. The "overview" section, which I think is intended as a "de-facto" lead section, goes into too much detail of his "iconic" status so it would be unsuitable as an article summary. Therefore a lead needs to be worked from scratch.
2. Too many headers and subheaders. Use of film titles as subheaders creeps towards POV.
3. Not structured very well. The oddly titled "Bogart parties" section falls in the middle of discussion of his acting career.
4. The years from approximately 1942 to 1952 - quite a substantial chunk of his career - is discussed only in relation to his marriage to Lauren Bacall, and even so is barely covered, with most of the section related to his personal life. There is a "request for expansion" link in the middle of the text ("Later career") - hardly inspires confidence that this is the "best of Wikipedia".
5. Some of the writing style could be tightened to give it more of a "news report" (encyclopedic) tone, as some of it is colloquial, anecdotal and conversational in tone. There are other sections where the writing is too blunt and rather than flow from one idea to the next, there are several very choppy sections where consecutive sentences and paragraphs jump from from unconnected point to the next unconnected point. There are some POV issues with specific words used that could be substituted for something more neutral. example a couple of performances are described as "subtle" and unless we know who called them subtle, can only assume that the author of this article did so.
6. Images - Image:Bogart stamp.jpg being a postage stamp, does not qualify as fair use and should be removed (IMO). Image:Humphrey Bogart - 1955 - The Left Hand of God.jpg, Image:Thebigsleep.jpg and Image:Casabl meetrick.jpg are either incorrectly tagged, or do not provide a sources or fair use rationales. This leaves only one image (Image:Humphrey Bogart by Karsh (Library and Archives Canada).jpg with a correctly detailed image description page.
7. A lot of unsourced material, (or at least not sourced to the present standard). This alone is not reason enough for its featured article status to be removed, but is something that could and should be looked at as part of a review. Rossrs 14:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Another one with very substantial issues. This comes very close to hagiography. At the least perhaps the section headers could be rationalized. I'll try and have a go at that myself. Marskell 12:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Marskell, are you still planning to work on it? The Table of Contents is crazy-making. Sandy 22:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Promises, promises huh. I'll try in a day or two and move it to FARC at the same time to accelerate it. Marskell 18:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I replaced two of the unfree images w freely-licensed ones. Jkelly 22:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concerns are LEAD section (3a), comprehensiveness (2b), writing style (2a), and images (4). Marskell 12:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove—None of the issues raised in the review has been satisfactorily addressed. Here's what's been done, or not ... [24] Tony 13:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - Problems not addressed, per diff above. Sandy 01:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - Without even reading the article, I see an insufficient lead, images claiming fair use without rationale, an image with a bad tag, and insufficient inline citations. Pagrashtak 05:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Henson

Article is no longer a featured article.

[edit] Review commentary

I noticed the article is rather short (i.e. possibly not comprehensive) and desperately lacks any references, not to mention inline citations, footnotes, etc. Also, the Kermit sculpture image has no copyright information and the three fair use images use the old {{fairuse}} tags when they should use more specific ones, and do not provide rationale. In addition, I feel the ==Early work== part is too short to be a separate section. Todor→Bozhinov 20:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Remove No references? But then, it was one of the earlest FAs. But still, needs to be fixed. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 00:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Major reviews are not votes. It is a place to recognize FA criteria that the article does not currently meet. Joelito (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. This one goes all the way back to '03. Not even close to FA standard. Marskell 12:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concerns are citations (2c) and comprehensive (2b). Marskell 15:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delist per my nomination. Far from satistying the current FA criteria. Todor→Bozhinov 19:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Can we quickly delist this one, obviously one of the worst of our FAs Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist almost no lead, one-sentence paragraphs throughout, not referenced, many red links, visually unpleasing and difficult to read. Sandy 02:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King James Version of the Bible

Article is no longer a featured article.

[edit] Major review commentary

My main beef with this article is that none of the sources are cited. This was brought to attention by an editor who placed a fact tag on the criticism section. It seemed unfair to require a citation for that seciton, when nothing else in the article was cited. Then I realized, a FA just cannot get away with not citing its sources. --Andrew c 03:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There's an interesting question underlying this. What's the usual practice for older FAs that may not meet standards arrived at by more recent consensus? When you say "cited" here, you really mean "footnoted". It's perfectly possible to cite sources in a general way without footnotes. This is, in fact, what print encyclopedias do -- I've never seen a footnote in one. My impression is that we use them here for the sake of credibility since that's often called into question. That may not have been the case back in 2004 when this article became an FA. So-- do we go through all older FAs lacking footnotes and review their status? Or just address those that come to our attention? TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I think to insure everything is verifiable, we should have a very strict standard in regards to citing sources (because wikipedia can be edited by anyone, we don't have the prestige and 'trust' that print encyclopedias have earned). And if that means loosing a whole slew of FAs, so be it. If the articles have references, it shouldn't be terribly hard for a group of editors to track down the books and go through adding citations. But I honestly do not feel that an article that does not have inline citations can qualify for a FA. GA, possibly.--Andrew c 04:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, the consensus had emerged previously that if the refs are there in a References section, an older FA will not be automatically defeatured for not having footnotes. There's a thread open about this on the talk page right now. Marskell 08:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Which talk page? TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
        • The FAR talk page under "FARC Consensus re: sources". Marskell 09:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Although that consensus was based on a previous consensus at WP:FARC. The idea is, when all of a sudden FAs required inline citations, almost no FAs actually had them. Most had sources, and those that didn't were urged to add them and later culled, but inline cites are (as of right now) only a requirement for new FAs. Obviously, though, it's better to have inline cites than not. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 13:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concern is lack of citations (2c). Marskell 14:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Plus the writing (2a). I say Remove unless someone can go through it to fix the stubby paragraphs and otherwise copy-edit it.

• • "has had a profound impact on English literature as a whole"—spot the three redundant words in this opening sentence.
  • "are replete with inspiration derived from"—can we go plain and simple; this borders on the pretentious (sorry to be blunt).
  • "the majority of extant texts of the time"—as soon as I see reference to "the majority of", rather than "most", I feel like seeing the numbers.
  • "King James Version", referred to as a term, appears in both italic and roman face.
  • "It" is a problem in the final para of the lead.
  • "And remain(ed) so" appears twice in three sentences.

Tony 02:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Reluctant delist References are too important to ignore. Even if an article is well written, if it's not referenced, we don't know if it's outdated, POV, etc. Although many editors have been involved with the article since it was nominated for FAR, it doesn't seem there is anyone who will take on the job of referencing the article. Sandy 22:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

What happened here? It got its featured article status removed without a consensus in the talk page? Is this normal practice? Where do I go to propose that its star back, as it now has scads of sources cited? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peerage

Article is no longer a featured article.

[edit] Major review commentary

Article no longer meets FA criteria. - FrancisTyers · 11:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain why it no longer meets FA crteria, it's rather ok for one of the older FAs out there. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

These two immediately stand out:

• Does not exemplify 'our best work' (1)
• No inline citations (2c)

- FrancisTyers · 10:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Francis. —Nightstallion (?) 11:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

So do I. In addition, it needs a good copy-edit (2a). Here are examples, taken at random:

• • "A hereditary peer is a peer whose dignity may"—repetition.
  • "Writs of summons summon an individual to Parliament, in the old feudal tradition, and merely imply the existence or creation of an hereditary peerage dignity, which is automatically inherited, presumably according to the traditional mediæval rules (male-preference primogeniture, similar to the succession of British crown)." Unwieldy snake, with "summons summon" repetition.
  • "a peerage dignity continues to exist"—Remove last two words as redundant.
  • "In former times, peerage dignities were often forfeit by Acts of Parliament,"—Vague chronological reference. Same here: "Hereditary peers were all once entitled to sit in the House of Lords,"—Once?

Tony 12:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concerns are whether it represents our best work (1) and citations (2c). Marskell 10:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delist - there has been only one edit since the article was nominated for FAR: no movement, no improvement, not FA quality. Sandy 22:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove as per Sandy. Tony 02:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Systemic bias on the United Kingdom. What about other monarchies? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] H.P. Lovecraft

Article is no longer a featured article.

[edit] Major review commentary

I really hate bringing this up, but this is just not good enough... The intro is short, the whole article is pretty messy... --UVnet 20:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Please note that the rules require the criterion/criteria that are at issue to be stated at the top. I guess it's 2a; any others? Tony 16:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur...A lot can be spun off into daughter articles, like the list of places featured in his stories. This needs a good clean-up. The Disco King 21:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's come to a consensus re: what should be done. Some suggestions:

• • Extraneous detail, like the house he was born at, etc., should be removed
  • Lead must be expanded
  • IMHO, more information on his works and less reaction. Having never read Lovecraft, most of the analysis was incomprehensible to me.

Any other suggestions? The Disco King 15:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments—Here's a snake that our poor readers will have to navigate through: "When Lovecraft was three, his father became acutely psychotic at a hotel in Chicago, Illinois where he was on a business trip and was brought back to Butler Hospital in Providence, where he remained for the rest of his life." There are others.

Slightly awkward usage: "His grandfather also stirred young Howard's interest in the weird by telling him"—"the weird"? It's weird! And: "accommodations which were much smaller and less comfortable".

The text needs a good massage to make it nice and easy and clear for our readers. Why do the references at the bottom lack publishers and dates? These items need to be findable, both for credibility and for the practical reason that readers may wish to consult them. Tony 16:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concerns are whether it is well written (2a) and comprehensive (2b). Marskell 14:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Remove, (2a), I couldn't get beyond the first section, and am surprised that the prose wasn't fixed during the lengthy review process. Sandy 13:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Remove, (2a): per above comments. Excessive details should be removed and the lists under "Adaptations" section need to be in a separate article. --BorgQueen 15:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Again, I contacted initial nominator without reply. The TOC is a mess to begin with. Too much extraneous detail in body but an insufficient LEAD. This has enough raw info for a good page on the topic, but it's sloppy at present. Marskell 13:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hero of Belarus

Article is no longer a featured article.

[edit] Major review commentary

Criterion 2a is no longer satisfied, if it ever was, and the article needs a major audit for language and structure. In particular, I noted the following problems as representative of broader issues that need to be addressed if this is to remain a FA.

• There are stubby paragraphs and stubby sections.
• What is "economic excellence"?
• There are many redundancies; e.g., "seven recipients still living today" (still and today?), an idle "various", "Photo of ..." in the caption, which is pretty obvious, and much more.
• Wrongly located "only".
• "The title was created by the Belarus Supreme Soviet on 13 April 1995"—we're told twice at the top.
• Unclear meaning of italic formatting.
• Wrongly formatted bullets (it's a single sentence, so should be formatted accordingly—or is it?).

For a FA, it is of questionable comprehensiveness (2b): nothing about the political/social context of the award, and whether it has equivalents in other ex-Soviet countries. How is it different from the Soviet-period awards?

Samirat: "... still living today" is perfectly valid. While it may be slightly redundant, it doesn't sound redundant, and is not at all incorrect. Any problem is purely technical, and rather irrelevant. Some of the paragraphs are rather stubby, it's true, so I think FARC is not out of the question, but many of the critiques are critical to the point of being ridiculous.

Tony 15:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I would move it to FARC, few refs, rather stubby, and missing sections. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the idea is that it goes to FARC only after its two-week major review. Correct me if I'm wrong. Tony 13:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and move it. Given how FA's have changed in nearly over a year, I think that what I done here is not enough for what is being asked for today. And admitedly, I cannot find much about this title, given that Belarus is a country that does not have much good information on small subjects like this. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

I quickly moved it to FARC per the request of Zscout370 who is the writer of this article in IRC, and the review is very unlikely to be fixed I would vote Remove now because of that. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Remove for now. As stated before, there is a lot more information that FA's need now that I cannot provide with this article. The English sounds weird, and that is my fault. The article is a bit disorganized, but that is my fault there too. It was good while it lasted, but I am not upset at it being demoted, at least it will still be on the Wiki. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Remove as per above, including Zscout, who has graciously agreed that the article does not meet current FA standards. Tony 09:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll probably spruce it up now and see if it works for WP:GA. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per Tony. Far from being 'our best work'. Todor→Bozhinov 15:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Space Race

Article is no longer a featured article.

[edit] Major review commentary

Even though I'm still not convinced how well this FAR process will work, let's give it a try. As a self-identified space nut, I am appalled at the condition of the Space Race article. Since this competition between the Soviet Union and the USA resulted in the jump starting of manned space exploration, this article should have plenty of fascinating history to present. Instead, the article is broken up into clunky, disjointed little sections that have little relation to one another. In addition, the article glosses over way too much history while also devoting too much space to more speculative matters. For example, the section "Cold War roots of the Space Race" is only two short paragraphs long while the section "More "space races" to come?" (which covers possible space competition between the USA, Russia, and China) is way too long and full of unsourced speculation. Finally, the article is almost totally lacking in references. For an article which features so many technical aspects of space exploration, detailed references are a must. So, in short, the issues to be resolved here are: 1) Improve prose (i.e., doesn't meet the "well written" FA criteria); 2) Expand sections as needed (i.e., doesn't meet the "comprehensive" FA criteria): 3) Insert references (i.e, doesn't meet the "factually accurate" FA criteria). Best, --Alabamaboy 13:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

FAC nomination from Feb 2005

• Comment - I started doing a bit of copyediting, but it felt a bit futile when there are bigger problems with the article that need to be addressed. I suggest we prioritize: First, sections must be expanded and references added; then, copyediting. The Disco King 15:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the few references the article had (all three of them :-). I should note, though, that even these three references are incomplete.--Alabamaboy 16:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Judging by the talk page, the article's main contributors aren't active there any more...There really haven't been any comments in nearly two months. Does anybody have access to any of the references listed at the bottom? The Disco King 16:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Finding sources for those poorly-sourced quotes may be difficult - I tried to Google them, and most of the results were Wikipedia mirrors or noted that they got the quote from WP. The Disco King 19:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• I linked the FAC nomination. I had some concerns there about the date used for the end of the space race that weren't ever really addressed that I recall. But sfahey had consulted all of the listed references and since there are so many, I'm not sure we can say it fails the referencing requirement just because they weren't done as footnotes. - Taxman ^Talk 16:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • "I'm not sure we can say it fails the referencing requirement just because they weren't done as footnotes"--that was my thought. It's a good example of an old page where ample reading was obviously done and I think we can trust the info. I think the TOC needs rationalizing, so perhaps start with that. Marskell 17:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I've reworked the headings per WP:MOS - some were unnecessarily long and complex. I merged a few tiny sections together, and renamed "More "space races" to come?" as "Recent events" (which I'm not too sure about). The Disco King 17:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • An improvement. Perhaps move the timeline to its own page? Marskell 18:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Probably a good idea, most of the information is duplicated elsewhere on the page and the rest isn't particularly interesting. The Disco King 18:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Done. See it here. The lead is verbatim from the first paragraph of Space Race right now, but I'll try to tweak it. The Disco King 18:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Good job. I moved the note to the top and put deaths under legacy. The TOC, anyhow, seems more sensible and browsable now. Marskell 18:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

• Remove. I left a note with the still active original nominator without reply. Disco made some improvements to structure but there's been little movement on the page since. Ref problem hasn't budged. Marskell 15:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. The lack of reference to either Red Star in Orbit (Oberg) or ...the Heavans and the Earth (McDougall) make me worry about the sourcing. These are staple texts. Mackensen (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. No changes, references are all too important. Sandy 13:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Too many issues to remain a FA. --Alabamaboy 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)