Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/June 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

During June, the old FARC was merged to a new FAR process. In addition to the 1 kept, 2 removed while the processes were merging, there were 2 removed, 4 kept before the merge in June. Total June: 4 removed, 5 kept. See Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/archive/May 2006 until merger with FAR


Contents

[edit] Kept status

Place more recent additions at top

[edit] Batman

Article is still a featured article

While I love Batman, this article simply needs a serious rewrite, a peer review, and to be resubmitted to the FACs. It is filled with one paragraph sections (and generally poor formatting), lack of in-line citations, it is uncompressive and needs expansion at the same time, especially for info on the versions of the character in other media, such as the films. It also features a trivia section which in and of itself would prevent the article from reaching FA status today. The article was greenlit for FA status very very early on with only two supports out of two contributors, so it's not surprising that it has gone down hill.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by The Filmaker (talk • contribs)
  • Keep This article is comprehensive. It does not lack references, it lacks in-line citations but this is not a reason to de-feature. The copy-editing may be a concern but it is nothing major. Also I suggest talking to the Comics Wikiproject and also to leave comments on talk page before listing for nomination per procedure.
  • Also, I believe the info on other media lacks a paragraph at most since Batman has been a comic book character for more than 60 years, and his appearances in other media do not have the importance of its 60 year comic history. Maybe a paragraph on the 4 filams and the TV series. Joelito (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh my...there is a trivia section --Osbus 01:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I've revised my rationale. The Filmaker 01:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, just remove the trivia section. Again that's not something for de-featuring. Joelito (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - based on your diff, it looks like there have been many improvements since it was promoted. If the Trivia section is nixed, then I've got no problems with this article. The Disco King 13:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • remove - this is a serious POV biased article. serious cruft piece, reads like it was written by the Comic Book Guy. 4 example, the fanboy-reviled TV show (which had much, much more exposure than any comic referenced here) is barley mentioned. --Ghetteaux 14:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Dude, you tried to add a jokes section to it and have repeatedly vandalized the "homosexual interpretations" section. You even tried to link Ace the Bathound to McGruff the crime dog without any source whatsoever. I am fascinated with your attempts to weaken this article and your accusation of POV. --Chris Griswold 17:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I concur -- this vote should be called into serious question, given the user's past vandalism to the page. ~CS 03:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Batman is a comic book character which happened to have a TV show. It should be expected that the show not be covered extensively. But, I agree that a sentence or two is missing from the other media section. But is that a reason to defeature? A missing paragraph or two? Joelito (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - If anything, this article has improved since being labeled as a feature article. There might be a thing or to to change or remove, but we cand accomplish that in a day or two. --Chris Griswold 16:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's been improving, and while it's a touch long and I'd like to see it spun out into some daughter articles, the content is rather comprehensive. The TV show has it's own article, Ghetteaux. Trvia section is all gone now. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 17:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - There's been lot's of work as a result of this FARC. All this needed was a nudge to bring it up to spec. Is it normal for an article to be listed without a anything being said on it's talk page? CovenantD 17:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me, I aware that we are entitled to post our concerns with the article in the talk page before we nominate for FARC, but I simply....... forgot. Still, I have to say that this article lacks in-line citations, features one sentence paragraphs, and one paragraph sections. I retract my original statement that it has "gone down hill" and admit it has actually improved, but that does not mean it is feature worthy. If it was put through the FAC today it would not last. The Filmaker 18:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What are inline citations? Are they the things used in the article's Homosexual interpretations section? As to the article being one paragraph sections that are discussed at greater length in longer, separate articles, I take it you are familiar with WP:SS, WP:SIZE and WP:BREAK? A lot of work was put into this article when it became too long and was suggested for farc before, although in that instance the concerns were addressed on the talk page rather than here. Hiding Talk 20:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Demote. Will change my vote if the films are adequately addressed. Otherwise it looks good compared to many other articles in the comics category. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    The films are discussed, in summary in the other media section, and in detail in the articles regarding the films. The article is too long to allow discussion of every aspect of the character, and has been broken up per guidelines on the matter. Hiding Talk 20:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    Seeing the significance of the films to Batman's perception in popular culture, that little paragraph is rather disappointing. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    But wikipedia is edited by consensus and that's the way the consensus shaped the article. Perhaps you would be so kind as to help shape the article. The difference between the last bout in response to the page size can be seen roughly, in this differential. I agree that there are better ways to split or structure this article, but unless people are willing to become involved in the debate and help see the process through, it's hard to agree on a common purpose. There's strong feeling that the article should reflect the character's existence in comics, given that is the main source of the character's history. I don't see that the fact that the article can'tr support all the information people desire due to article size should be a reason to remove the FA status, that seems unfair. Hiding Talk 21:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
that is the root of the problem. bias exists everywhere. examples: Encyclopedia = written by experts, biased towards personal views. WIkipedia batman article = written by consensus of internet-abusing batman fanboys = not neutral POV. just my $0.02. --Ghetteaux 10:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that would seem to be the conclusion. And btw, @Hiding, I can vote here even if I don't edit the article. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
How about we create a 'Cultural_impact_of_Batman' page, much like the one for Wonder Woman? Spinning off sections into secondary pages isn't a bad idea, and the Batman page will start to stagger under it's own weight of conflicting histories if we try and fit it all in one. On that sort of page, we can address the TV shows (animated and otherwise) and movies, as well trivia 'bits' that demonstrate Bats' influence outside the comics. This page, as it stands now, is primarily for Batman the comic book hero. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 11:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I w2as thinking the same thing after we did that for Wonder Woman. It would allow us to bring back some of the good information recently deleted and put it into a better context. --Chris Griswold 19:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd rather that stuff was on this page and that the detailed character biography and sections on all his paraphernalia were sectioned off to Batman (comics). Hiding Talk 19:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Looking at Superman and Wonder Woman as examples, both are primarily comic characters. Yes, they have movies and TV shows, but if you're looking up Batman, it's more likely you're looking up the comic. It's more notable than the multiple TV/movie versions, and should be the focus of the page. If you're suggesting a split to pull out the comic pages, a History of Batman page would be a logical start there (obviously IMO as last time I was bold and did that it got reverted). -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Given you're discussing Wonder Woman as an example of where you just performed this sort of split, I don't think we can discuss that as a counter point here. As to what this article should do, this should be the top level article on Batman. It should summarise every aspect of Batman to a reader, and should not seek to make value judgements on what that reader is looking for, that is a POV. I'd appreciate how you reach the conclusion that most people are looking for information on the comic book version of Batman, can we agree that a wider audience are more familiar with the film or TV versions of the character than the comic book version, which at best has, what, 327 000 (+/- 1%) regular readers, if we assume each reader of an individual series is unique, according to April sales figures? Given the worldwide gross of the Burton Batman movie is cited here as being $413,200,000, even if we assume an average ticket price is $1000, it is greater than the comic book readership. I think we can safely assume audience awareness of the movie version is far greater than the comics. We should avoid giving any aspect of the character undue weight in the article, per WP:NPOV. Hiding Talk 20:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not NPOV, it's notability (NPOV is the comics are a damn site better than the 60s TV show). Batman, as a comic, has been around since 1939. 327,000 regular readers multiplied by about 67 years of active comic publication is pretty damn remarkable. Also, in keeping with the other superhero comics, the 'main' page tends to be based on the medium which birthed the hero, which is comics for Batman. The Green Hornet, if his page was large enough to warrent is, should primarily focus on him as a radio character. Sherlock Holmes' article is primarily about him in the books by Conan Doyle, with daughter pages for Canonical deviation and non canonical. Does that make the films, tv shows, serials, radio dramas or comics less watched? No, but it does mark them as what they are: less notable. Even if you first encounted Holmes on the silver screen, the books are world wide and more notable. Batman is, first and foremost, a comic book superhero. The rest are derivations. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Can we agree that Batman is a cultural icon and should be handled in a different manner to other articles based on superheroes. That's long been my reading of the discussions on the Batman talk page and WPT:COMICS? I would say that Batman is, first and foremost, a cultural icon, in fact, The Guardian have gone so far as to describe the character as "the perfect cultural artifact for the 21st century". We should also agree that the article is a Featured Article and thus is to be handled in a manner different from non-featured articles. Other similar featured articles, to reference the manner in which they cover their topic, include The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, The Adventures of Tintin, Doctor Who, Coronation Street, Middle-earth and Starship Troopers. Featured Article criteria require that a topic is covered in a "comprehensive" manner, noting that "comprehensive" means that an article covers the topic in its entirety, and does not neglect any major facts or details. The topic is Batman, not Batman, the comic book version. Also note, it is your point of view as to what makes Batman notable, and also, that undue weight dictates we should not give any details undue weight in an article. Detailing Batman's recent adventures in comic books read by a handful of people to the exclusion of the impact the character has made in films and television programmes places undue weight on such details. Hiding Talk 21:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
No we cannot agree, see Superman for example who is a major cultural icon. The character development of Batman happened entirely in the comic books. Films are just adpatations of the comic book persona. I agree that they should be given a little more importance in the article but I disagree that we should not give undue weight to the comic book aspect. Joelito (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
WP:NPOV is a policy, and cannot be disregarded as lightly as your comment implies it can be. The article Superman is perhaps not the best example, as it does not meet the Featured Article status either, but I am refraining from nominating it per WP:POINT. The films may be adaptations of the comic book version, but their impact on the audiences understanding of the character is the sort of thing that should be analysed in an encyclopedic article, not the fact that, to quote the article, in a recent comic book "Batman and a team of superheroes, including the new Blue Beetle, destroy Brother Eye and the OMACs". This is a serious breach of the undue weight policy. Hiding Talk 21:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Hiding, I think you;re missing the point I was trying to make. it's not NPOV to give weight to that which is, has been and should be the weightiest (i.e. comics).Now, that you're arguing that it's just my POV that the more weighty aspect of Batman is the comics is a slightly different story. I can't prove or disprove that in any way :) Batman's a cultural icon, but he became that way because the comics were popular. Does comprehensive mean we have to include every detail of every aspect of Batman? Does comprehensive mean we're not permitted to spawn off children articles to make an article easier to read? If you're saying we should trim the article in some respects and give more equal time to various other medium interpretations of Batman, then I agree. Spawn off a couple sections (trim the comic char stuff into History of Batman and keep the most important, though that's harder to say for current issues...). If you're saying everything about Batman belongs in one article (which is what I'm hearing), then I disagree. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 23:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I missed your point, although I'll reiterate my understanding of it. You want this page to look like Wonder Woman which analyses only the comic book character, and not the character as a whole and its various representations and impact and meaning to society as a whole. I want a top level page of a cultural icon such as Batman to discuss the character in whole, its impact and differing representations and what they mean and have meant to society as a whole. I do not mean we should have a 3000k article, rather that this is the top level article and each area should be given equal space relative to its worth. I do not believe a top level, featured article which covers a topic comprehensively should have a one sentence pointer to a separate article on the cultural impact of a character, and yet discuss recent adventures in great depth. That's a clear case of bias and undue weight. I'd also argue to the contrary that Batman became a cultural icon because of the comics. It's a fact that Batman first appeared in comics, everything else is opinion. If it's hard to say what is important in recent issues, then don't include it, a reliable source is needed to cite an event as important, not your or my opinion. Hiding Talk 10:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
(breaking this out cause it's getting squnched). Hiding, I've come to agree with what you're saying, for the most part. I was missunderstanding what you meant to be that you wanted to cram it all in and throw out the comics stuff (which is what I got when you sugested Batman (comics) for an article). I still disagree that giving more weight to the comics is bias -- the comic history is going to be longer, by dint of having more years to make more history -- I agree that it can be trimmed down to give more time to the movies and TV shows. The comment I made about it being hard to say what's important is a time-passage issue, and people tend to err on the side of more=better. After all, looking at the 80s right now, the biggest thing to happen in the Bat-comics was Jason Todd. At the time? We may have said other things. Bygones, moving on constructivly. Step one should be to par down the Modern Age section into something more resonable. I've made a sample suggestion here on my user page, so you can see what I mean. As for the 'other media' section, if we craft it out into subsections 'Movies' and 'Television' that may give us a better structure to address those instances, and summarize how Batman is different from 'main stream' Batman in them. How's that sound? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I just read the version that was originally nominated for FA. Are the standards really that low? This article is ten times the article the previous one was. This discussion essentially boils down to "here's what we need to do make the article better", not "this article should no longer be a featured article." This should have taken place on the talk page. --Chris Griswold 20:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  • It's more that the standards were that low, but that they have been steadily raised as the encyclopedia has moved on. Sadly, whilst the standards have been raised, editing to reflect the raising of said standards has not been effected to articles already granted FA status by those raising the standards. Those of us not connected to the FA process have not been as aware of the issues as perhaps we should have been. Hiding Talk 22:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Many of the requests for improvement on this page are valid -- but they should be part of the controbutions toward continuing to improve the page, and not grounds for demotion. The article, as it stands, is very good. ~CS 03:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I take full responsibility for how awesome it is. --Chris Griswold 03:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
That's very gracious of you. Perhaps you should read WP:OWN. Hiding Talk 19:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I think this covers Batman's history pretty well. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 10:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove unless the prose is fixed; it's not bad overall, but when I see text like the following, I wonder whether it has been copy-edited:
    • "Over the years, Batman's origin story, history and tone have undergone various revisions, both minor and major. Some elements have changed drastically; others, like the death of his parents and his pursuit of justice, have remained constant."
      • Do the first three words add anything useful?
      • What is an "origin story"?
      • Can "various" be removed? Why not "major and minor revisions"—says it all.
      • "Drastically" is too pejorative. "Dramatically" or "significantly" would be better.
      • "such as" is nicer here than "like".

Tony 03:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep Article is all right... SSJ 5 05:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC) (over-lapping merger of FARC and FAR)

[edit] Removed status

Place more recent additions at top

[edit] Hinduism

No longer a featured article

I am regretfully nominating this article for FARC. It fails the FA criteria in many ways:

  • Lack of Wiklinking. A quick glance at the article will show scores of religous terms that are used without any sort of wiklinking. Example: Tantra section has terms like 'Pranayam', 'Yantra', etc. without wikilinking. This problem is repeated in other sections.
  • Lack of quality references. I do not see a single reference in "Origins of Hinduism" section. Criticism section has atleast two statements that requires citation. I can keep going - basically, people are more interested in adding information pertaining to their view on the matter without worrying about scholarly aspect of the article. At the time of nominating, the articles reference section is vandalized (has 400+ references). However, in its normal form it seriously lacks good referencing.
  • Incorrect referencing. The reference by Vanita R. should not even be in the article anymore because all the text that was pertaining to that reference is (for some mysterious reason) no longer present in the article. I know this because I was the one who had read that journal article and added the relevant text during the previous FARC. This makes me wonder how many other references are present in the bibliography but without the relevant text?

* Prose quality degraded. Again, lot of material has been added over the months with very inconsistent quality. For example, Dualism section has statements like "Bhakti is the only way for liberation." What does that mean? Why is it stated in a factual manner? --Blacksun 15:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

*Strong Keep. This article survived a FARC vote in March 2006 (see this link, since that FARC archive has been deleted in the creation of this new FARC). The article also plenty of references and I don't see the "lack of Wikilinking" refered to above. While it would be nice for more of the references to be in the inline style, that is a minor issue and not worthy of removal.--Alabamaboy 15:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I gave some examples for the wikilinking not present in the article. If you did not see it, I would suggest using "Find" option in your browser. I have also added fact tag next to the most obvious lack of references. Also, the article in its present form is very different than what it was in March after rejection of FARC. I should know it. Also, I may have deleted the archive by mistake while creating this. I apologize in that case. --Blacksun 15:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Its interesting to note that Blacksun was one of the strongest defenders in the last FARC. Would like to know why not improve the article to its previous self than nominate here... -- Lost 15:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Response I have gone back to it but it just gets reverted within few days. I have asked for help on various project pages too. Eventually I have came to realize that maybe what it needs is start from scratch. Maybe I am wrong - which is fine as long as it gets the attention that I think it needs. --Blacksun 16:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that about Blacksun and it really adds to what he/she says about the article. However, I'm just not comfortable with reverting for the reasons stated by Blacksun (references, prose quality, and so on). That said, the article does seem to be suffering from a lot of editorial conflict and, as a result, I'm not comfortable with the accuracy of some sections of the article. If someone could point out some instances where the article is not accurate, I'd be willing to reconsider my vote.--Alabamaboy 16:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying. And trust me, I will be happy if the FARC fails based on improvements done and useful criticism received. Some editors have already started working on many of the issues that I mentioned and have been raised on talk pages since the FARC. It is unfortunate that sometimes it takes a FARC to ignite community response. I will go through and add more examples of what I think needs fixing. --Blacksun 04:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Well I just went through the article again - got rid of some text that was suffering from lack of wikilinking and added a whole lot of citaction needed tags. I do not think any of these citation needed tags are trivial. I also believe strongly that the article would never be granted a FA status without these citations. If someone actually bothers to do proper research to rectify these (instead of finding some random websites) then I have no issues with the article. One of the things that was silently agreed during the previous FARC was that people will improve the citation quality in the article. However, as soon as FARC was dealt with some editors chose to redo much of the text and ignore the citation requirement much less improve the existing ones. In fact, much of the existing cites were made useless. --Blacksun 20:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. After going through the references, as Blacksun suggested, I am seriously concerned about their reliability. While I still think this is a good article, it doesn't meet the FA criteria so I'm changing my vote.--Alabamaboy 18:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delist. Article is a mess and needs serious refactoring to bring some brevity. Too many links to subarticles. For instance, section "Hindu sacred texts" should be four paragraphs with links to the more detailed articles. Many other problems, e.g. four "citation needed" tags, too many for an FA. All your problems will go away if you shorten the article considerably to keep it manageable. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Same as Alabanaboy. Issues raised are not very serious and can be corrected easily, if any. I have already provided three references. so, no there are not four "citation needed" tags anymore.- Holy Ganga talk 17:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your work - I have added about eight more tags that I believe require citations. Please go through it when you get time. --Blacksun 14:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I am working on it. Regards, - Holy Ganga talk 15:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. As per Blacksun and Samsara. Article is unstructured and reads like a memorandum of POVs. How is Taoism and Zoroastrianism related to Hinduism? Anwar 19:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure about whether you know this...but when you vote on an FARC you must at least provide us with something to fix the article with...thus can you please tell us where the structure displeases you and where the POVs are? Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Stating agreement with previous comments is perfectly acceptable. In fact, it is conventional to reply in this way to indicate agreement. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Except that he does it on all India related articles. I am not flattered to see him agreeing with me because I suspect our intentions are far from being parallel. --Blacksun 20:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't misunderstand me, it's just that I suspect Anwar hasn't even read the entire article before voting. However, I could be wrong... Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep A lot of FAs promoted before 2005 have developed plenty of issues because of rising standards. The issues must be resolved using WP:FAR.I disapprove of going to FARC the moment someone notices a series of problems - there needs to be more emphasis on upgrading FAs, or we'll keep losing a bunch of FAs each year. Editors must be given a few weeks to repair this article. Rama's Arrow 03:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
A) it has nothing to do with when it was promoted or not promoted. Most of the information in the article has been added in past 5 months. B) Their has been a series of attempts made over the past few months in the talk pages. This is not something that was done on a whim. I have not seen any editor try to address these issues in months. You are a smart guy who has written many FA articles - do you believe this is FA quality in its current form? I am willing to take back my objections if you think you can address the issues in appropriate time. This article really needs work done by an editor like you. --Blacksun 03:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve Per Rama's Arrow -- emphasis should be on maintaining quality rather than on removing the FA tag -- how exactly does the latter help the article, or indeed the Wikipedia project?? I also object to the "you are a smart guy" comment. That editor's FA-article-building work has been constructive, which is more than can be said about this effort. Anyway, herz hoping that this exercise will rally interest and result in improvements being effected. ImpuMozhi 01:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
?? what exactly are you objecting? I definitely meant what I said - that I respect his capabalities and if he were to tell me that he is going to work on the article, I would withdraw my nomination immediately. And regards to everything else you have said, their has been very little improvement done till now. It is not the criteria of FA tag to "help" the article. If the article does not meet the stringent requirements it should not be FA. Go through the citations in the note and tell me if they are quality citations. Respond to the issues raised instead of talking about other things. --Blacksun 06:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
And I think that the last FARC was in many regards a "Keep and Improve" vote. That was what more than two months ago? Why is it going to be different this time? Bandaid solutions like googling and using the first link as a citation will not work. --Blacksun 08:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve It's on my watchlist now and (when I get back to constant editing on Wiki after my short break) I'll keep an eye on the history to stop vandalism from seeping in. It's an article of quite large proportions, very informative too, I think the issues mentioned by Blacksun can be fixed. Just give it a week or two... Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove and rework As per supporters of removal. Article desperately needs a thorough renovation. Amir85 11:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove and improve as above --K a s h Talk | email 17:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Status This needs closing but hasn't received comments in twelve days. Any last comments from people about whether concerns have been addressed? Marskell 10:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
No - the concerns regarding references still remain. I am not sure if anyone is working on them or not. Have not seen much movement. --Blacksun 03:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist I have waited as long as possible before voting, hoping to allow time for the references to be reworked. Unfortunately, it hasn't happened. I respect and understand the argument about changing standards, but there should be an attempt to upgrade to and maintain current standards, and references are all too important. I also find the Table of Contents overwhelming (3c). Sandy 19:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove, sadly. I'm surprised that the contributors haven't adequately addressed the problems raised by the reviewers, given the time that this article has been in FAR. And I must throw my hat in the ring, too, in relation to Criterion 2a. There's an air of disorganisation about the prose, even on the sentence level. It fails the Criterion by a long shot, not just by a little. Let's look at the lead, which doesn't fill me with confidence.
Hinduism (Sanskrit - Hindū Dharma, also known as Sanātana (eternal) Dharma and Vaidika (Vedic) Dharma) is a religion that was born out of the ancient Aryan teachings of the Vedas. However it must be noted that Hinduism does not have one main holy book and the Vedas were not the only teachings to have influenced the religion. There is also an extremely large amount of other writings that have contributed to forming what is now known as Hinduism. It is the oldest existent religion in the world[1][2]. The term Hinduism is heterogeneous, as Hinduism consists of several schools of thought. It encompasses many religious rituals that widely vary in practice, as well as many diverse sects and philosophies. Many Hindus, influenced by Advaita philosophy, venerate an array of deities, considering them manifestations of the one supreme monistic Cosmic Spirit, Brahman, while many others focus on a singular concept of Brahman (God), as in Vaishnavism, Saivism and Shaktism.[3]
Hinduism is the third largest religion in the world, with approximately 900 million adherents (2005 figure), of whom approximately 890 million live in India.[4]
    • Now, why "however" at the start of the second sentence? Is the next clause surprising or contrary to what has just been said? No. This kind of slip up makes it hard to read, not the sparkling, brilliant prose that we expect for an article that we can show off as "among our best".
    • Please don't tell our readers what they must note. Allow them to judge that.
    • Do you mean "unlike other major religions, Hinduism does not have one main holy book"? The second clause in that sentence doesn't flow logically from this. And if you're going to tell us that the Vedas were not the only influence, why leave a rag-tag hanging here? Better not to beg the question until the body of the text.
    • An "amount" of writings is ungrammatical. "Body" or "corpus? "What is now known as Hinduism" begs questions of how it might have been in the past compared with modern Hinduism. Do you want to raise this issue right now, without explaining it?
    • "Existent"—better as "extant".
    • "The term Hinduism is heterogeneous, as Hinduism consists of several schools of thought." Why not remove all but the last seven words?
    • "many religious rituals that widely vary in practice"—well, a ritual is a practice, so why tell us? The order of "widely vary" should be reversed.
    • "as well as"—sigh, this is the marked version of "and". You don't want to highlight the addition here, surely.
    • "... Brahman, while many others ..."—"while" is a poor back-connector. Why not: "Brahman; many others"?

In its current state, the article can't possibly be retained as "one of our best". I'm sure that we'd all like to see it thoroughly worked through and resubmitted to the FAC room. Tony 05:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

i realise that there are some absolute issues in it being a featured article. mainly because , to say, hinduism encompasses everything. there is not a practice in world that you dont find in hinduism. including beef eating and cannibalism (by aghori sadhus, subsect of shaivites).

its also an evolving religion, with new rituals and practices relevant in current time and space, which make it even harder for it to be FA.

but i still strongly feel that it can be regarded as an A rated article. but before that i would like to have more views on this by prominent users


nids 04:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC) (over-lapping merger of FARC and FAR)

[edit] Hugo Chávez

No longer a featured article

Hugo Chávez hardly exemplifies Wikipedia's best work. Looking at the article, one can see the {{POV}} and {{cleanup}} templates, which have, in combination, resided on the page for weeks. It's far from comprehensive (note the Personal Life section especially), although it somehow manages to amount to 73 kilobytes in size. References include websites of questionable legitimacy, such as ZNet and VenezuelaAnalysis.org, which borrows content from Green Left Weekly, a decidedly left-wing Australian newspaper. There are also entire sections, such as the Labor section, that don't have any sources. The great amount of recent discussion regarding the article on its talk page indicates that perhaps (as suggested by some other editors) the article is overdue for a rewrite or at the very least a great overhaul to remove these issues as well as the perceived failure to adhere to the neutral point-of-view policy. On the talk page, it was discussed that perhaps if the article was not restored to some order by May 30, it should be put up for featured article removal. Well, it's May 30; it's time to suggest removal of featured article status. joturner 02:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: This article has 35KB of prose as of 31 May 2006
NOTE: This article has 64KB of prose as of 12 June 2006
  • Remove unless it's copy-edited. I noticed the following problems just in the lead:
    • "Chávez was elected President in 1998 on promises of aiding Venezuela's poor majority, and reelected in 2000." Extra "was" required.
    • A few more commas are required, for ease of reading and to convey the intended meaning (e.g., "Domestically, Chávez has launched Bolivarian Missions whose stated goals are ...").
    • "Chávez has been severely criticized during his presidency. He has been accused of electoral fraud, human rights violations,.." (Merge these sentences.)

Tony 04:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - in its current vastly over-long state it's not worthy of an FA, but note that the direction it's going in is positive, thanks to the efforts of User:SandyGeorgia and others - it was 90kb before. Talk page indicates ongoing major effort to trim, re-write, remove bias and generally make FA-worthy. Worldtraveller 09:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think it is over-long; only has 35KB of prose as of now. --mav 17:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Hey Mav, I haven't crossed paths with you in a long time. Great to see you're still around. By the way, you may not be surprised that I agree with you on the article size! 172 | Talk 23:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
        • A lot of the size is references, with the accompanying markup. Much has been trimmed but doing more would actually lower the quality. How much of prose is itself too much?SuperFlanker 02:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Haven't noticed any POV. The problem with gratuitous tags is fixed by removing them altogether, until the detailed rationale is given on talk. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Assume good faith, and please don't remove tags without addressing (and reading) the talk page issues. (We've been working on and improving the issues which led to the tags for several weeks, but more work remains. Much of the remaining POV is by ommission rather than commission, due to the work we've put into the article since I added the tags cleanup tag.) Sandy 04:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's quite long and clearly needs a bit of work but this should not take long. Are the issues of length and a few minor mistakes worth removing its featured status? michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 12:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep ZNet, VenezuelaAnalysis.org, and Green Left Weekly are indeed illegitimate sources. Still, it is quite easy to replace that handful of citations with real sources such as BBC, AP, Reuters, etc. The criticisms are relatively minor and easy to fix. The nomination here seems to be politically motivated. 172 | Talk 13:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • If it's quite easy, why haven't you done it since the revert, which you supported and which removed a lot of current referencing? I don't have access to the resources you do, and I don't find it easy at all. Sandy 17:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The nomination is not politically motivated. joturner 22:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll take your word for it. By the way, I saw your user page. You are incredibly articulate for your age. It's quite a distinction for Wikipedia to have you on the site editing articles. 172 | Talk 23:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not so much a matter of whether VenezuelaAnalysis (et al) are legitimate or not (the BBC is as pro-Chavez as Venanalysis, Wilpert, Weisbrot, and other avowedly pro-Chavez sources used), as the lack of balance in the article because of emphasis on similar/same sources. Sources are not balanced, and VenezuelaAnalysis, in particular, is overrepresented in the references (count 'em). I'm not sure it would be easy to replace those sources (as stated above); further, it's not only a matter of re-referencing the pro-Chavez statements, as telling all sides of the story, to attain NPOV. Sandy 04:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • the BBC is as pro-Chavez as Venanalysis, Wilpert, Weisbrot, and other avowedly pro-Chavez sources used Are you being serious? I can't tell, as this assertion is laughably ridiculous. 172 | Talk 03:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not laughing, and I don't appreciate your ongoing rudeness. Would you be happier with the simpler, "The BBC's reporting has been largely pro-Chávez?" I'll give you one example to work on. The BBC headlined that "Chavez 'will accept referendum'." [1] Now, considering that you have access to Lexis-Nexis and I don't, how long will it take you to produce a BBC report headlining the important developments when 1) earlier, according to Spanish-language sources, Chavez had stated he refused to leave office even if the referendum succeeded and 90% of the country was against him, and, 2) he would talk up arms again if he lost the *constitutional, legal, and democratic* referendum. (These are some of the many bases for claims that he is dictatorial, and POV is created by omitting them. Notice that the BBC article referenced never mentions why the headline is relevant, never discussing the prior events.) If you can find that info quickly in an English-language source, please do add it, to counteract the POV in the article. And let me know how long it takes you to find it, using your resources, because I can only locate that info in the Spanish-language press, and only because I speak Spanish, was there, and knew where to look. Sandy 17:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment ==Bolivarianism== should not be wikilinked, per WP:MOS. I would have changed it myself, but I'm not sure of the best way to work the word bolivarianism into the paragraph so it could be linked there. - The Catfish 23:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak remove. I was between the ones in the discussions prior to the FARC, I moved the whole references to the new system to reduce the article size and make editing easier. Still, this article has been in a not-so-good status during at least two weeks. Many have committed to try to improve the article, but users such as Anagnorisis and Saravask (who worked real hard on it some months ago) don't seem to have any interest in improving the article. Although Ghirla claims that POV and cleanup tags are not needed, I think those issues are clearly stated here, here, here and here. The article has improved in the last weeks, but presidency and political impact still need a lot of work. I feel bad about doing this because I wanted the article to get better, but unfortunately it's not FA material anymore. However, I am confident that this article will become featured again. With the help of SuperFlanker, Sandy and other users currently involved in it, I think that we can get it to FA again before the presidential elections in December. --Enano275 02:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. Like Enano275 (and several others), I had high hopes the article could be rescued rather than FARC'd, with an intense effort from multiple editors working together. I worked on reducing a couple of sections, but there are still several that are much too long and rambling, and poorly referenced. My first priority was to get the size down to something reasonable, so that the article would not be so difficult and time-consuming to edit. It needs a complete review of references, as some of the references I checked a few days ago didn't say what they were alleged to say, and so many biased sources are used. Further bias is introduced by portions of the Chavez history that are simply never mentioned (e.g.; what happened to the mudslides? What happened to Chavez saying he wouldn't go even if he lost the referendum? How did the articles manage to ignore charges of treason and conspiracy against people conducting a legal and constitutional recall referendum? Why are not legitimate issues that led to Chavez' election not discussed with good references and statistics?) Several weeks ago, I thought the work was doable, if we could get the article down to a manageable size, so that editing it wouldn't be so time consuming. But it's not doable on a time deadline, and every section we decrease later gets increased by subsequent edits. We haven't made enough progress in the few weeks we've been working on it, and my busy travel schedule doesn't permit me to focus on the article until mid-June. IMO, the talk page history shows the article was never particularly stable, and that biased sources has been a long-standing problem with the article. In terms of all of the problems: the prose is not good, it has numerous sections needing copy editing (still), the article doesn't stick tightly to the subject, POV is a problem, sources are biased, references need to be checked, and the article is hopelessly too long, even rambling and not all succinctly summarizing the topic. Sandy 04:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't know why the decision has to be restrained to timelines, considering work is ongoing, SandyGeorgia mentions some good points such as fluidity and size (although it should not be punished for having refs) that said there are other things I disagree with such as the strongly percieved bias (apperantly of omission) particularly on the sources and statistics, they are the government's side but neutrality can only be achieved by adding the other side not removing what is.SuperFlanker 03:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove per Joturner and Sandy. Rama's Arrow 17:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: We may strive to kee the FA status, after addressing the points being raised. I do not have much knowledge on the topic - others may help. --Bhadani 15:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: We have been unable, over more than a month now, to get others to help. The person who brought the article to FA status, when asked to help, said the article should be FARC'd, here "Just FARC it now — I don't have the time or interest in fixing the problems pointed out. Saravask 04:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)". Sandy 04:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove - It's not good enough to grant FA status, and then clean up the article. I agree that the article needs clean-up and a serious revamping of its citations (they are largely socialist, and thus inherently biased). However, since the article does not currently meet FA requirements, it should not currently have FA status. Remove FA status, clean-up, apply again. --Tjss(Talk) 04:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove - per Tjss. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 05:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Here is a talk page update on progress made this week. With few exceptions, Wiki guidelines of civility, good faith, building consensus, and resolving disputes have been respected, and work has extended into the overlapping series of daughter articles. Editors working together have helped check facts, references, grammar, punctuation, phrasing, etc., but succinct, brilliant prose needs work and fluidity is a problem. Regardless of FARC outcome, help from a good copy editor/writer (so that we can remove the cleanup tag) is needed. Sandy 14:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Further update The article has been reverted to a much older version (*not* the original FA version) and "Wiki is not a democracy" work is in progress. While I concur that the article was in very poor shape, and don't disagree with the revert, my separate comments on the way this was handled are on my talk page. The reverted version is not the FA version [2], and many of the reasons for FARC still exist.Sandy 21:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes it is the main page FA version. The link above is misleading. WGee considered restoring a later reversion, but I talked him out of it. The current text is based on the main page version. To confirm this, compare the diffs between the 10 December 2005 version (the day it appeared on the main page) and the current updated/copyedited version of it. [3] 172 | Talk 23:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
        • The diff link above doesn't appear to be as stated: someone who understands it better than I needs to verify. The significant issues raised in the FARC (now in the article talk page archive) have not all been corrected, and the new version now includes outdated information and invalid links (both external and internal), while POV and balance remain to be addressed. Sandy 12:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Is it necessary to re-summarize the problems with the current version of the article? See talk page. Sandy 14:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC) No answer. I posted an update to the talk page. Sandy 22:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove - This article lacks too many of the attributes of a featured article: not comprehensive, not factually accurate, not neutral, and really not stable.(Caracas1830 18:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC))
  • Remove A Cleanup FA? Are you kidding?! Raichu 03:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Update I completed enough of the cleanup to remove the tag. There is still a lengthy To Do list. [4] I am unable to find a template for indicating that the article is not current. Sandy 12:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC) (over-lapping merger of FARC and FAR)

[edit] See also