Wikipedia:Featured article review/Max Weber/archive2

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 02:00, 13 September 2010 [1].

Max Weber edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: User talk:Piotrus - most edits and original nominator for featured status, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government, WT:WikiProject Philosophy, WT:WikiProject Germany, WT:WikiProject Politics, WT:WikiProject Business

I am nominating this featured article for review because it currently fails criteria 1(c), it has insufficient inline citations. It has quite a few citation needed tags and specifically-marked weasel-worded phrases. I looked at the version that was promoted which has a lot of deleted pictures and 10 fewer citations so going back to that version isn't the best way forward. Tom B (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I found:

Foremost concern is the Critical Responses to Weber section. Contains at least one [dubious] tag and is almost entirely lacking in sources, leading to a great amount of OR; also has a one-sentence.
[Citation needed] tags in "As a critic of socialism" header.
Prose is also very choppy. "The Religion of China: Confucianism and Taoism" has many short paragraphs, and the paragraph beginning "Chinese civilization had no religious prophecy" is unsourced.
Does the Achievements section need the ginormous quote boxes?
Several [fact] tags and a [weasel-inline] in the biography section.
External links section may have spam. I whacked out a handful of the links, but I'm not certain on the rest.
At least two references contain bare URLs or otherwise improper formatting.

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments regarding criterion three:
- File:Max Weber 1894.jpg - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP.
- File:Max Weber and brothers 1879.jpg - No author information.
- File:Max and Marianne Weber 1894.jpg - Same as above (if we don't know the author, why are we claiming s/he's been dead 70 years?)
- File:Max Weber 1917.jpg - Date at source is not a publication date. When was this first published?
- File:Die protestantische Ethik und der 'Geist' des Kapitalismus original cover.jpg - Image not at source. Creation date is 1934. Why is it being claimed the author has been dead 70+ years (they died within 6 years of making this, did they?) May be moot if below threshold of originality. Эlcobbola _talk 14:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I think this article should be put thru a plagiarism checker. From the first section after the lead: 'At the age of fourteen, he wrote letters containing references to Homer, Virgil, Cicero, and Livy, and he had an extended knowledge of Goethe, Spinoza, Kant, and Schopenhauer before he began university studies.' Almost word-for-word from a 1977 book [2] 'For the next eight years of his life, interrupted only by a term at the University of Göttingen and short periods of further military training, Weber stayed at his parents' house; first as a student, later as a junior barrister, and finally as a dozent/professor at the University of Berlin.' Almost word-for-word from a 1977 book. [3] I don't have access to a good plag. check tool. But if it shows up in the first section, it may well be present in other parts of the article too. Novickas (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, it looks like it might be from this and the following 2 edits from January 2005: [4]. I removed the additions from the article [5] Tom B (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for fixing it. I'm still a little concerned there might be more, but maybe someone with access to a checker will go over it.

Another comment. The article states he died of Spanish flu; this is not cited but does show up as a snippet in a Google book search. [6] On the other hand another reliable looking source says it was a cold that turned into pneumonia. [7]. Could someone reconcile these somehow? Novickas (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sad to say delist. I was one of the authors of the old, old FA, but the article has not kept up with our modern standards - and I don't have the time or will to update it. As things stand, it is not fully comprehensive (I've just added links to some of his works...), it can use better organization (some things, like his Protestant Ethics theory were discussed in three separate places), it has unreferenced content... PS. If we identified the source of the plagiarised info, I'd suggest rewriting it and referencing it with the source instead of just removing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criterion of concern are copyright, neutrality, weasel words, prose, sourcing, original research, comprehensiveness, structure. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist for FA criteria concerns. Above those issues are not addressed. JJ98 (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Concerns not addressed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Concerns not addressed. Эlcobbola _talk 14:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, agree with FA criteria concerns, concerns not addressed. -- Cirt (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.