Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bodyline/archive1

Bodyline edit

Review commentary edit

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

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

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

FARC commentary edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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