Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/July 2009

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | archive

Kept status edit

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:41, 30 July 2009 [1].

Sun edit

Review commentary edit

Notifications: Ckatz, WikiProject Space WikiProject Solar System

Fails the criteria 1c. Lots of unverified statements. SkyBonTalk\Contributions 11:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two requests: 1) Can you be more specific on what exactly needs to be verified (statistics, sections, paragraphs, etc.) and 2) Please list the notifications you made at the top. See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kung Fu Hustle as an example. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of "citation needed" notes. Also e.g. in the 1st part of "Core" section there are a lot of statements and only one reference. SkyBonTalk\Contributions 08:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem!--Stone (talk) 05:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing by saying that some paras only have one citation, he is also objecting to those with no citation YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 05:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are currently three "citation needed" tags. One is apparently for a number and one is about the Genesis spacecraft - those could be provided easily. Much of the article is basic info that could be verified (and corrected if necessary) from many sources, including most common encyclopedias. This seems like a fairly superficial issue. Is there anything more substantive that would prevent this article from remaining FA? Gimmetrow 00:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Sunspots and the sunspot cycle" section has lots of controversial for non-experts statements and has only one inline citation. SkyBonTalk\Contributions 10:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also spotted contradiction with list of nearest stars about absolute magnitude. SkyBonTalk\Contributions 19:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    SkyBon, not to suggest that we shouldn't be accurate, but there is also a case of taking things too far, too quickly. For example, putting a prominent "contradiction" template at the top of a featured article because of a difference of 0.02 in the absolute magnitude data was not appropriate. Yes, we'll address the issues - but it would help if you could provide greater detail about what concerns you (for example, the "controversial" sunspot note above) rather than applying templates, removing "featured" stars, and so on. --Ckatzchatspy 20:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The Sun article gives absolute magnitude 4.83 (same as [2]), and the List article uses 4.85. That's a variation in the sources. (And 0.5%, at that.) Unless you can rule out one source as "mistaken", what would you like done about it? Gimmetrow 03:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it should be ignored. The Sun's brightness is not fixed and I think complaining about the hundredths column is a little excessive. 4.85 could easily be a rounded figure for 4.83. -- Kheider (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just stopping by to comment, was reading and saw the request for additional comments and I couldn't help but notice that the article only alludes to the fact that the Sun has planets around it, while this is probably common knowledge to most I would bet there are a fair amount of people that wouldn't realize the total number of planets, or their names as well as the large amount of recent discoveries in the Kuiper Belt. I don't think it needs a large section but most star articles I have seen on wiki at least mention the number of planets orbiting. Thanks and I hope this is the appropriate venue to address such a concern.--208.82.225.245 (talk) 07:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that might be an issue of article scope. Most star articles also cover their orbital system. Here, that content is covered by the article on the Solar System, which has an overview of the Oort Cloud and Kuiper Belt, and which is linked in the first sentence of this article. Gimmetrow 04:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I did a complete overhaul of the references. Many had the wrong information, formatting was all over the place, and so on. Several sections and statements still are unreferenced, and the section on eye safety / eye damage seems to use relatively low-quality references, and seems to be thrown together haphazardly compared to the rest of the article. In this current state, it would not pass FA. However, since the dirty job is now done, perhaps directly inviting the astronomy project to add the refs, and directly inviting the medicine project to review the eye damage section would produce editors willing to fix the remaining issues. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question to YellowMonkey: Where is the article NPOV? --Stone (talk) 06:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that was a mistake YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone still working on this? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 05:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you could add [citation needed] tags where you think they are needed, I will find the sources. Serendipodous 09:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to add more sources in the next few days. Ruslik_Zero 15:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've added a bunch of NASA refs especially for the structure section. Here's my 2 cents: the article is well structured and quite accurate; if every reviewer spends one minute to google the first two instances of unreferenced statements (instead of replying to this review) and picks the out of the first 5 results the one that has NASA on it, and then just pastes the link in the text without any format, then the article will have more than enough refs in no time. The topic is way too basic to go past the first 5 google results to find a high-quality, precise reference. Nergaal (talk) 01:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I referenced many parts of the article. I am planning to finish by the end of the week. Ruslik_Zero 07:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I finished adding references. If there are other problems, please, indicate them. Ruslik_Zero 08:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:
  • If the Solar neutrino problem has been resolved, is it appropriate to have it remain in the problems section?
  • Please cite the third-to-last sentence in that paragraph.
  • Please cite the last sentence in the "Sunspots and the sunspot cycle" subsection.
  • "This revelation stands today as one of the great achievements of science." reads as a bit weasely to me, as does "Hence, the problem is now resolved." Could you please rewrite these sentences?
  • Please cite the fourth paragraph in "Observation and effects".
  • Please cite the first paragraph in " Terminology" and the translated names of the Sun.
  • These are all minor things, but if I were reviewing this to become an FA, I'd say the same things. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've resolved your remaining issues, I think. Serendipodous 17:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The principal complaint of this FAR was that there were not enough citations. Since this FAR was launched the number of references has increased by 70 percent. If that is not enough, the originator of the FAR needs to make that clear now or close this. Serendipodous 09:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has been inactive for more than a week. Nergaal (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, changed to Keep, positive improvements to article, since nom. Cirt (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments just noticed this one - I see some problems which are not too hard to fix. The Terminology section lacks the derivation of the word sun (I will get out my OED...). More to come. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is that really important? "Sun" comes from the Old High German Sunna, which is derived (probably) from the reconstructed Proto-Germanic Sunnon, which is derived ultimately from the hyopothetical Proto-Indo-European saewel and saewen, two forms of the same word which led to Sol and Sun, respectively. Whether that is particularly illuminating or informative I don't know. Serendipodous 13:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really - "illuminating" is a funny word to use :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But more seriously, the Overview section I have a problem with - technically the lead is an overview (summary of important points), therefore having another generic overview as such (if it is actually an overview) is repetitive and redundant. The section itself has a paragrpah of classification, 2 paras on solar energy --> earth, and a paragraph on magnetic field and effects on the earth.

  • I'd rename the Structure section to Characteristics (like other solar objects)
  • Para 1 of overview is more about origins really and should be integrated into life cycle and summarised into the lead.
  • Para 4 of overview is a summary and should be in lead (as a summary of magnetic field section).
  • Paras 2 and 3 are about its interaction with the earth - and should be renamed - effects on earth or something, which highlights the role the sun and solar energy plays in sustaining life on earth. This also might be the section to link to elsewhere on the topic.

I am happy to work on this, as otherwise the article fails 2 (a). More tomorrow as I need to sleep. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reordered it. Serendipodous 15:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My concerns and comments have been addressed, and I believe the article meets the minimum FA requirements. Any improvements would further cement the claim to FA status. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Removed status edit

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:24, 27 July 2009 [3].

Lord's Resistance Army insurgency edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/African military history task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa, User talk:BanyanTree, User talk:Ezeu, User talk:TreveX.

FA from 2005, referencing/1c issues throughout. Appears to have been some move issues as raised here. Also concern about small subsections and lack of comprehensiveness about the topic. Cirt (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quick comments
    • Lead seems short.
    • Many sentences are unreferenced.
    • References" should be under "notes" per WP:LAYOUT.
    • Many of the newspaper articles are incorrectly formatted.
    • Regarding comprehensiveness: although I am not one to judge, as I know nothing about this, it seems to be a little short to adequately cover what is rightfully a controversial topic. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Talk:Lord's Resistance Army#Merger proposal. I know of two people on Wikipedia who have the background to comprehensively upgrade the article: Ezeu and myself. I'm burnt out after five years of dealing with editors whose sole interest is itemizing how Christian or Muslim the LRA is, and Ezeu's March proposal to upgrade it was shot down by the editors who moved/split it. In my opinion, there's no need to drag this out for two weeks. Might as well stick a fork in it. - BanyanTree 08:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, layout/formatting, POV. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 14:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Per concerns raised by Cirt, BanyanTree, and the ed17. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above, with apologies to BanyanTree. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 14:33, 16 July 2009 [4].

Kerala edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Kerala discussion board, User:Saravask, User:Salih and more.

This is a rather high level Kerala FAR discussion. I'm sorry.

Lead section

1 (c) issue at the first paragraph, since Kerala is not bordered by the Arabian sea in the east, but the Laccadive Sea. 1 (a) and 1 (c) poorly written summary of the history in the lead section. There is only one primary source, which seems to be a very brief and vage one. There should be more clear sources to support these views, hence there is also a 1 (d) issue: The neutrality of this view is debatable. A few Keralite groups are credited to have formed the language of the state. This has to be clearly sourced by reputed scholars. 1 (a) issue with the term "Early contacts with Europeans". This looks pretty misplaced, because Romans and Greeks, which are mentioned earlier, are also Europeans. 1 (c) Original research at the last sentence, which says, that it is a "unique" feature of the state. The sources, which are provided, don't state that. Also there is no mention in the lead, that Kerala became a very successful tourist center, which contributes to Kerala's economy in a big way. An inclusion is not supported by the main contributors.

History section

1 (c) Details of Muziris/Pattanam have not found the way to the article, which I strongly regret, because this was the early history site of Kerala. A reference was made in the lead section, but the history section is completely empty. Early contacts with Babylon and ancient Egypts are not mentioned. Also the first two paragraphs are very poorly sourced, hence another 1 (c) issue.

Subdivision section

1 (a)/4 The city box seems to be too large. A normal box on the right side would be better.

Government and Politics section

1 (a)/4 These sections should be merged into one "Politics" section, since the content in Politics is really small. Generally there should be more information about the history in Kerala politics. Then the section could stay divided.

Education section

2 (c) not a single inline citation in the whole section, accept one.

--Stopthenonsense (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3 I've nominated File:School children line Cochin Kerala India.jpg for deletion. File:Kathakali Performance.jpg has no source. No permission for File:KalariPuttara.jpg. DrKiernan (talk) 10:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apart from the concerns raised above, I think the Education section should be written in WP:SS and provided with some citations. Further I doubt the use of non-free image File:Kannur university-logo.png in this page.

Culture section

2 (c) The section should have more citations.

Media section

Dozens of newspapers are published in Kerala; they are printed in nine major languages. - Please include the exact numbers.

  • Name the highest circulating newspaper and cite it.
  • There are 17 malayalam channels which makes the countries maximum number in regional language. - Citation needed Amartyabag TALK2ME 01:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, structure, lead, accuracy, neutrality, original reaserch, image copyright. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Some parts are OK, while others are inadequate. There are still unsourced and vague swaths of text, dead links that prevent verification, conversions missing, an external link section that could be pruned. I found the Climate section one of the more disappointing parts of the article. There was very little substance, only random stats ("Daily average high 36.7 °C; low 19.8 °C." is not even a sentence!); there was no flow at all to the section. Parts of the article need updating (why do we care about the 2005–2006 budget). By no means bad, but not FA standard. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist some citations still needed and some statements don't match up with the sources given. For example, it says "Kerala has one of the highest literacy rates (97.0%) among Indian states", which is sourced to http://www.nfhsindia.org/pdf/KE.pdf. However, if you go there it says nothing about that being the highest, nor does it say 97%. The text of the article should also make clear whether the figure, if correct, is adult or child literacy. The figure in the source is 89.9% for ages 6+. DrKiernan (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPDATE I cleaned up climate education and merged other pointless sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hometech (talk • contribs) 19:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Better, but there are still factual accuracy issues highlighted by DrKiernan, and I just added {{fact}} tags to parts of the article. Also, this sentence was cut off by a revision: "The west Asian-semitic [15]" Dabomb87 (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist since I nominated the article, more and more issues appeared to the surface. At the current state, the quality of Kerala fails to meet the requirements to be excellent. --Stopthenonsense (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 14:33, 16 July 2009 [5].

Pan American World Airways edit

Review commentary edit

The article has a severe lack of inline citations that would disqualify it from being even a good article. I posted requests on various WikiProject pages to ask for help to refimprove it, but so far it hasn't been refimproved. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image problems: File:Tran12G7.jpg: needs an LoC id number. Though it's likely to be PD, it's unlikely to be a federal US government image. File:PAA "The Americas" Route Map 1936.jpg and File:PAA San Francisco - Manila - Hong Kong Clipper Schedule.jpg require fair use rationales. DrKiernan (talk) 10:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:
  • I've given the article a quick copy edit and added fact tags where needed.
  • The prose is fairly good, but the problems come with a lack of citations. I suspect that many of the fact tags could be filled by citations already existing in the article, but that requires someone with the inclination to do it.
  • The top of the China Clipper schedule is overlaid with text on my screen.
  • The Life Magazine citation needs to be completed.
  • Why is a description of the Boeing 307's problems commented out?
  • "Some time" is how long?
  • There's a run-on sentence in the Airline Deregulation Act paragraph.
  • The "19 security failures" sentence is awkward and unclear.
  • That's about it. The prose gets a bit less clear as the article goes on, and in the Bankruptcy section, it gets a bit convoluted. Despite that, the citations should be the first priority for anyone looking to improve the article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations (spot-check showed that some 1-citation paras did not cover all the text), copyrights. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Looks like there have been lots of improvements. Still some 1c issues, in subsection Pan_American_World_Airways#Accidents_and_terrorist_events. Cirt (talk) 01:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. I've given the article a copy edit, and the prose is good at the start but becomes borderline toward the end. The real problem is with the citations, which don't cover the whole article and need to repeated where facts and figures are mentioned. I think that some of the information for those facts is contained in citations that are already present, but they need to be repeated where required. Until the citations are improved, I can't support keeping it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Improved, but 1c issues still exist and doesn't look anyone has been working on it recently. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 12:25, 12 July 2009 [6].

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: User talk:Classicfilms, User talk:Nirvana2013, User talk:Ashwatham, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government, Wikipedia talk:Hinduism-related topics notice board, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hinduism/Philosophy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human rights, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative Views.

FA from 2005, referencing/1c issues throughout. Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi#Freedom_and_partition_of_India tagged with issues since March 2009. 21 images used in the article, could stand to have an image review. Cirt (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Cirt asked that I participate in this FAR. From the standpoint of topic and theme alone, I would like for the article on Gandhi to remain an FA. However, there do appear to be some serious structural, stylistic, and mechanical problems with the article.
Re: WP:WIAFA:
1a. I cleaned up the language of the introduction a bit. However, the entire article could use a clean up. This is a relatively large task and perhaps would be better accomplished by dividing up the work among editors.
1b. The article is comprehensive but it is also uneven. The section "Gandhi's principles," for example, consists entirely of quotes that really do not offer a concise overview of the topic.
1c. Wikipedia:Verifiability is a serious problem throughout the article, not just in the tagged section. "Early life and background," "Civil rights movement in South Africa (1893–1914),"Struggle for Indian Independence (1916–1945), and "Swaraj and the Salt Satyagraha (Salt March)" stand out but virtually all of the sections lack proper referencing. From this point only, this problem may force the article to lose its FA status if it is not corrected. As with 1a., it will prove to be a large task and may need multiple editors to correct it. I just added the "sources" tag at the top of the article.
1d. I have witnessed edit wars on this article in the past. It seems to be relatively stable now, but some of the sections were constructed more in an attempt to resolve edit wars than to cover the topic at hand (such as "Ideals and criticisms) and thus may have to be reconstructed.
1e. See 1d. I haven't watched this article in awhile so I cannot comment about the present.
2a. As I stated above, I tweaked the lead a bit although it could probably benefit from the contributions of other editors as well. As an FA, the lead needs to be of the highest quality.
2b. I think that it is fine but as with any biography the structure is somewhat subjective and perhaps we need to hear from other editors on this topic.
2c. I haven't gone through all of the citations, but as with 1c the references could stand a full review.
3. I concur with Cirt on the topic of images.
4. See 2b.
Conclusion: These problems will need to be attended to in order for the article to maintain its FA status.
-Classicfilms (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's a lot of work but could you add citation tags wherever you think necessary? It will be a lot easier to search for cites for specific things. Thanks! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well - I'm a bit hesitant only because it would mean adding a fact tag after numerous statements throughout the article and that could irritate a number of readers. My rule of thumb when upgrading articles is to cite any and every point that is offered as a definitive fact. So I can look at this article and see that numerous points in it need to be attributed to some kind of source. So here is a thought. Why don't we take it section by section? Pick a section you would like to work on and if the citation needs are not clear, then post a question here. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I'm restricted to about one library day a week and it is easier for me to take a list of problematic sentences and look up citations than to follow a cite and post cycle. (Those dratted real life issues ....!) I was sort of hoping to get a handle on the extent of the problem. But, no worries, que sera sera, etc. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm facing the same issues. Frankly, I think that this article needs a full team of editors to make all of the corrections. It is far too much for one or two people. Which is why I'm leaning towards removing the FA status and letting it rebuild over a period of time. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Just as an example Harvey Milk is a well - maintained FA biography which is heavily sourced. This is what I would like to see in the Gandhi article. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Early life I think I've got this section cited - except for the last sentence in para 1 (which is not a fact anyway). I'll try to work on the South Africa next but am unlikely to get this done on the FAR timetable! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great job! -Classicfilms (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the work is steady then a lot of time is available, but in theory, articles on very prominent leaders, the giants of the world might take an inordinate amount of time given the criteria "characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature on the topic" and the hundreds of books on the topic. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I am wondering if it might not be best to put this article through an actual vote to make a decision about its FA status. As I said above, the subject matter is worthy of an FA, but the article still needs a great deal of work to bring it back to an FA level. I think that with the dedication of a number of editors it can be brought back to this level but until that happens, we need to decide if it should be considered an FA. -Classicfilms (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well the review is supposed to last 2 weeks before the voting phase, and that is tomorrow, so if people think it is unfeasible to have six-month running repairs, it can be delisted YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I would support delisting for now with the understanding that if the page is brought back to FA level, it can go through the FA process again. Perhaps delisting will help bring the page back up to FA status. -Classicfilms (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep working on it but it's going to be slow. Meanwhile FA or not-FA is fine by me. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks RegentsPark. -Classicfilms (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Images

A question about the images. Most of the images listed above (and other images with Gandhi as a subject) have been reproduced in multiple locations with no license or copyright status explicitly mentioned. First publication history is almost impossible to come by for almost all Gandhi images. The photographers are uniformly anonymous. Under these circumstances, what is the appropriate thing to do? Delete them? --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since the issue at hand is improving the article so that it is back to a level appropriate for an FA, I would delete any and all images which are a) not free and b) which have the kind of issues you raise above. An FA article needs images but this one has so many that deleting a few should not make a difference. I would rather see just a few free/fair use images than multiple images which are questionable in terms of fair use. -Classicfilms (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think this is going to take a while what with researching the images and with referencing. (See !vote below!) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, lead, prose, depth and breadth of research/coverage on Gandhi's politics, copyrights. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per FA criteria concerns, and above comments. Cirt (talk) 09:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above with the understanding that if it is rewritten and improves over time, it can go through a new FAC. -Classicfilms (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per the time needed to bring it back to FA status. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. This is nowhere near FA. Lot of work required. KensplanetTC 15:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. per above opposes. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 06:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 12:25, 12 July 2009 [7].

Panama Canal edit

Review commentary edit

Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Maritime Trades, Wikipedia:WikiProject Central America, Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport, User:Ian Rose, User:Mark Shaw, and User:Shanes. Nominator User:Johantheghost has not edited the article since 2006.

Unverified material and citation needed markers. External link farm. Citations not uniformally formatted, and missing publishers, access dates, etc. Images with inappropriate licenses: for example, the permission for File:Admbuilding.jpg says that we can use information on our website but it does not give permission to "use it for any purpose" as claimed by the license. At the top of the cleanup list. DrKiernan (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, images, external links and style. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Needs citations; an MOS tune-up (why are dates linked???, as well as external links farm); prose needs a copy-edit—"Given the strategic situation of Panama and its narrow isthmus separating two great oceans,and other forms of trade links were attempted over the years."(!)—and I doubt that the article is "characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature on the topic", as required per 1c. What makes [8] and [9] reliable, and [10] is a Wikipedia mirror! Dabomb87 (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist comments unaddressed. DrKiernan (talk) 10:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. There's a large number of citation needed tags, a lot of copyrighted images without appropriate tagging, and there's quite a few relative and imprecise words used throughout: "largest and most difficult", "long and treacherous", etc. If terms like these are used, they need to be cited. As to the datelinking, there's a bot that can remove those links without too much trouble. JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 12:25, 12 July 2009 [11].

Common scold edit

Review commentary edit

Notified:WikiProject Law

Yuck, what a mess:

  1. 1a. Clumsy prose with lots of sentences beginning with "the".
  2. 1b. Seems rather short. Some parts are barely a paragraph long.
  3. 1c. Very few sources. At least two {{fact}} tags, only 10 cites overall, large chunks of unreferenced-ness.

This has clearly slipped way, way, way below the FA guidelines, given that it was promoted in 2004. Notified User:Majorly, who pointed this article out on IRC, and WikiProject Law. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, did you all discuss simply reverting it to the version that passed FAR last time? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly any better. That revision still has almost all of the same problems, minus a couple red links. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point them out, please ... this looks like an example of citation density counting ... common sense doesn't need to be cited, and some facts are cited inline. where is the clumsy prose, what needs citation, and "Seems rather short" is not a valid criticism for an FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, half the sentences begin with "the". Mix it up a little. The "Current status of the law" section is hardly common-sense, doesn't-need-to-be-sourced type stuff. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4u1e's comments
  • The article probably is almost completely covered by the references identified, although perhaps the citations could be tidied up to make this clearer. Some specific points:
    • Refs 1 and 5 are broken links.
    • There's a mix of inline and footnoted citations - ony one style should be used.
    • The interpretation of John Holt's remarks on the punishment may go beyond what the reference actually says.
    • The comment on Fye Bridge is not cited.
    • The last two paragraphs are not cited.
    • The quality of the references doesn't seem very high. All are acceptable, they just don't really look like a thorough cross section of the best scholarship available.
  • I have doubts as to the comprehensiveness of the article. For example:
    • There's almost nothing on the offence itself, most of the article is about the punishments and when the offence died out. What behaviour led to prosecution? Several cases are quoted, but there's nothing on what the accused actually did. It would also be interesting, if possible, to have some idea of when the offence originated.
    • Similarly, was this unique to the British legal system (and by descent, the American one)? If purely a British punishment, the difference to mainland Europe is striking and should be commented on.
    • I find it hard to believe that's there's not a vast scholarly literature on such a topic, but if there is, it's not reflected in the article. For example, there must have been much comment from a feminist perspective. (see Google Scholar for a start.)
  • The section 'Historical prosecutions' is quite confusing. What point is being made here? It reads like a fairly random list of historical occurences. Why are these the most notable instances? What do they tell us about the offence? The section may be trying to address the issue of when the practice died out, but I can't really tell.
  • Has anyone informed the relevant wikiproject and editors, by the way? Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, quality of sources, comprehensiveness, lead, inconsistent style. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Inconsistent citation style, very average sources, some unsourced material, and appears not to be comprehensive. No changes since my comments above. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 09:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 12:25, 12 July 2009 [12].

Supreme Commander edit

Review commentary edit

notified parties: WikiProjects Video Games and Xbox (Strategy Project defunct); users Krator, Xihr and SkyWalker (latter two inactive according to user page)

June 2007 FA that fails current standards (and probably wasn't that great back then, either.) Issues:

  • crit. 1: I wouldn't say the article is very broad in coverage, or comprehensive. The 'Development' section is little more than technology overviews and demo/bug fix lists, with little information about the real conception of the game (considering this is meant as the spiritual successor to Total Annihilation, I'm surprised that facet is given short shrift). Prose appears to have eroded and there are lots of tiny one or two line/sentence paragraphs that need to be dealt with. Large swaths of the article are unreferenced.
  • crit. 2: Lead section does not adequately summarize the article;
  • crit. 3: Poor compliance with WP:NFCC. Three sound clips (Risk, Relief and Victory.ogg, Massive Attack.ogg, and The Future Battlefield.ogg) have absolutely no critical commentary to merit the inclusion of just one of the samples. File:Pcgamer_cover_small.jpg is purely decorative, and File:SupCom Dualview.png and File:SupCom ZoomAnimation.gif need at the very least better FUR than the generic "illustrate subject of the article" they have now.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, breadth of coverage, lead, images. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Raul654 05:14, 8 July 2009 [13].

Krag-Jørgensen edit

Review commentary edit

WikiProjects notified

  • Problems with (1c) The article is almost entirely sourced to one reference and large amounts of unsourced paragraphs. The minority refs do not have publisher info and look like a personal website.
  • A lot of listy bits
  • Inconsistent formatting of numbers, etc YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Inconsistent formatting of numbers is an easy fix and shouldn't count, and I'm not concerned by the single reference source- the source could be the definitive text on the subject, making reference elsewhere redundant, for example. I do agree the article could use a few more references for some of the paragraphs, but generally it seems OK to me. Commander Zulu (talk) 03:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there are a number of paragraphs without an in line citation. The basic rule for B class is at least one per paragraph or block of information, so I imagine that for FA it would need this at a minimum. I would probably like to see page numbers in the citations, but that is not necessarily a must. On the whole, though, it has good content, seems well written, it is well illustrated, etc. Probably just needs a few minor fixes and should be able to stay listed in my opinion. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counter-comment (Comment on comment? Whatever :)) There are no rules that say you must have a certain number of cites per paragraph. There are rules that say that "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.", and in practice this does usually mean that at least one cite per para is necessary, but I wouldn't want anyone to think that getting to FA-standard means achieving a greater and greater density of citations. If you're using high quality printed media references, you can often get the desired result with fewer cites than if you're using a ragbag of random websites, for example. Rant over. :) 4u1e (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No there isn't and definitely if you write a sport bio from web only you will need a different news/stats report for each game whereas with a dedicated biog it will all worked into the same place. But still, (1c) "well researched" generally implies that there is a variety of sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said before, the book the editor used might very well be the Definitive Text on the subject. There isn't always a need for many sources, IMHO. Commander Zulu (talk) 08:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image problems: Sources and rationales required for File:Krag-Jørgensen-Hotchkiss.jpg, File:Krag-Jørgensen-Speed Loader 2.jpg and File:Krag-Jørgensen SNABB38.jpg. DrKiernan (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, copyrights. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per own statement YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, agree with above assessment by YellowMonkey (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 07:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Claims like "design was considered promising", "made the rifle more cumbersome" and "...for use when hunting seals from small boats. They were turned down due to the high cost of manufacturing" ought to have sources. DrKiernan (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Raul654 05:14, 8 July 2009 [14].

Peterborough Chronicle edit

Review commentary edit

Wikiprojects notified. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fails 1c. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified Geogre, a primary contributor, and will be watching this too to see if I can help. Mike Christie (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to look in on this shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From comments on Geogre's talk page, he feels it meets 1c, so I'm not going to stick my nose into something so fraught with chances of just causing drama. I've got enough work to work on, thanks. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Fails 1c? You mean it is not well-researched? If so, a pointer to where you think the research is lacking would be helpful for anybody who intends to work on it. Or is there a specific part of criterion 1c you believe it fails? Yomanganitalk 16:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am fairly sure he is refering to the fact that the article has only one inline citation and not that many references overall. Spiesr (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That may be (actually it has quite a few inline citations, although only one footnote), but I was hoping that YellowMonkey would add more than a two word rationale for what is essentially a request to delist some people's hard work. Yomanganitalk 23:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current feature article standards essentially require every paragraph in an article the have multiple specific citations. Usally in the standard of footnotes like this <ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>. Modern featured articles like this one have extensive lists of citations in a refernces or notes section. This article contains only 1 item in its notes section. And while the article does have a few of citations of a different formatting in the text, which should look like this (Smith 2007, p. 1), there are not nearly enough of these for the article to pass criteria 1c and maintain its featured status. Spiesr (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can't dig up some sources and add some citations. Kafka Liz (talk) 10:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be a good start to reformat the in-line citations to harvnb template format, so they are clickable and lead to the appropriate reference in the references section. I am happy to do this, though I won't be able to insert the page numbers. I wouldn't insist on using footnotes at this time, given that Geogre deliberately used another system; the harvnb citations can easily be changed to footnotes later on if needed. Having the refs show as hyperlinks will also make it more apparent how much of the content is cited. Sound like a good idea? JN466 09:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Although there's a couple of the harvard links I can't get to work; most jump down to the appropriate reference, but a couple don't. JN466 21:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern is citations. Joelito (talk) 23:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per FA criteria concern cited above by YellowMonkey (talk · contribs) and Joelr31 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per Cirt. Not enough citations. FAR has been open for several weeks. JN466 15:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me note that very view of the sources you'd expect to see used have been used for this article. I have to say I don't think Wikipedia should have FAs for historical sources (chronicles, annals, and so on), that don't use such sources. As a result of this problem, the article comments meagerly on important critical issues, little about diplomatic, composition, "textual archaeology", and so on. It's a good article, don't get me wrong, but we expert more comprehensiveness from FAs these days. The required rewrite is so massive that it has to be delisted. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:33, 6 July 2009 [15].

History of Portugal (1777–1834) edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portugal, User:Joaopais, User:AndyZ, and User:Cherry blossom tree.

A 2006 FA, not meeting current FA criteria. Poorly written Lead (2a), Lack of Inline citations (1c). KensplanetTC 15:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though surely public domain, File:MariaIPortugal.jpg, File:Miguel of Portugal.jpg, File:Andremassena1.jpg, and File:Duque da Terceira.jpg are missing sources/authors. File:Duke of Wellington 2.jpg is missing a source.

The license of File:Lines of Torres Vedras.jpg (I release it to the public domain) does not match the original upload log (Free image made by the municipality of Torres Vedras (source: http://www.cm-tvedras.pt/monumentos/imagens/linhas_copy.jpg)).

Just on an aesthetic note, there seem to be a lot of images of very similar men wearing very similar uniforms and very similar decorations in very similar poses. Do they really add anything to the understanding of the subject matter? Shouldn't images be more varied? DrKiernan (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, lead, copyrights. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: Issues not resolved. KensplanetTC 13:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist inline citations required for statements "stormy", "unbalanced", "world's first restraining order", "is also reported..." among many others. DrKiernan (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:33, 6 July 2009 [16].

Sikkim edit

Review commentary edit

Notified Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics, User talk:Nichalp, User talk:Sundar and User talk:Kintetsubuffalo.

This is an article promoted back in February 2005. It currently fails criterion 1(c), as a number of paragraphs remain entirely unsourced throughout the article. Some examples include the entire "Media" section, the first paragraphs of the "History", "Geology" and "Climate" sections, and most of the "Flora and fauna" section. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tashiding.jpg does not have a license. The gallery does not appear to add any new information. DrKiernan (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is also done. Hometech (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, copyrights. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can this FARC be put on hold? I 'm on a holiday from tomorrow onwards. Hometech (talk) 07:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist, 1c issues, note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. Majority of the sources are "Government of Sikkim", etc. Best instead to draw material from secondary sources independent of the article's subject. This sources deficit is also suggestive of possible overarching POV issues. Cirt (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as possible I've replaced govt sources. Besides, I'm helpless coz hardly anyone knows how a state in the corner of India is booming - Secondary source coverage on most statistics of sikkim is outdated. If you find anything secondary and worthwhile, tell the WikiProject India noticeboard or wait till I return on 5 July. Hometech (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a significant detraction from the article's quality that should have been addressed long ago. Cirt (talk) 05:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From when are Government sources being considered as low-quality sources? Do you have a ref for this?--GDibyendu (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not necessarily that they are "low-quality", but certainly not of a high enough quality to be used so overwhelmingly in a WP:FA, over and above usage of secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 02:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with Cirt's Oppose. As per Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches, Website section, Government sites connected to the field may be reliable. I agree secondary sources are better. But there are many cases, where the subject is not so popular, and secondary sources are not available. Rather than relying on outdated information from Secondary sources, it's better to have updated information from sources connected with the field. To build a comprehensive and updated article on Sikkim, "Government of Sikkim" sources have to be used. They may not be of very high quality, bur certainly are not of low quality. If 3 people are disagreeing with Cirt's Oppose, then I think Cirt needs to reconsider his decision. KensplanetTC 15:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, out of 80, I find only 14 Govt. Sources. How does it become a majority? Govt. sources have to be used for statistics KensplanetTC 15:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are still a number of reference formatting issues that need to be addressed. Please be consistent with templates and ref details. Furthermore, this article is in need of a copyedit. Some of the sentences are quite poorly written. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:59, 3 July 2009 [17].

Kammerlader edit

Review commentary edit

Notification of relevant parties: Nominator and main contributor User:WegianWarrior, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Firearms, WikiProject Norway all complete.

1(c) - currently no inline citations, which makes it harder to verify. [Background:It was promoted 4 years ago and has not been reviewed since.] Tom B (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd say this doesn't stand a chance. It is not sourced, and the layout is dubious. Punkmorten (talk) 08:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about File:Kammerlader 1.jpg. Don't we need license information for each of the images? Otherwise, it's just like taking a picture of a picture in a gallery. Surely it isn't gfdl if the original picture hanging in the gallery is still under copyright. DrKiernan (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern are zero citations, reliable sources, layout. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 06:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist citations required for comments such as "It seems that...", "brilliantly simple" and "It is not known..." among others. Doubts over an image copyright. DrKiernan (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:59, 3 July 2009 [18].

Doctor Who edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British TV shows, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject BBC, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media franchises, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cardiff, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales, User talk:Khaosworks, User talk:Rodhullandemu, User talk:Josiah Rowe, User talk:Angmering, User talk:Ckatz, User talk:Alientraveller.

FA from 2004, referencing/1c issues throughout, need to be addressed. Article utilizes 10 images and 1 media file, this could use review for appropriate fair-use rationale check (and to check for possible overusage of claimed fair-use images) and individual image review check of the other images and media. Not sure there is a satisfactory amount of material in the article on Critical reception and commentary, as opposed to a recanting of in-universe material and plot summary of various characters and internal show-history. Cirt (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, images. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:59, 3 July 2009 [19].

Link (The Legend of Zelda) edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Wikiproject Video games, Wikiproject Video games Nintendo task force

I know this won't be popular, but this article has numerous persistent issues. Article is failing the following criteria: 1a, 1b, 2b, 2c, 3, 4.

  • Several sections of the article are either unsourced or have {{fact}} tags strewn about.
  • The prose is handled as if Link in an in-universe style for several of the paragraphs. In addition more than a few of these could do with summarization.
  • The character development needs a copy edit, and is very hard to follow.
  • The article itself is hard to follow in several areas, and might do with a restructuring condensing the video game appearances and appearances in other media into more well defined parts.
  • The three successive images of Link outside of the infobox do not contribute much to the understanding of the character.
  • Reception seems extremely small for a character with such impact, no mention of merchandising or other formats.

As it stands, this article feels more C-class quality than FA, and really needs a major overhaul.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please list the completed notifications at the top of this page. Thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The images do illustrate the changing style of the artwork. DrKiernan (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist – it does not even meet the Good article criteria. There are too much unsourced information, there are numerous prose/MoS issues such as one-sentence paragraphs, and the non-free images do not show they aid readers in understanding the article (that is, I contest that they could be removed without affecting how readers understand Link). The lead section is also too short for an article this size (should be at least three full paragraphs per WP:LEAD as this article is well over 30K characters of prose), and the content is riddled with words to avoid and peacock terms. Finally, as Kung Fu Man noted above, the prose sorely runs awry in regards to writing about fiction and provides little or no outside perspective. MuZemike 19:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would delist this as current... the entire thing needs to be streamlined to remove poorly constructed paragraphs that read off like laundry lists with sad and lonesome one-sentence lines. The images of Link do nothing to meet WP:NFCC as they are all illustrations and not emblematic of his actual appearance in the games. Much of the out of universe information is WP:OR or uncited, and the reception/impact section is pitiful. No way this meets comprehensive coverage. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have removed every single image save for the infobox one (File:TLOZ Phantom Hourglass Link.jpg. I think a case could be made for having one of the more common depictions as the infobox image, with the 'toon presentation later in the article, but that would require critical information on reaction to the article style, et al be added (I think the GameTrailers retrospective on the series mentioned some of that.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, prose, original research, MOS copyrights. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:59, 3 July 2009 [20].

Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lithuania, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Former countries, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Belarus, User talk:Piotrus.

FA from 2004, referencing/1c issues throughout - though not as many as your typical unreviewed FA from 2004, so hopefully this should not be that difficult to address. The article uses a very large number of images (37 in total) - these could use an image review. Cirt (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, well maybe in the interim you could do some minor/light work on it. Cirt (talk) 07:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the use of Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski as a reference in anything outside his professional field (engineering, altho his work as a lexicologist was well-received), cited here three or four times (refs 81 and 82). He is described as a politically motivated amateur by Piotr Wrobel in a piece published by Rice University [21], as a conspiratologist in an article published by CESNUR [22], and as a leading and disturbing representative of ethnonationalist historiography in this book [23]. I invite reviewers to read at least the first few paragraphs of this piece Pogonowski posted on his website [24] and draw their own conclusions. This was briefly discussed at Reliable Sources [25] tho no real conclusion was reached.

He's used in this article to support population figures and ethnic breakdowns thereof; at least one source, from Yale University Press, disagrees with his stat for Commonwealth population after the Union of Lublin - currently the article, sourced to Iwo, gives 7 million, where the Yale book gives "nearly 10 million". [26]

On another note. Some copyvio: " Most of the masters arrived from the major cities of Western Europe such as Nuremberg, Augsburg and Amsterdam. The brought with them new shapes and objects. But as they entered into the local milieu and took up the conditions of their new lives, local customs and traditions, these masters created new works that were different from those of their western brethren" and "Aside from expensive presentation items, the silversmiths also produced utilitarian items for a broader clientele. Among these were tankards..." verbatim from [27], added 2009. [28] Wayback machine dates the Hermitage's version to 2004 [29] Given this and the existence of copyvios in other articles from this era [30], [31], I think it needs a going-over. Novickas (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pogonowski, or rather his maps are only used for uncontroversial population numbers. Numbrers in historical demographics vary widely, we can include other estimates but I see no reason to remove his. Regarding the copyvio, please notify the editor who added it, Martim33. He has been adding a lot of content to the article and I didn't have time to review it; if his edits are copyviod, we should be easily able to revert them in batch. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've left messages about the copyvio problems (at least 10) at the article talk page and at the three country project boards. Novickas (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the copyvios have been addressed - no, it was not easy. Back to Pogonowski as a source.
It looks as tho dubious sources are not accepted in FAs. The argument presented by P., that the source is used for uncontroversial statistics - he and I have tangled on that before, so other opinions welcomed. I would strongly prefer that we not use any questionable sources in an FA. Or anywhere else on WP. If his numbers are uncontroversial, they could be found elsewhere. In the last few days, an editor has removed criticism from the Pogonowski article stating BLP concerns. If those are justfied, they should be removed here too, eh? He also writes for Radio Maryja [32] and its print version, Nasz Dziennik. [33]Novickas (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Novickas (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The galleries are unnecessary and may be removed. Too many images on one page can restrict access to the article for readers on slow connections or using older computers. I suggest limiting the number of images to only those that are informative or illustrative. So, show just one coin rather than three, and one example of typical architecture, etc.

Though no-one could doubt the PD-Art licensing tags of the paintings, ideally the original sources should be given. Similarly, it is not entirely clear who created File:Europe map 1648.PNG and File:RegiaCivitatisGedanensis.jpg. Presumably the uploaders, but this does not appear to be explicitly stated anywhere. DrKiernan (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting sourcing issue has now arisen - see thread at [34]. Evidence strongly suggests that a source currently being used as a ref in this article contains material copied verbatim or near-verbatim from here. Novickas (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, copyright, POV. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There seems to have been some concern in the edit history [35] and above, above copyvio. Has this been addressed/resolved? Cirt (talk) 05:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the copy vios have been fixed - either rewritten or removed.radek (talk) 05:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still seeing some unaddressed issues from above, including 1c issues, and {{fact}} tags. Cirt (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #25 [36], used eight times here, copied material verbatim or close to verbatim from this and two other WP articles without crediting them. The copied sentences, rewritten slightly in some cases, are now ref'd to the paper. See [37] Novickas (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/July_2009&oldid=305739461"