Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/August 2008

< 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 User:Marskell 10:28, 21 August 2008 [1].

John Bull (locomotive) edit

Notified Trains Portal, Trains Project, and User Slambo.

This article was promoted to FA status in December 2004 and has not been reviewed. The article may have met the FA criteria back then, but it doesn't meet the current criteria. Criterion 1(c) seems to be the biggest problem for this article. There has been a "nofootnotes" tag on it since May. Halgin (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been meaning to get back to this to add footnotes for some time. I guess now is the time to get to it. B-) Slambo (Speak) 10:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on this now. I couldn't get to it over the weekend as it was my wedding anniversary, but I'll be putting some time into this during the week. Slambo (Speak) 11:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the early history is now footnoted to multiple independent references. Work has slowed now because I'm looking for my copies of the books in my collection about this locomotive. I found a few New York Times articles about the 1931 and 1981 operation events, but they're behind an archive fee so I haven't added them yet. Slambo (Speak) 16:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found my copy of the book by John White and added the remaining footnotes to the main text. I'm still looking through the books in my personal library as well as at books available online and at my local city library for more reference material (and that's not mentioning the various magazines and historical journals that I have yet to look at again), so there may be more footnotes still yet to come. But, I think it should satisfy now. Slambo (Speak) 02:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since there has been no response either here, on the article talk page or on my talk page, I've requested that the review nominator return to review the changes. Slambo (Speak) 22:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first article I have asked for a review of. Thanks for the Message on my talk page. I was not sure if you were done. I will review the changes. Can you drop some information on the New York Times articles. If provide the information to support the statement in the summary or title you should add them. If not maybe if we can find another source. If someone else wants to review it also that would be good. Halgin (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added some “citation needed” in some places. Maybe some of the technical information in the Intro box should be referenced also. I don’t have access to the References books, so I can’t check them. I assume that the information above them is supported. I have not checked the one online book. The article says that in 1939” It was then placed in somewhat permanent display back in the East Hall where it remained for the next 25 years.” But then its states “make its final public appearance outside the Smithsonian for another 39 years.” When was the Century of Progress exhibition in Chicago 1933–1934 or 1939? The article states both. Halgin (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I'll get onto those today. For the sections about the locomotive's museum displays, the information is all in John White's book (I have a copy in my collection). 1939 appears next to the phrase "Century of Progress" on page 46, but 1939 refers to the New York World's Fair. I've fixed it in the article (good catch). Slambo (Speak) 11:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The flagged statements are all referenced, and I also found and fixed an incorrect reference URL. I plan to further address your concerns later today. Slambo (Speak) 11:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns about the references have been addressed. Halgin (talk) 21:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Other experienced editors have helped to list reliable sources and proper license tags for all three images. As all three were published in the United States before 1923, they fall into the public domain. Slambo (Speak) 10:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still concerned over Image:John Bull at the Smithsonian, 1920.jpg, as the Library of Congress says it could have been taken "ca. 1950", if that's the case the US-1923 tag would not apply. DrKiernan (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it said 1920 when I added it to the article. However, even if it was later, [2] asserts "The photographs Theodor Horydczak made for his own use or for the government are in the public domain." That page also says that any client information on work-for-hire images would be stored in the catalog records with the image. I don't see anything obvious on [3] or the associated MARC record that would indicate that this would have been a work-for-hire (there is no lot number or client name listed in either location). Slambo (Speak) 15:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's reasonable. Thanks for checking. DrKiernan (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close. My and the nominator's comments appear to have been addressed. DrKiernan (talk) 07:25, 20 August 2008 (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 kept by User:Marskell 14:09, 19 August 2008 [4].

December to Dismember (2006) edit

Review commentary edit

Major editors and Wikiproject have been notified by IMatthew.--Peter Andersen (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article here, not because I want to, but because I feel it is what's right. The article was promoted a while before the criteria for a Featured Article became more challenging. The article does not go into the storylines the best that it could, and there are other flaws as well. My main reason for nominating this is that judging by this and this, the article needs major improving to meet the criteria. -- iMatthew T.C. 15:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the instructions at WP:FAR to list this correctly and to notify relevant parties and projects. This page is not listed at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per this, I withdraw this nomination. -- iMatthew T.C. 14:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't have the sourcing problems seen in some other wrestling articles, but while it's here, it could use a tune-up and prose review. Errors are easily spotted, including at least:

  • Less than twenty-four hours ... (WP:MOSNUM issues)
  • In early-2008, in ... (faulty hyphens)
    • Shouldn't there be a hyphen then, or should it be – ? D.M.N. (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meltzer, Dave (2007-01-22), ... (unformatted dates in citations)
    • I don't see the need to change it, otherwise it becomes inconsistent with the other date formatting used for the references in the article. Or does that particular one need to be Wikilinked? D.M.N. (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikilinked, yes. That allows a users' preferences to auto-change it when the view the page. Daniel (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Campbell, CA): 1-12 (WP:DASH errors)
  • ... stating "the two matches that were promoted saved this thing from being a debacle." (WP:PUNC issues)
  • ... December 5, 2006). ECW December to Dismember - REVIEWED. The (MOS:CAPS#All caps)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Those were samples only; has someone checked the entire article for MoS cleanup? User:Epbr123 is good at cleaning up MoS issues, but first you might check the text yourself to be sure similar issues are clean throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK. I'll probably ask someone to look through the prose tomorrow. I don't think there are any other MoS violations in the article. D.M.N. (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cr 1a: distinctly substandard throughout.
    • "which would have meant there would be"—clumsy, and exposed in the lead.
    • Let's take one sentence, close to the top. "Outside of the weekly ECW broadcast, the pay-per-view received very little buildup on either Raw or SmackDown!, with WWE concentrating more on the Survivor Series pay-per-view that aired one week earlier." The second word is redundant. "Very" actually has the opposite effect—get rid of it. The old "with + noun + -ing" construction, which is very poor. That had aired, I think.
    • "an entire month and a half before the event occurred."—"entire" is excessive. Can six words be conflated into just two, "six week"?
      • Yeah, guess it can. Changed it to six weeks. D.M.N. (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent reconstruction required. TONY (talk) 03:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Note: I am going on vacation this Saturday for two weeks until August 3rd, meaning I will have no internet access and will therefore be unable to deal with any comments that come towards this FAR on Saturday or after. D.M.N. (talk) 07:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to leave this in the FAR section until the beginning of August. Marskell (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b) and referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 07:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article has undergone a serious copy-edit, please see [5] - D.M.N. (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to get an explanation of the concerns regarding comprehensiveness and referencing? I'm unsure of what (if anything) remains to be done. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think (although you'll probably have to ask iMatthew this) the concern was about the writing style, which has since been changed. I see no concerns about referencing though. D.M.N. (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It may be due to refs 49, 48, 36, and 25.--SRX 15:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced ref #25. I've changed ref #36. Ref's #48 + #49 may be classed as unreliable, but they are used to adequatly source what general fans felt of the PPV as a whole, and source the statement "Critics and fans had a negative reaction to the pay-per-view." adequatly. D.M.N. (talk) 08:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: This is the copy-edit has gone through now. D.M.N. (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2008 (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 kept by User:Marskell 12:57, 19 August 2008 [6].

Iowa class battleship edit

There are not enough words in the English language to impart to the community the extent to which I really do not want this article up on FARC, but its been three long years since the article was presented here, and much has changed in that time both on the article itself and in the FA/FAC procedures and standards that we now hold such articles to. It is with much difficulty today that I finally managed to find the courage to place this article here, with the recognition that as the user who has worked on it the most these last three years, including its initial run through FAC back in '05, I am in all probability the user who will work the hardest to ensure the article stays at FA class.

Thanks in part to those of you who commented during the Montana class battleship FAC, I know for an absolute fact that some of the articles source are of questionable value (FA criterion 1c), and I am aware that in the three years since the article was at FARC both weasel and peacock words have wiggled back into the article. Aside from adding specific examples here for my benefit, I need to know what else needs to be done to ensure the article remains top notch. I am in summer school at the moment, so if I appear slow to respond here please be patient with me, in all probability I am occupied with school work, but I intended to throw my all into this after summer school ends (about the first week of August). TomStar81 (Talk) 02:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the need to maintain this article to the FA standards is made more important by the fact that this subject (the class of battleships) is about to become a Featured Topic once two more articles attain FA status. -MBK004 02:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here goes what I can turn up, but be warned that I may not be the most level-headed when dealing with this article since I've tried to maintain it. -MBK004 06:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ...tell me about it ;-)
    • Keeping up on current events, the section on reactivation potential and the Zumwalt-class destroyers needs to go under a microscope because of the recent announcement that the Zumwalt class will only have two vessels because of costs. Hence, what are the effects to the NGFS picture? Also, thinking about the summary style of the article, it might be about time to split this section out to its own article. If it isn't at that point, it will be shortly because of these recent events.
      • This latest move by Navy with regards to the DDX will likely impact the upcoming National Defense Authorization Act, if it does, then we can break out the section and building it into an independent article. At the moment though the descion to stop construction at two DDX destroyers doesn't directly impact the Iowa's, though I suspect that will change soon.
        • Ok, I did a little digging on the Zumwalt class and it appears from the wording in the NDAA that at the moment the DDX program is being suspended to that the CNO can review his options; at the same time it appears that the USN has reversed its postion on the DDG-51's and is now considering constructing additional DDG-51 class destroyers. Taken as a whole this seems to be a good indicator that the DDX progam is dead, but I think a wait and see aproach here may be best to ensure accuracy.
      • I have added information on the apparent cancellation of the DDX program to the article, though more may be added later if and when I can find a copy of the NDAA for 2009.
    • Make sure that each paragraph in the History section has at least one reference (some don't have any), and more than two would be ideal. Also, try to merge the short paragraphs together (remember what they taught you in Comp I at university about paragraphs, multiple sentences).
    • Article could use a thorough copyedit by someone who hasn't seen the prose before.
    • I know it will be tough, but the Engineering plant could use more references and I know I'm beating a dead horse but that section is rather thin overall compared to the armament and history.
      • Looking into it. This one's kinda hard becuase I can not find any online sources to start with, but I do have the library so I can check there. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I will take a look as well, since I might have something here in my collection. -MBK004 03:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I may add some more bullets later if I see some other things. -MBK004 06:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Comments

  1. Dump the pop culture section, all this does is attract people to add more silly entries. Try to work the more important mentions into the article if they directly effected the subject ie: Missouri in a movie and not one of the ships in a video game etc. If it won't fit in the article, dump it.
    Not nessicarly, there are very strict guidelines in a hidden notice at the top of the page explicitly outline what can and con not go into the section. So far, the notices has worked as intended by redirecting attempted inclusion to the talk page first. None the less I will look into removing the section via the suggested methodes.
Please read some of the recently passed FA's that Bellhalla wrote. They're nicely done and introduce pop culture topics in a way that remains encyclopedic and doesn't attract people into adding references about GI Joe cartoons (the bane of my existence over at Constitution) This saves the effort of having to explain over and over again to people trying to insert trivia. --Brad (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. For all of the DANFS citations use <ref name="Ship">{{cite DANFS|title=|url=|accessdate=}}</ref> it creates uniformity in the references.
    Done. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. In the references section use: <ref name="NAME">{{cite book|id=ISBN|title=|last=|first=|publisher=|year=}}</ref> for the same reason as 2.
    This has been addressed with the exception of one source (noted on article talk page). — Bellhalla (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dispense with the Discovery Channel as a major source.
    Actually, it was (originally) added to cite two statements, but as with the pop culture section I can scrap it if the need arises. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This was actually on the Military Channel, not the Discover Channel, so the link has been updated accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.108.25.1 (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Use the ability of the infobox to have separate sections for the various changes it went through over the years.

--Brad (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Here are some book sources: Battleship Missouri : an illustrated history ISBN: 1557507805, The complete encyclopedia of battleships : A technical directory of capital ships from 1860 to the present day ISBN: 0517378108, Mighty Mo, the U.S.S. Missouri : a biography of the last battleship Newell, Gordon R. ; The Iowa class battleships : Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri & Wisconsin ISBN: 0806983388, Battleships of World War Two : an international encyclopedia ISBN: 185409386X , American battleships : a pictorial history of BB-1 to BB-71, with prototypes Maine & Texas ISBN: 1575100045, U.S. battleships : an illustrated design history ISBN: 0870217151 , Battleships of the U.S. Navy in World War II ISBN: 0517234513 , United States battleships in World War II ISBN: 0870210998 ,

--Brad (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I own a few of these if you need access for page numbers and verification, see: User:MBK004/Library. -MBK004 03:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by doncram
(numbering to allow easier reading; this is really just one comment:)

  1. What attracts my attention is the use of DANFS material and the very small text note This article includes text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. at the very end of the references section. I think that the incorporation of public domain text into the article, with this small disclaimer, undermines the quality of this otherwise great and obviously well-researched and well-sourced article.
  2. There is now only a guideline on plagiarism in draft form, and no explicit policy yet, in wikipedia on this issue. I am one who believes that any appearance of plagiarism is worth taking steps to avoid, and I hope that discussion here will eventually provide more explicit policy for featured and less-refined wikipedia articles. I think it should give specific guidelines that public domain sources should be treated like any other, with the important exception that very long quotes from PD text are possible, unlike for other sources where only shorter passages can be quoted under "fair use" rules.
  3. I, and at least some others, believe that "incorporating" public domain text into an article without use of quotation marks and other treatment that is necessary for referencing non-public domain text is not good practice in general, and I further believe that it should be disallowed in featured articles. Although great swathes of wikipedia were built by pasting in public domain texts such as from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, it is also believed by some that there were mistakes in doing that, or that was a different time, and there is sentiment that different practices are needed.
  4. One way that it compromises the value of wikipedia articles, that I focus upon, is that it makes others' reliance upon the articles difficult. How is a scholarly work, or a student term paper, supposed to cite a featured wikipedia article, as of a certain date, of mixed sourcing? With the public domain incorporation, it is not correct to cite the collective wikipedia editorship as being the author of some pithy phrase; the phrase may well have been the exact wording of the public domain text that should be credited instead. A conscientious consumer would need to understand the significance of the public domain disclaimer at the bottom of the article, and go and explore all of the DANFS articles mentioned, in order to ferret out how to credit properly any quote from the wikipedia article. This is an unreasonable burden, and it would be costly to try to educate those who would be conscientious of the necessary machinations.
  5. Because I have analysed other ship articles, I am in a position to understand the meaning of the fine print notice, and to link that to the occurrences of DANFS mention within specific references further above. Without performing an exhaustive review, I believe that use of DANFS material is located in only a few locations in the article, specifically at the four instances of footnote 30, and the single instances of footnotes 40, 42, 44, 45, and 49. These are 9 instances from 5 footnotes out of a total of 110 footnotes in the article. It is possible that directly copied passages of DANFS material existed at those locations at one time, but have been combed over and revised so much that they are no longer recognizable as DANFS quotes. So it is also possible that only a very little editing would be required to treat the DANFS material like any other source (adding a quote or two of any particularly apt phrases, and rewording some other passages to avoid using DANFS's words).
  6. I ask that the wikipedia editor, revising this article, give some consideration to the value of avoiding different treatment of the DANFS source material, and consider revising the article to allow fair removal of the small-print template about DANFS use. doncram (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my comment above, as TomStar81 responded below that his review of the article indeed justified DANFS text was no longer incorporated, and he removed the general DANFS disclaimer, and as it has been suggested to me that my striking is then appropriate in FAR process. It was discussed more fully in the Talk page to this review whether my comment was appropriate to make at all. But anyhow with respect to this article my comment was indeed fully addressed. I believe the following comments make no further call for edits to the article, but i didnt write them so I don't believe/don't know if i can strike them. Again the point raised seems to have been fully addressed for this FAR. doncram (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been reworking some of the references for this article and am not the article creator, nor was I involved in its writing. Given that, I don't know that the {{DANFS}} template is even appropriate on this article. In the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (DANFS), there generally are not articles about ship classes, so I'm not sure why the tag is in place. Specific information about each ship in this article is cited to each ship's entry in DANFS.
  • With that said, making an accusation of plagiarism beating around the bush with hints of (and the implication of) plagiarism in this article is a pretty extreme example of not assuming good faith on your part. If you have specific instances of plagiarism in this article, please list them so they may be corrected. Otherwise, please strike your comment, because it is entirely inappropriate. You and I (and others), have butted heads before over the use of attributed public domain text in Wikipedia. I am aware of your positions on the issue, and believe that they are against the general consensus in the Wikipedia project. Those discussion are best held in appropriate fora, and not here, where we are reviewing the featured status of this article. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC) 12:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(thread edited for clarity - complete thread as of 05:03 26 July 2008 is at the FAR talk page) Franamax (talk) 05:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So the question here seems pretty simple: has the copy-pasted PD text been substantially rewritten to the point that the general reference is no longer required? Note that this extends beyond just the original wording to the original structure of the text. Also note that words such as "battleship" and "campaign" do not qualify as original wording, and simple timeline descriptions do not need attribution to the original PD authors. So what is left? Are there distinctive phrases remaining from the PD source, like "the old lady tiredly went once more forth to battle"? Is there a distinctive structure to the text that was copied from the PD source, telling a story rather than laying out temporal facts? If not, the footnote attributing to DANFS -IMO- should be removed - it has no justification. If those distinctive traces remain, they should be individually identified for purposes of FA review. Franamax (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simply put, the answer to your question is yes, but I believe the cites to DANFS need to remain in. Understand that this article is part of a series, drawing material from each of the other six battleships for the ships section. Right now we could remove the {{DANFS}} template, but not the cites to the individual DANFS ships histories; as that would be in itself a form of plagerism by dening the role that DANFS material had in the building of the ship section. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just suggesting removal of the general DANFS template disclaimer, if there is no longer any use of "incorporated" but unquoted text. I was not suggesting removal of the separate DANFS references that support the facts. doncram (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the {{DANFS}} template from the article. Does this meet your request? TomStar81 (Talk) 05:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. I accept completely that your familiarity with the current text removes any need to perform the kind of automated cross-checking that I was offering to perform, and I am glad of that as it would not really have been very easy to do. doncram (talk) 05:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 2 by doncram

  • The formulas for speed and for capital ship speed in the article are interesting, but lack units. Is it speed in terms of knots per hour, as a function of ship length measured in feet? Depending on the units of measure used, the constant in the formula would be different. I kinda like how succinct the statements are in the article proper, without getting bogged down in what are the units involved, so perhaps the clarification --perhaps with a relevant example on the scale of one of these ships-- should be in the footnotes. doncram (talk) 07:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have looked at the article passage a few times, and believe that the quantity is probably meant to be read as knots, but as it doesn't say that specifically I think it would be premature to put words in someone else's mouth. Davis has sited two reference for the material on speed, and I am trying to track them down. I will get back to you on this as soon as I can. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the following passage convoluted, and wonder if it represents some unfortunate compromise:

"When firing two broadside per minute a single Iowa-class battleship can put 36,000 pounds (16,000 kg) of ordnance on a target per minute, a figure that can only be matched (and in some cases beaten) by a single B-52 Stratofortress of the United States Air Force,[53] which can carry up to 60,000 pounds (27,000 kg) of bombs, missiles, and mines, or any combination thereof." I assume the main point is that the Iowa-class battleship can deliver 36,000 pounds of ordnance in one minute, and in the next minute and the one after, while a B-52 can only do it at that rate for 1.6667 minutes and then it is done. Perhaps something like: "When firing two broadside per minute a single Iowa-class battleship can put 36,000 pounds (16,000 kg) of ordnance on a target per minute, a rate of delivery that can only be beaten for a short time by a single B-52 Stratofortress of the United States Air Force,[53] which can carry at best 60,000 pounds (27,000 kg) of bombs, missiles, or mines."

I'll look into this and much more tommarow, right now its 4:00 am and I am exhausted. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My (admittedly quick) read of the B-52 source seems to find only a payload of 10,000 lbs., not the 60,000 currently quoted. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Specifiactions section, armament subsection, says "Bombs: up to 60,000 lb (27,200 kg) bombs, missiles, and mines, in various configurations", although the cite for that has dissappeared since I last looked. The intro now says 70,000 lbs ordinance, but like the 60,000 lbs quantity this also has no cite. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect there is a trade off between B52 range and bomb carrying capacity. But if I was the USAAF I'd classify that sort of detail. I think the article is fairly typo free, though can I suggest someone double checks the names of the Bismark's Barbettes, esp Ceaser. Also is BBBG correct? BBG would stand for Battleship Battle Group. Also can I suggest a bit more detail on the crew? It mentions 2700 in the 40s and only 1800 in the 80s, What do they all do? Why were 900 fewer needed? What were the conditions they served under and, and is it true that they didn't get alcohol in their rations? Jonathan Cardy (talk) 00:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BBBG is correct, the US uses a dual letter system to ID its vessels (DD for destroyer, BB for battleship, FF for frigate, and so forth), and as luck would have it Battleship Battle Group has its own article here in case you were curious. The rest of your questions are complex enough that I will need more time than I could have here to locate and answer all of them adequately. On the issue of personel, I can give a preliminary answer that there was some modernization work done which reduce some weapons and installed others that were less manpower intensive. Like I said, I can tighten that up for you when I find better info on the material. As to the B-52 comment, it was meant to provide people with an equipment camparison, though if need be it can be removed. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: the B-52 can carry around 54,000 pounds of ordnance. In Vietnam, the B-52 was modified to carry 108 500-lb bombs, so it can at least carry that much. This is not classified info and is publicly available per the START treaties. — BQZip01 — talk 03:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images I can't find Image:Wisconsin museum.JPG at the original source, presumably it's been removed in a web-site redesign. Can we be sure that it was taken by a US sailor? DrKiernan (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can. A handy trick to recalling such information is to go through the internet archive, which saves a particular version of the web page(s) from a specific time period. According to the upload log, the image first appeared here in september 2005, by going through the internet archive I found the original page, and as you can see in the image section the site reports that all images are credited to the U.S. Navy, and thus, are PD-USGov. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do people feel about this one? Much left to do? Marskell (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the quotes are formatted correctly (someone pls check WP:MOS), image captions aren't punctuated correctly (see WP:MOS#Captions, full sentences have periods, sentence fragments do not), and portals belong in See also per WP:LAYOUT, so it's always confusing to figure out what to do with them when there is no See also. I prefer to see them moved up, to the top of References, but that's personal preference. I also see some errors in logical punctuation; User:Epbr123 is good at these sorts of fixes, if someone wants to ping his talk. If Bellhalla is satisfied, so am I, after these minor fixes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with the quotes came up earlier, and I made a point of asking the MoS people directly what they thought about the use of the quotes in the article here's a link. The ruling on the field was that the quotes were good and did not need to be changed, but that was with the respect to word limitations at the time. I'd be open to more input on the point if anyone would like to weigh in on there use in the article. I will look into adressing the rest of the issue you brought ASAP.
I have removed the portal reference to military of the United States since our milhist templates links directly link to the portals in which the articles appear, this having been done explicitly to reduce the appearences of the "x portal" templates in the article namespace. That leaves the commons template, but the fact that commons is a seperate site I tend to group it in with the external links (though I would be open to moving it if others agree to do so as well). I have also tweaked the image captions to comply with the MoS, though I am not sure I got everything correct.
To Marskell: the key issue here was questionable source (FA criterion 1c), but I have made a move to locate and eliminate all the external links that were judged by the community to be iffy. The rest of the material (excluding relevent MoS issues which can and will be adressed as fast as I can [leigably?] type) should be more or less a large pool of suggested improvements as oer a peer review, therefore we ought to be able to list those on the article talk page and invite editers to look into implementing the suggestd improvements as time permits. Thats my opinion anyway, but its your call, so I defer to your judgement on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Sandt's suggestion I have left a note on Epbr123's talk page, but I do not know when he will get a chance to look at the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Epbr got to it today. I think this is good to go and that article talk can indeed accomodate future changes. Marskell (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2008 (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 kept by User:Marskell 16:57, 18 August 2008 [7].

William III of England edit

previous FAR
Main editors aware of the FAR
WikiProjects England‎, Royalty‎, and Netherlands‎ are notified on July 31
WikiProjects Calvinism, Military history, and LGBT studies are notified on August 4

The article fails featured article criterion #1c.

It needs reliable source references for the information in the following sections:

Also, the following (sub)sections need additional source references:

Best regards, Ilse@ 19:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This article just had an FAR in April. Since then, people have added more citations. I don't see why we should repeat this exercise when the FA standards haven't changed and the article has only improved. Coemgenus 19:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe this article does not meet the FA criteria and should be improved, regardless of whether it was reviewed earlier. – Ilse@ 20:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the Legacy section are additional references required? Clearing the single [citation needed] marker in the "Marriage" section should be relatively easy, either by adding one or removing the sentence. The other three sections are largely irrelevant trivia. Besides, the "popular culture" section can be verified simply by watching the films, or reading the books. DrKiernan (talk) 07:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several citations have already been added by User:Coemgenus after this review was started. Currently there are two more facts that need a source reference in the Legacy section. If it is simple to find source references for the facts in the Popular culture section, these references could easily be provided in this article. After going through the article again, I have added a few more "citation needed" markers. – Ilse@ 10:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The FA criteria do not demand that every sentence be followed by a citation. I have written several FAs that are more sparsely cited than this article now is. Coemgenus 10:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified User:Necrothesp, who wrote the popular culture section, of the review. But he's on holiday, so may not respond swiftly. DrKiernan (talk) 10:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying this user. – Ilse@ 18:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image problems:

The image of Johan de Witt can be replaced by another portrait from commons:Category:Johan de Witt. – Ilse@ 21:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to close This is getting perilously close to the end of the review section, and I'd like to forestall this moving to FARC. I've removed the images lacking information, which leaves the citations in the popular culture section the only remaining issue. As I said before, I think that the films and books act as their own sources, so I do not feel that citations are required for that section. DrKiernan (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dr. K's assessment. --Coemgenus 14:31, 18 August 2008 (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 kept by User:Joelr31 22:44, 10 August 2008 [8].

Ahmedabad edit

Review commentary edit

User:Aksi great, WP:WikiProject Cities, WP:WikiProject India, and WP:WikiProject Gujarat have been notified.------Kensplanet (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

*Since 2000, the city has been transformed through the construction of skyscrapers, shopping malls and multiplexes.[3][dead link]
Dead link in the Main Lead.

  • A newly conceived Gujarat International Finance Tec-City (GIFT) is going to pop up near NH-8 by year 2010
    This sentence doesn't deseve the Lead in the first place. No mention of how it is related to the city. Red links. No reference. It violates 1(c).

Thus, the lead criterion 2(a) is violated.

This has been removed now. --gppande «talk» 16:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraphs after Paragraphs are uncited. An Entire paragraph without even a single citation surely violates 1(c).

The Gujarat High Court in Ahmedabad appears in the Geography and Climate section. Irrelevant. It violates criterion 3.

There are sentences like Arvind Mills, located in Ahmedabad, is one of the largest textile mills in the country. without a reference. Ofcourse, the list is not exhaustive.

The Image Retail is a big portion of the commercial economy in no way represents economy of the city.

Too. many images of Rivers..River Sabarmati should be enough but editors have included Vastrapur Lake too..

Please have a glance at the quality of these sentences........

  • Media

Ahmedabad has a number of newspaper publications. English-language dailies published and sold in the city include, The Times of India, Ahmedabad Mirror, Indian Express, DNA, Economic Times(in Gujarati & English language, Indian Express, Financial Express, Divya Bhaskar, Gujarat Samachar, Sandesh, Rajasthan Patrika, Sambhav,Metro(noon newspaper)& many more.

The city has seven local FM stations at Radio Mirchi (98.3 MHz), Radio City (91.1 MHz), My fm (94.3 MHz), Radio One (95.0 MHz), Gyan Vaani (104.5 MHz), All India Radio (96.7 MHz),S FM (93.51 MHz).

Clearly violates criterion 1(a) -- well written.

An unofficial review suggestion was given by Amartyabag on the article's talk page Talk:Ahmedabad#This article need an unofficial FAR. But there has been no improvement still. So that calls for an official review.

I think the Article can easily retain its FA status once these issues are addresses.--->>Kensplanet (talk) 12:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the points mentioned by you are mostly quite objective and can be done. It is much easier to remove unnecessary lists of media or sentences contributed by newbie/ip address. Few days back I had noted one sentence in demographics for citation needed. Apart from that I do not feel the citations are missing for many paragraphs. Please point which sections are missing citations as per you. Also I do not see many river images in the article. --gppande «talk» 13:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced all the refs from these cites with credible news sources like timesofindia, indian express, etc. --gppande «talk» 10:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reference page is working good. I opened it now. --gppande «talk» 10:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? I am still getting a 404 error----Kensplanet (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure whats the difference between the two. But the link in reference section of article works. I noticed the link copied here (on this page) does not work. click this - http://temple-news.com/2000/10/19/professor-sees-philadelphia-in-an-indian-city/ --gppande «talk» 20:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced ref and data with http://www.udd.gujarat.gov.in/Default_files/UrbanScenario.htm to make it more reliable. --gppande «talk» 16:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced ref with http://gujarat-education.gov.in/Literacy/aboutus.htm --gppande «talk» 21:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Transport, I think these sentences require a reference----(Ahmedabad is one of the six operating divisions of the Western Railway.), (It would be very good if some more refs are provided in the first para).
done --gppande «talk» 12:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Media section requires a thorough Copyedit. (The city is home to the historic Navajivan Publishing House — founded in 1919 by Mahatma Gandhi — which is one of India's premier publications company.)....This sentence requires a ref
Done by User:Dwaipayanc. Thanks! --gppande «talk» 16:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check the External links.....What does the Link4 mean?What is Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority. It should be Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority
Done

Please see the instructions at WP:FAR; decisions to move articles to FARC are made by FAR delegates Marskell and Joelr31. This article is still in the review phase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and images (3), Kensplanet (talk) 07:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. More than 2 weeks are over. Still no significant improvement. Only minor improvements.

  • 1 (c)
  • Arvind Mills, located in Ahmedabad, is one of the largest textile mills in the country.
Removed. --gppande «talk» 15:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prestigious Gujarat Vidyapith was established in 1920 by Mahatma Gandhi; it was among the first institutions of higher learning managed entirely by Indians, despite British control.
Formatted + referenced. --gppande «talk» 15:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some titles and publishers of the references are entirely in Capitals. This shouldn't be there in a FA.
I corrected the 2 refs to lower cases which I myself had added. I didn't knew this rule. Thanks for pointing. --gppande «talk» 19:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed --gppande «talk» 15:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3

*The Gujarat High Court in Ahmedabad appears in the Geography and Climate section. Irrelevant. It violates criterion 3.

  • The Image Retail is a big portion of the commercial economy in no way represents economy of the city. It is just a picture of a Mall.
All points addressed. --gppande «talk» 15:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peacock terms

*The prestigious Gujarat Vidyapith was established in 1920 by Mahatma Gandhi; it was among the first institutions of higher learning managed entirely by Indians, despite British control.

  • Prestigious institutions such as the Indian Institute of Management, the National Institute of Design, the Mudra Institute of Communications, the National Institute of Fashion Technology, the Entrepreneurship Development Institute of India, and the Center for Environmental Planning and Technology are located in Ahmedabad.
  • Who decides whether they are prestigious.
All points addressed. --gppande «talk» 15:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kensplanet (talk • contribs)

Please review the instructions at WP:FAR; decisions to move an article from FAR to FARC are made by Joelr31 and Marksell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and prose (1a). Marskell (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. All the issues haven't been resolved. The Site also uses data from unreliable sites. A lot of data which need to be cited is uncited. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 13:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RESOLVED ISSUES
What makes the following Sources reliable:

World Gazetter has been used for showing the UA data in most of the FAs like Mumbai & India. I agree, WikiProject India says Census data is only valid but for UA data World Gazetter has been traditionally used across WP. As you can see census data is already present in Demographics section which tells the population of Ahmedabad city itself and not UA. --gppande «talk» 17:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, the current revisions of Mumbai and India may not be featured revisions. World Gazetter references have been added recently. If they have a FAR currently, those sites may vanish. So please do not compare your article with other FA articles. What makes you think that World Gazetter is a reliable source. Perhaps you can find a nespaper article mentioning World Gazetter is noteworthy or an University/reputed organization such as Census of India recommending World Gazetter for population statistics. Only then can World Gazetter be considered as a reliable source. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 14:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you seemed to support WG on Manglore FAC which showed me this link but hold an opposite view for this FAR. Anyways, I have replaced World Gazetter now with census of India. Hope this is sufficient. --gppande «talk» 15:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do support World Gazetter. But, I also do beleive that the Census of India is much more reliable than the World Gazetter can ever be. The problem with this article was population figures in the main Infobox were mentioned from the World Gazetter, which I have objected right from the beginning. How can World Gazetter be more reliable than Census data. You can mention World Gazetter details maybe in the Demographics section. But anyway, I am trying hard to prove that World Gazetter is a reliable source. Maybe, you can help me in proving that it is reliable in the Mangalore FAC. Once proved, we can freely use it for all city articles. In any case, preference of World Gazetter over Census of India may be difficult to prove. Although not impossible. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 15:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sad to know that Mangalore FAC is really related to this FAR. This should not be the motive in my opinion. If one FAC doesn't go through we should not pull down another FA. Anyways, I am not concerned and will continue to do improvement here in good faith. -- preceding text reposted as it was deleted by reviewer Coming to the point, since WG is no more referenced in Ahmedabad please strike out this point. --gppande «talk» 16:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Although there is no such rule/guideline that reputable newspapers cannot be source for nicknames, I have replaced the citation with a citation from a book. Please have a look.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not convinced. I don't say Newspapers and books are unreliable for such data, but they are marginally reliable. If Ahmedabad is the Manchester of the East indeed, then why are you finding it difficult to give me a reference from the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. Nicknames have official recognition and are usually mentioned in the respective corporation websites. Bangalore is called the Silicon Valley of India. Is it true? Yes it is, since it is mentioned in http://www.bmponline.org/ . (The Corporation website of Bangalore). There's no way I can question this nickname. Websites can be used as secondary references but primary sources have to be such references. (http://www.hindu.com/2005/04/04/stories/2005040410830300.htm) [a reputed newspaper] says Mangalore is Rome of the east. But we cannot rely such data because it has no official backing. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 14:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You say, "I don't say Newspapers and books are unreliable for such data, but they are marginally reliable." I tell this sentence of you is Original Research. A reputable newspaper like The Hindu is reliable, and so is a book on recent history of Gujarat published by a well-known publisher. Two good sources, I feel are enough.
Regarding Rome of East, yes Hindu says it, so does the book "An Indian to the Indians?: On the Initial Failure and the Posthumous Success of ..." by Reinhard Wendt (ISBN 3447051612), page 131. So, I dont have any problem in believing that.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the best possible ref (online) to back Manchester of the East. What could me more reliable than CDP of Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission. Now strike this out. --gppande «talk» 21:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even 1000 books and websites cannot match the municipal corporations website. Although I have striked this issue currently. I'll consult experienced editors for this. I think you are right. But if you are not, then this issue will reappear again. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 11:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, the CDP is present on the homepage of AMC website. --gppande «talk» 13:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was the reference I was waiting for. An official PDF from the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. There's no way I can question this. Ahmedabad is/was indeed the Manchester of the East. Well Done!!!! KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 13:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*REF4 (http://www.egovamc.com/A_City/ahmedabad/history.asp)

    • It doesn't mention any of its sources from which book or references it has taken data from.
Website egovamc is maintained by Ahmedabad municipal corporation. --gppande «talk» 15:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the Site is 100% reliable. But surely the Site has not conducted any research on the history and taken data from reputed books and other sources. Without mention of these sources in the History, the Source is marginally reliable. You have to ground the history from books and other such sources and not copy huge sections of data from (http://www.egovamc.com/A_City/ahmedabad/history.asp), which may also give rise to copyright infringement issues. Only original research from Govt. websites can be blindly mentioned. This includes Population, Demographics, etc... for which the Corporation has conducted research. But for History, it has not conducted any research. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 16:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be as an opinion rather than an argument. Websites maintained by government of India or various state/civic governments have to be relied on. In case any concerns about the government website data we can always check back asking clarification under the RTI act of Indian government. Also the information is not copied but simply referred under one reference and organized as WP standards. --gppande «talk» 19:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Although the argument seems quite lame, I have replaced the citation with a book citation. Indeed this citation can be used to support more historical sentences.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to have a glance at the book Online. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 14:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think a walk to your nearby library which has this IBSN number book would convince you. We are reviewing the WP article here not the source of source. Anyways, Dwaipayanc if you have it online let the reviewer know. --gppande «talk» 16:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided the page number, ISBN, book name, you are at your liberty to find an online version/offline version of the book. --Dwaipayan (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check the source. This will take time. Better if you help me provide URLs to your reference. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 11:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed this citation on few place. 2 are left and I will do it tomorrow. Now time to go to bed. --gppande «talk» 21:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Temple News ref has been removed from the article now and has been replaced with other legitimate refs. --gppande «talk» 18:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the tourism website is not any other tourism website but again of Ministry of Tourism (India) as can be seen from here. Also GSI does not put the data or research on websites and is rarely used on WP. --gppande «talk» 19:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Yet again, a tourism site by the Government of India, why cannot this be reliable!!! Anyway, have replaced this by citation from 1984 Gujarat State Gazetteer.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I have a glance at the 1984 Gujarat State Gazetteer please. Is it available online on the Net. Or do you have a copy of Gujarat State Gazetteer. Or is it available on Google Books. Full, Limited preview will do. Or anywhere else. Or if you have taken data from Snippets of Google Books, then you can post the URL of images here. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 14:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you can have a glance. I have provided adequate info so that you can find it out. There is one search engine called Google that you can use, better still Google Book.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I meant that you provide me the reference. Since you are not interested, I'll have to do it myself. This is going to take some time. If you want this issue to be striked immediately, its better you provide me the online reference here. Only after I check it, will this issue get striked bt me. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 11:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cricinfo has been used extensively on other FAs like Harbhajan Singh. Info taken from this site is trivial in case of Ahemdabad. Website is one of the most visited for cricket related news/info. --gppande «talk» 15:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have rephrased and made the ref to point to AIR. --gppande «talk» 15:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crucial population details in the Lead and Infobox are taken from World Gazeteer rather than Census of India. Census of India is 100 times more reliable than World Gazeteer.
  • The stadium has frequently served as venue for matches during major tournaments such as the 1987 Cricket World Cup, the 1996 Cricket World Cup and the 2006 ICC Champions Trophy
Formatted. --gppande «talk» 15:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since, I have booked these sentences under 1(c). Rather than formatting, it needs reference. I don't beleive it has hosted 1987 Cricket World Cup, the 1996 Cricket World Cup and the 2006 ICC Champions Trophy. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 13:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Infact, 1996 World cup match did happen in the ground. Sentence referenced and others removed. --gppande «talk» 19:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strike out please --gppande «talk» 21:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This point has already been addressed. The website is fully trust worthy as it is Government of India website + Book source clarifies it all. Strike out. --gppande «talk» 13:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref20 doesn't have Archived from original, while Ref24 and Ref11 have it.
Can you elaborate on this point. I am not getting it. --gppande «talk» 16:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even the Refs are not up to the FA mark. For example, the publisher of REF36 is www.wr.indianrail.gov.in. Instead it should be Western railways. Ofcourse, this is not exhaustive. This appears in many references.
I am not sure whats the difference? The site is about western railways only. Can you explain more?
Yes, Check REF38.
"Organisation", www.wr.indianrail.gov.in. Retrieved on 2008-07-04.
It should be ("Organisation", Western Railways. Retrieved on 2008-07-04.)
The domain is already mentioned in the URL. So rementioning domain is redundancy. It doesn't look neat atleast for a FA. The publisher (www.wr.indianrail.gov.in. ) should be replaced by (Western Railways). This should be done for all the references. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 13:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, this was a big task and took some time for me get it right for all. I checked all refs and corrected them. If still anyone strikes then let me know and I will fix it. --gppande «talk» 20:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am convinced with the corrections. However keep checking and improving. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 14:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref19 is not in proper format. Title in Capitals. Publisher surely can be better than mospi.gov.in.
I don't think there can be any better source for census data(past & present) than mospi.gov.in. The site is Indian central government website with data for all major metros of India and shows past and present population in a very good tabular format. Infact, this information added by me, has been similarly added on other major metro articles of India like Kolkatta#Demographics, Kochi#Demographics, etc... --gppande «talk» 12:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The source is 100% Reliable. I meant instead of just putting mospi.gov.in., why don't you put Government Of India: Ministry Of Statistics And Programme Implementation---Kensplanet (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
For the two points immediately above used 1 ref only. Problem with ET and ToI is they keep moving articles to the new sister projects they make. I have changed the link to http://infotech.indiatimes.com/articleshow/19249001.cms --gppande «talk» 14:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a problem with REF24 (http://www.taindia.com/history.htm)
    It doesn't back this sentence In the 19th century, the textile and garments industry developed and thrived in the city — on 30 May 1861 Ranchhodlal Chhotalal founded the first Indian textile mill, the Ahmedabad Spinning and Weaving Company Limited. completely.
    I just found one sentence relevant (Sjt. Ranchhodlal Chhotalal broke the ice by starting the first spinning mill in Shahpur (1861).)
    Problems are it doesn't clarify whether the Ahmedabad Spinning and Weaving Company Limited was the first Indian textile mill.     KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 11:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As per your wish, one more ref added. --gppande «talk» 13:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will work. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 13:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 16 shows that there are 43 wards. Ref 17 has Of the 129 seats. Do the maths. --gppande «talk» 16:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When did I mention anything about Ref 16 shows that there are 43 wards. Ref 17 has Of the 129 seats. I just said that REF17 doesn't back this sentence Three corporators are elected from each ward, who in turn elect a mayor in Civic administration. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 17:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the mayor is not self proclaimed nor appointed but elected amongst the civic body members. Anyways, one more ref added...please keep striking out things. --gppande «talk» 18:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify how do REF20 and REF21 back the sentence (Three corporators are elected from each ward, who in turn elect a mayor) in Civic administration. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 11:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completely, rewrote. Check now. --gppande «talk» 16:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, impressed with CITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AHMEDABAD 2006-2012 PDF provided. To help the reader, you must also mention the Page No. You can't expect the reader to search the entire PDF. Thats at page 130. But REF24 and REF25 do not support any claims there. I suggest you to remove them. The PDF is more than enough. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 13:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The link http://www.rediff.com/money/2007/dec/11spec.htm works perfectly. --gppande «talk» 13:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The city is home to a major population of Parsis and a community of 300 Bene Israel Jews living in Ahmedabad. - REF41 (http://www.jcpa.org/jl/jl101.htm) doesn't seem to support the unstriked claim. I haven't heard Ahmedabad is home to a major population of Parsis. I thought only Bombay s home to a major population of Parsis. Thus, again citation is required.
Well, you must have heard that Parsis first came to Gujarat in India and later moved to Mumbai. Their language is somewhat related to Gujarati for the same reason. Anyways, Done. --gppande «talk» 16:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Ahmedabad enjoys great religious diversity. seems quite peacock.
Removed.--gppande «talk» 10:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The military base near the city, and government institutions such as ONGC, bring an influx of people from across India. - Citation required here.
Done.
  • Ahmedabad also has a second cricket stadium at the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation's Sports Club of Gujarat, which, as the home ground of the Gujarat cricket team is the venue for domestic tournaments such as the Ranji Trophy, the Duleep Trophy and many inter-school and collegiate tournaments.
(http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/india/content/ground/57852.html) no way backs these facts. Please add better sources. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 14:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check now. For the ref of Gujarat cricket team you would have to check that article. No of cite saying teams plays in Ranji trophy as per WP standards. --gppande «talk» 16:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be so difficult to include those articles as REFS in the Ahmedabad article. You can't expect the reader to do that. Either include all those articles or remove the claims.KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 11:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now read this Wikipedia:Citing_sources#When_to_cite_sources. There is no need to cite the lines about stuff which have their own articles. These citations can go in the child article if the link is provided on parent article. Otherwise the parent article like Ahmedabad will be overloaded with citations. I learnt this from Nichalp :-) --gppande «talk» 15:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps overloading would occur only when there are excess of citations. Currently, the article is lacking citations. So, I recommend citations. It shouldn't be so difficult. Just provide 2 citations, one providing coverage of the Ranjith Trophy tournament at that stadium. Other providing coverage of the Duleep Trophy tournament at that stadium. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 17:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe my mention of word "overload" took you to this message. But it is not a question of overload or lack of citations. It is a policy. But I still think the cricket section is clean. Duleep trophy mention has been removed. Gujarat team exists as per citation's on it's page and 2nd ground is home ground of team is cited using ref. So there should be no problem. Strike this out. --gppande «talk» 09:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Ahmedabad has a second cricket stadium at the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation's Sports Club of Gujarat, which, as the home ground of the Gujarat cricket team is the venue for domestic tournaments such as the Ranji Trophy, the Duleep Trophy and many inter-school and collegiate tournaments
Formatted. Sports section now is clean. --gppande «talk» 15:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It needs References rather than formatting since I don't beleive any of the mentioned data. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 13:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please check. All sentences have been referenced and data without references has been removed. --gppande «talk» 19:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strike out please --gppande «talk» 21:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, cannot strike as per below. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 11:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gujarat cricket team is home to the ground as can been seen from Cricinfo. Other things removed. --gppande «talk» 18:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well it does say that but the REF doesn't say that it has hosted Ranjith troph, duleep trophy. inter-school and collegiate tournaments is fine. Perhaps providing REFS of the evnts or matches of the ranjith, duleeep will help or remove the Ranjith troph, duleep trophy thing. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 13:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Sports section, these sentences should be cited....(The stadium has frequently served as venue for matches during major tournaments such as the 1987 Cricket World Cup, the 1996 Cricket World Cup and the 2006 ICC Champions Trophy.).........(Ahmedabad has a second cricket stadium at the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation's Sports Club of Gujarat, which, as the home ground of the Gujarat cricket team is the venue for domestic tournaments such as the Ranji Trophy, the Duleep Trophy and many inter-school and collegiate tournaments.)----KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions
This has now been addressed in the second phase points below. --gppande «talk» 19:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has been already addressed. --gppande «talk» 19:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Sports section is not at all comprehensive after the corrections. It doesn't satisfy criterion 1(b). Please include the following details.
    Football details
    Chess details
    Golf courses in Ahmedabad
    Car race courses etc...
    Since Ahmedabad is a major city of India having a population of around 4 million, finding these details shouldn't be so difficult. Most of the sentences like Other sports gaining popularity are field hockey, badminton, tennis, and squash. There has been a significant increase in recent years in the number of private sports clubs, gymkhanas, gymnasia and sports teams sponsored by corporations, private associations, schools and colleges. Young people congregate in the evenings to play cricket and football at numerous public and neighbourhood grounds. are all personal opinions. I don't say they are not true. But they are not unique to the city and hence are not much of value. Please add more valuable details which I have mentioned above to satisfy current FA criteria.     KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 18:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Information about ICL team, skating, Table tennis, karting, golf course, shooting, sports facilities and clubs added. Info about chess is already present in the article. --gppande «talk» 12:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


UNRESOLVED ISSUES

  • Keep All points from phase I & II objections have been addressed. Phase III objections have been dealt with swiftly. Also Dwaipayanc has added citations from books and addressed concerns. If anything is left please highlight as there are too many repeatition of points in various phases and there are chances I may have missed any. It was nice review on part of Kensplanet which helped an existing FA to get clean. --gppande «talk» 13:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All points haven't been addressed. I'll strike them if they have been addressed. Please have a glance. For example, Temple News Issue. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 13:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE: Please keep on adding references to text which can be challenged. Do not wait for me to pick up sentences. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 14:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENTS

  • Comment. What is the rationale in using Lakh as a unit in the article? It is very peculiar and confusing to most readers and I don't know what does it add to the article. Eklipse (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lakh, which is an unit in Indian numbering system, is used in Indian subcontinent related articles, alongside million and billions. This usage is recommended in Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities. That's why this unit is used, besides million.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added another ref for seismic zone and removed cyclone info. --gppande «talk» 13:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sentences not cited by their corresponding References (in Demographics)
  1. There are 886 females to every 1000 males.
Done.
Not Done until you prove that it is for the city and not for the district. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 08:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. --gppande «talk» 14:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Ahmedabad has a literacy rate of 79.89%, which is the highest in Gujarat; 87.81% males and 71.12% females are literate. (unstriked claim is not cited)
  2. Since its founding, the city has attracted migrant workers from other areas of Gujarat, including Kutch and Saurashtra, and from the neighbouring states of Rajasthan and Maharashtra as well as the Pakistani province of Sindh. (Well, we think migration is easily possible between two states. Hence, citation is not necessary. But when it comes to foreign countries, the data needs to be cited.
  3. According to the 2001 census, 84.62% of the people in Ahmedabad are Hindu, 11.4% Muslim, 2.92% Jain,and 0.72% Christian. How is this sentence possible when http://www.censusindiamaps.net/page/Religion_WhizMap1/housemap.htm only has details of districts, states and not of cities. Can you clarify from where have you taken the data from.
Sure, Select Ahmadabad and religion on left on the page and click the district in blue on map. A pop up will come up which will then show data for rural, urban and total. Select Urban data.

--gppande «talk» 16:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just some clarifications required. This article is about Ahmedabad city and not Ahmedabad district. The stats give details about the district and not the city alone. The urban data may provide details of Ahmedabad city along with some other urban centres in the district. The stats say that the urban Population is 4663533 which may be the stats of the district. Perhaps we must concentrate only on the city and not the district. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 17:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. --gppande «talk» 14:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Slightly less than half of all real estate in Ahmedabad is owned by "community organizations" (i.e. cooperatives), and "the spatial growth of the city is to the extent contribution of these organizations. - I think this sentence should be under economy.
  • Since Ahmedabad is a major city of India, the demographics must have these details for comprehensibility purposes and to satisfy current FA standards:

Crime statistics
Migrant statistics (in numbers and not in words)
Population density
ethnic breakup (again in numbers and not in words)

Crime info added. Population density is already present in infobox. I feel demographic section is quiet elaborate now and meets FA standards. So this whole point is done. --gppande «talk» 14:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note in the Ahmedabad population template in Demographics, The source is not the cCensus of India. The source is T.C.P.O., Ministry of Urban Affairs & Employment according to the site.

KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 11:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find all fine. --gppande «talk» 14:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no context to the ref. In what way do you then find it fine?KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 10:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do not know about all the other references. However, since I added this particular reference, I know well about this ref. I have provided the page number, and the book is available online in its entirety(in PDF as well). Please go to page 58 and 59, and read what it says. It says explicitely what happened during the famine in Ahmedabad. Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I downloaded the pdf and it checks out. I added a bit more detail and page numbers to the ref. [9] --maclean 17:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 08:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find all fine. --gppande «talk» 14:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel Kensplanet is making one wrong idea here. The book references that are given are not necessarily available online. The hyperlink of most book references is a hyperlink for the title, not the page. If you wish, we can remove that title hyperlink. You have to go the particular page mentioned to see the reference. That you can do either by physically going into the book, or, if the book/that particular page is available online, see that. In case of "(1879) Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency IV: Ahmedabad. Government Central Press", it is availabe online, so you can go the page mentioned to check. But in case of "Prakash, Om (2003). Encyclopaedic History of Indian Freedom Movement. Anmol Publications Pvt Ltd, 282–284. ISBN 8126109386.", the book is not available online. That does not mean you can question the reference!!!
Regarding your search on the famine in the Gazzetteer book, you did not even need to search! Go the page mentioned, and you will see it :) Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

  • Keep. Similar quality as other city FAs. As Kensplanet points out additional info can be added here and there, but that is true with all such broad article topics. As stated in the criteria, I believe "it neglects no major facts or details". --maclean 19:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well there are many issues which need to be resolved before you support it. Forget, the additional info, the article has many referencing problems. Here are some more. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 07:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please continue to list concerns. As Gppande is active in responding I trust we will be able to save this. --maclean 17:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I support Maclean25. Almost all objections are addressed in this one of the most lengthiest FAR. --gppande «talk» 14:36, 10 August 2008 (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 kept by User:Marskell 13:21, 7 August 2008 [10].

1896 Summer Olympics edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: WP:OLY, WP:GREECE, User:Jonel, User:Jeronimo, User:Andrwsc, User:Nipsonanomhmata

This article, promoted more than three years ago, now fails a few criterion in my view:

  • 1a: The writing isn't bad but needs improvements. I count at least five one-sentence paragraphs, including the second paragraph of the lead. The prose could use a fresh copy-edit.
  • 1c: This is the big one. There are only seven citations in the article, and many sections are uncited. Statistics should always be referenced, and as a sports article this is full of them. There are also several uncited quotes. The referencing is just not up to current standards. Hopefully someone will have the listed reference books and cite statements with them; unfortunately I don't.
  • 1d: A few scattered concerns. For example, Fencing describes competitors as "masters".
  • 3: The infobox image's tag states "If the work is not a U.S. work, the file must have an additional copyright tag indicating the copyright status in the source country." No such tag is present. Other pictures may be missing information, but I am not a photo expert, so I'll let others comment on them.

Overall, although I hope it stays featured, it will need quite a bit of work to do so. Giants2008 (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications request Please complete the nomination by following the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to notify significant contributors and relevant WikiProjects, and post the notifications back to the top of this FAR. Thank you. --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 20:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Giants2008 (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't gone through the article yet, but I do just want to note that "master" is somewhat of a term of art in fencing, and refers in this context to those who teach fencing for payment. This makes them professionals rather than amateurs, which in all of the other sports would have disqualified them from Olympic competition. In 1896 and 1900, separate events were held for masters and amateurs. It is a technical term; does this need to be clarified? As for citations, much of the information does come from the Lampros report, which is available online for any helpful people who have some time to go through it to find the specific references. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 21:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fencing was the only event professionals were allowed to participate in.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should also mention that the existing references are poorly formatted, and a couple are of questionable reliability. Giants2008 (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll work a bit on the article, but I cannot promise that I'll be done within the time limits.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), referencing (1c), POV (1d), and images (3). Marskell (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As you can see, I've initiated some improvements, but I still have to go through some sub-sections of the "Sport by sport overview" section.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have to say Remove at this stage. It needs a thorough prose-massage and MOS check. TONY (talk) 11:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree the prose needs some "masaging", but I think that with a nice copy-editing the article is ok. After all it is not such a long article! So, I address an open invitation for a copy-editing to help this article keep its star. I can improve everything else but prose is my weakness! As far as MoS is concerned, I do not see any major issues.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copy-edited by Casliber.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am reviewing the entire article section by section. I am making edits where I feel they are necessary only for prose not content. H1nkles (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anyone is working on this, there are still issues. WP:MOS#Images (layout) need attention, there are WP:ACCESSIBILITY issues with the use of color in charts. Some WP:MOSNUM issues, and some citation work needed still. Missing accessdates, missing NBSPs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worked a bit with nbsps and ndashes. Missing accessdates? I do not think so. I am not good in charts; I thus do not intend to intervene there.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were a few references without accessdates, which I fixed myself. Do Google Books links need accessdates? If so, I can add them where needed. I believe I caught the number issues as well. The article has improved since I nominated it, but I'm not sure if this matches the quality of new featured articles. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think Books need accessdates. But Sandy knows better these issues. What exactly do you think that it is not up to FA standards?--Yannismarou (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a review similar to the kind I do at FAC
  • Images should not be left-aligned directly below second-level headings. I'm not sure how the links to event articles factor into this.
  • "Panathinaiko Stadium, the first big stadium in the modern world, overflowed with the largest crowd ever to watch a sporting event." The largest crowd part is not mentioned later. Also, consider placing "at the time" after this to avoid confusion.
  • I do not know; mentioning it again in the main text looked to me a bit repetitive. After all it is cited, and the main text treats again the crowd of spectators in the opening ceremony. About at the time, do you mean editing:"overflowed with the largest crowd ever to watch a sporting event at the time."?
  • That's exactly what I mean. There have obviously been larger crowds at sporting events since then. Giants2008 (17-14) 15:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviving the Games: "French pedagouge and historian Pierre de Coubertin's idea was to revive the ancient Greek Olympics, but in the form of an international multi-sport event." Picky, but since the idea hasn't been mentioned, this should probably be "French pedagouge had historian Pierre de Coubertin had an idea to revive the ancient Greek Olympics, but in the form of an international multi-sport event."
  • See my new edits. I hope they are towards the right direction.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the "but" in the previous item makes sense, how about a brief mention that the Ancient Games were an all-Greek thing?
  • Delink Paris and London. I also noticed country links in the event reports, including France and the United States. These can go too.
  • Done. And I went through all the wikilinks to choose the most appropriate, and avoid repetitions (althoug wikilinking can never be perfect).--Yannismarou (talk) 10:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Concerned that a six-year waiting period might lessen the public interest." I think "the" can be removed.
  • De Coubertin doesn't need his first name used again.
  • Organization: "by the Greek public, media, and the royal family." Second word of this should be the only the required.
  • Events: Football and cricket were linked earlier.
  • Rowing and yachting was scheduled" Grammar. Change it to "were scheduled".
I did some work myself a while back and am happy with how this is coming along. Obviously I didn't catch everything, and I don't like to make edits to FACs or FARs if the changes could be disputed. You've gotten a lot of help for this and it's starting to show. Please keep at it. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving here from my talk page H1nkles' relevant remarks:

  • "I am working on editing the copy of the article and I had some questions, under the section entitled "Orangization" you talk about a statue being unveiled to honor the contributions of George Averoff. You say this statue was unveiled on April 5 but you don't indicate what year. Do you know the year? 1895 or 1896?:
  • "Also you describe the stadium as having a straight running track of 232 meters.... Is this the pre or post-renovation description? This part is a little ambiguous and you may want to consider removing unless we can find a full description of the renovations that Averoff commissioned for the stadium. There are brief descriptions under the Wikipedia articles for Averoff and Panathinaiko Stadium but it isn't enough to fully explore the topic." H1nkles (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. I will reinstate the phrase only if I am capable of citing it (which seems to me difficult).--Yannismarou (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I looked for more information on the renovations of the stadium, but it is very difficult to find anything of substance. The stadium was the center piece of the Games and I think a section on the unique qualities of the stadium would only enhance and support this article. I'll continue to research. H1nkles (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under "Athletics" subheading Spyridon Louis is listed as a 'water-carrier'. Was this is profession? I thought he was a shepherd. The Spyridon Louis article also says he was a water carrier, but several sites list him as a shepherd: [11], [12]. Does someone know more than me on this subject? Am I missing something? H1nkles (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very interesting and accurate remark. Well, all the official sites present him as shepherd. But a series of Greek sites (most of them newspapers articles) present him as a water carrier (νερουλάς)! My feeling says that my compatriots know something more, but the official sites are official sites, and per WP:Reliable sources we should follow them!--Yannismarou (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have gone through the article word by word looking for improvements. I've made several edits and would appreciate it if a more experienced editor would review the article as it currently stands, and give input on further areas where polish is needed. Thanks H1nkles (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you too. After much copy-editing, the article is close, but let's see what other problems I can find. Picking up from where I left off...

  • Athletics: "winning with times of 12.0 and 54.2 seconds and with relative ease." The prose can be improved, and I'm not sure if the last part is POV (with relative ease). It would probably be better to state how much he won by.
  • Cycling: "In the track events, the best cyclist was Frenchman Paul Masson, winning the..." Don't think "winning" works well here. "Who won" would be correct, I believe.
  • Fencing: "These professionals were considered gentlemen athletes, just as the amateurs." "Just as the amateurs" can be improved. Maybe "like the amateurs", but I'm not sure if that's encyclopedic.
  • Gymnastics: Typo in the stadium name.
  • Shooting: "the shooting competition was comprised of" Try "the shooting competition consisted of".
  • "The second event, for military pistols, was dominated by" People here are sensitive to terms like "dominated", although it's not the most blatant POV I've ever seen. I'd like to see it stated that John Paine won the event, if only to help the end of the paragraph (relatives both winning Olympic events).
  • "The Paine brothers did not compete in the 25 meter pistol event, as their weapons were judged to be not of the required caliber." Last part of this can be improved. Also, has anybody ever claimed that this was sour grapes on the part of the Greeks?
  • Rephrased the sentence. Interesting question though I would speculate that a rule such as the required caliber for a specific event would be clearly spelled out prior to the event. H1nkles (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • He! He! Well, H1nkles, nothing was very clear in 1896!--Yannismarou (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "when Georgios Orphanidis was celebrated as the champion." Perhaps say why he was celebrated (home-country winner).
  • I changed "celebrated" to "crowned". I interpreted this sentence to be just a different way of saying that Georgios Orphanidis won the event, rather than to say that there were special celebrations because he had won. The context of this section seems to lend weight to this interpretation though I will certainly defer to the author's opinions. H1nkles (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swimming: "The 1896 swimming competition was held in the open ocean, this due to the fact that the organizers had refused..." This is tighter: "The swimming competition was held in the open ocean because the organizers had refused..."
  • "The water off the bay in early April is notoriously cold" Flip notoriously cold and early April, and check the tense (is).
  • Absolutely correct. How did I miss that?! Corrected.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was my fault sorry.--H1nkles (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I can say that this is just about there in my mind. After these are done, ask Sandy if her complaints are resolved. Keep up the great work. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah, come on, Giants; you and Yannis know the standards as well as I do. If you both say it's fine, it probably is (I'm short on time and I hadn't entered a remove, I trust you two :-) I don't think Elcobbola would be pleased about those decorative flags, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Γηράσκουμε αεί διδασκόμενοι (we always learn while getting older)" Sandy! And FAC criteria are evolving all the time!--Yannismarou (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as there has been a lot of work on this article. For my review, I looked at the opening FARC diff (here) and compared it to the current version, 259 edits later as of a minute ago. Sourcing is much improved, formatting is much improved, and the article is now in good shape. I concur with Sandy about the flags, but that's a minor issue; I'm not seeing any other items that would preclude a Keep here. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Guys, I have no problem to remove the flags, but two years now (and I've worked on some FACs and FARCs!) I was never good with all these flags, templates, images formatting etc. stuff! As I see it now, it pleasures my eye ... If you want me to tell you the specific WP rule on the issue ... Hmmm ... You got me! On these issues I work all the time with my instict!--Yannismarou (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on the fence, myself; I try to avoid elements such as the flags, but I'm not seeing a method to convey the information here that is as concise and clear as the flags - So, in the absence of an alternative, I'd leave them. I agree that it looks good, hence the Keep. Good work, btw. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After making a couple more edits earlier, put me down as a keep. Great effort by everyone here, although I still don't have Sandy's level of knowledge of the FA standards. I'm getting there, though. :-) Giants2008 (17-14) 20:31, 6 August 2008 (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 kept by User:Marskell 08:39, 5 August 2008 [13].

Helium edit

Review commentary edit

Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements and User:Mav.

FA Criterion 1c -- verifiability.

In my opinion, this is an excellent article with respect to content, style, and comprehensiveness. However, I find the sourcing deficient. Perhaps the de facto FA standards were looser in 2005, or perhaps the article itself changed, but the current situation is that a large fraction of the factual statements in the article do not have a reference. I can add {{fact}} tags if requested, but there might be too many. Here's a broad overview of the sections that might need references:

  • The second half of Compounds
  • The end of Extraction and use
  • Most of Applications
  • The last paragraph of Gas and plasma phases
  • Parts of Helium I state and Helium II state
  • The second half of Scientific discoveries
  • Last paragraph in Natural abundance
  • Half of Modern extraction

I don't doubt that much of the evidence may be in some of the references already cited, or perhaps in the general references listed at the end. But where? I'm especially concerned about numerical data and certain factual statements. Just to give an example, there is the statement "an estimated 3.4 litres of helium per year are generated per cubic kilometer of the Earth's crust". I wonder, where did this number come form? There are many cases like this. All the numbers in the article have to come from somewhere, and it should be clear to the reader where. --Itub (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* And it seems like it was just yesterday that we finished reviewing Hydrogen. I'm fairly busy in terms of Wikipedia, and I'm about to get very busy in real life. However, because mav is planning a trip to Egypt, I'll try to get on this so he can enjoy himself. Please allow me a little time to get started - I want to finish copyediting Candide first. My plan of action will then be to review the sources already used to see if they cover other material. Then I'll go about trying to find new sources. Huzzah! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has not degraded since the last review. The issue is that standards have increased. I'll see what I can do later tonight and tommorrow; be patient, I'll probably want to expand the article as well. --mav (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to add some refs. The last paragraph in Natural abundance needs thestatment that only He4 is radiogenic and all the He3 here on erth comes from somewhere else.--Stone (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the science I found good refs, but for
  • Most of Applications
  • The last paragraph of Gas and plasma phases
somebody with more knowledge should help me with this.--Stone (talk) 11:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reasonably confident that the online databases to which I have access will be adequate for the Applications section. I'm almost done copyediting Candide, after which I will begin working on this. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does need work. I wonder whether the Directors might agree to a better timing for you guys? This process works best when the main editors are given reasonable conditions to improve an article. TONY (talk) 03:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the time, it might be more efficient to place the {{fact}} tags in the places where you think it might need them, even if there might be a lot of them. Nergaal (talk) 10:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the article is referenced now. I added a few references that I could find, and a few {{cn}}'s in other places. I'm sure that with a few more days of working on this it will be ready. --Itub (talk) 12:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have reordered the sections to something that seems more logica. I have also added refs for several [citation needed] tags. There are only 2 tags left that I am not sure how to look for them (Li and B bombardment and the crystal growth one). Also, the number of distinct Notes has increased from 45 when it was nominated, to 77 now. Nergaal (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bombardment bit isn't that important, so I commented it out. Found the ref for the other part (something from my original expansion using LANL as a reference). I think we are done now. --mav (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the article really carefully now, and fixed several things that I noticed. I also found and marked three more spots where a citation would be helpful, and one that requires clarification. These are the last tags I place, I promise! Once these are done, I will gladly withdraw my nomination, if that is allowed by the FAR protocols. --Itub (talk) 10:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found a link that might solve the last [citation needed] tag. I left it as hidded text because I cannot actually open the entire document. If someone can open it then unhide the ref. 80 refs from 45; much better. Nergaal (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not withdraw, simply say that everything is fine (once it is). That way, a bot will close this nomination as Kept and reflect that on the article history. --mav (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So? Is this done yet? Nergaal (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great work here. I've asked Sandy for her magic referencing eyes. No need to withdraw it yourself, Nergaal. Marskell (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  1. The main picture is an empty jar! Yes, it is! Perhaps a picture of its atomic structure could be added? There's one on commons.
  2. "Far from being a rare element, helium was present in vast quantities" appears to contradict "On Earth, helium is relatively rare".
  3. "Throughout the universe, helium is found.." can this be phrased more scientifically? Perhaps "In stars and space, helium exists.." (I have no idea whether this is or true or not; I'm just giving an example of how it could be made to sound less as if someone has gone to the Zogborg System of Zfrax to check it for non-plasma helium.)
  4. The section "Helium I state" confuses me. It says "helium I boils when it is heated. It also contracts when [it is cooled]". Does this mean that when heated it contracts? If not, then the "also" should be removed. Perhaps, a graph of volume against temperature would be helpful here?
  5. What's a hyperfragment? I don't see it anywhere else on wikipedia or explained what it is. (Don't tell me, I'm not that interested, just see if it can be explained somewhere.)
  6. Should "3x10−27 second" be "3x10−27 seconds"?
  7. "Helium has been put inside the hollow carbon cage molecules (the fullerenes) by heating under high pressure of the gas.": Is the heated gas helium or fullerene? Is fullerene a gas? Is it a mixture of both which is heated or only the helium? Should this be: "Helium has been put inside hollow carbon cage molecules (the fullerenes) by heating under high pressure."?
  8. "Helium is the second most abundant element in the known Universe after hydrogen and constitutes 23% of the elemental mass of the universe." universe or Universe? The word "universe" is used three times in that paragraph.
  9. Minor points:
There is some duplication of points. There are two "Extraction" sections and the final "application" duplicates some points in "biological effects". But as I have indicated, this is not major and I appreciate that there are rationales for duplicating these points.
Some units (kelvin for example) are spelled out after they've been used as abbreviations earlier.
Some dates are day-first, others month-first. Some are not auto-formatted.

I'm not saying this should be moved to FARC. I'm just saying these points confused a non-chemist. DrKiernan (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Itub is already busy beavering away at the above comments! Feel free to strike them once you feel they're done. DrKiernan (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've struck out the ones I tried to address. If you disagree with any of them, feel free to unstrike them. --Itub (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's still a citation needed tag and a clarify tag. From current ref no. 20 on, there are missing publishers and unformatted citations. I'm not sure dividing references into "prose" and "table" will make sense to readers. There are strange italics and incomplete citations (missing publishers) in Reference as well. Does "Applications" really have to be presented as a list? Can't it be prosified and organized into paragraphs, grouping like items? There are also little MoS issues throughout, but I'll list them after these and DrKiernan's items are addressed. The writing just isn't crisp and clear: this one sentence typifies what it feels like to get through this article:

After an oil drilling operation in 1903 in Dexter, Kansas produced a gas geyser that would not burn, Kansas state geologist Erasmus Haworth collected samples of the escaping gas and took them back to the University of Kansas at Lawrence where, with the help of chemists Hamilton Cady and David McFarland, he discovered that the gas contained, by volume, 72% nitrogen, 15% methane—insufficient to make the gas combustible, 1% hydrogen, and 12% of an unidentifiable gas.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start working with the references to try to clean them up today. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 12:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How come there still isn't a bot that takes the links and transforms them into a full citation templates? Every FA I've been through had MOS problems with citations, like these ones; a bot would boring part out of the way of editor and let them make other more useful contributions :( Nergaal (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I know there are bots that add titles and DOIs and stuff, but some of the other information isn't always as clear. Often times I have to navigate to different pages than the original article in order to find copyright information. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but publishers and formatting citations? Instead of spending time on some other future FACs users are stuck here. Nergaal (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reference for the naming of helium has to be added the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Preliminary Note of Researches on Gaseous Spectra in Relation to the Physical Constitution of the Sun should include it or the full paper in the next few months. When I have access again to JSTOR I will try to get it.--Stone (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to find the word helium in all three publications [14] [15] [16] of Frankland and Lockyer, but was not sucsesfull. The biograpy of helium literature gives a article with the title Discovery of new spectrum lines in sun, since found to belong to helium. as reference, but the real title is Notice of an Observation of the Spectrum of a Solar Prominence and this article only mentions the D3 line and not helium. The claim that frankland suggested the name must have a proof some where.--Stone (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now i read:
  • Jensen Why helium end in ium 2004
  • Lockyer Helium Story Nature 1896
and now I have the clue that nobody knows who suggested the name, but Lockyer and Fankland and other scientists started to used the name helium shortly after its discovery in the spectra and befor the isolation of Helium by Ramsey.--Stone (talk) 10:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are we done yet? :) Nergaal (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patience, friend. Sandy, I've beefed up the citations as best I could, both in terms of information and formatting. Care to take another look to reevaluate? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot done here. How do people feel? Marskell (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is only one [citation needed] left, and it is for a relatively non-crucial piece of information. If no source can be found, I'd rather delete that information than de-feature the article. --Itub (talk) 07:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a link I've left as hidden text, link which I think should qualify. But I cannot access the entire source to be sure. Nergaal (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots needed still; WP:NBSP check needed (found several missing in the lead); inconsistent date formatting ( ... first detected on August 18, 1868 as ... and ... On 26 March, 1895 British chemist ... Conservation Helium Sale" (2005-10-06). Federal ... and several more ... which is it?); why are you using a blog source (Sattler)? Why is there a self-reference to Wiki in References ? Who is Nick Strobel and what makes him a reliable source? See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. Ditto Mark Winter; how do they meet WP:SPS? Missing accessdates throughout the citations. Copyedit needs; why is bright yellow sometimes hyphenated, other times not? The snake that I identified in the review section hasn't been touched; this prose wouldn't get past Tony (be glad he's not peeking in here lately :-). WP:OVERLINKing everywhere; see first two sentences in "Natural abundance" section, where hydrogen is linked twice, even though it's repeatedly linked earlier (it's linked seven times in the article). These are SAMPLES ONLY. Closer attention to MoS and copyedit is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nick Strobel is the second source, because the first is basically the same in a peerreviewed journal with limited access, so if somebody whants to read more it would be stupid to send him to the library, if there is a good source also in the net. --Stone (talk) 07:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's put the remaining issues into list form and strike them out as we go:
  • NBSPs
  • Inconsistent date formatting
Tried to get them found only 3 dates.--Stone (talk) 05:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questionable sources
Added additional ones, but left the questionable ones in place, I will have a second look.--Stone (talk) 05:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing accessdates
Went over them, do books need one too?--Stone (talk) 05:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, unless they have "harrypotteresque" magical properties and their contents change after you read them! :-) Access dates only matter for changeable sources such as websites and online databases. --Itub (talk) 06:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overlinking
undid two links, but will try to find others.
Removed more than 40 unnecessary links, should be enough for now. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyedit
Others will be better in this.--Stone (talk) 05:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start with NBSPs. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I'll try to drop in tomorrow and do a source check. I'm exhausted tonight. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Points of concern:[reply]

The authors are Don L. Anderson (Seismological Laboratory, California Institute of Technology), G. R. Foulger (Dept. Geological Sciences, University of Durham) & Anders Meibom (Laboratoire d'Etude de la Matiere Extraterrestre) so they should qulify for expert.--Stone (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And same for http://scuba-doc.com/?
  • Short form names are used in the notes, but I don't find the books in the references? Examples: Encyclopedia of the Chemical Elements
I found only this one. Nergaal (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page is really good and accessable, so the additional peer reviewed source basically states the same and everybody can have a look not only people from a library or university computer.--Stone (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Winter, the author of webelements.com, is a senior lecturer of the chemistry department at the University of Sheffield.[17] Seems like good qualifications to me.
  • There are a lot of formatting glitches in the footnotes/references, but when the citation/cite issue is resolved, I'll try to come over and fix the glitches. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are we done yet? :) Nergaal (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think that the article has come a long way and now meets current FA criteria. --mav (talk) 04:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving the joke aside, why is this FAR(C) taking so long? Two FTs are waiting on the line :| Nergaal (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. After waiting two weeks for someone to clean up the listiness in the Applications section, I went ahead and did it myself. Perhaps someone who knows Helium can improve on the work I did, since I don't know if the way I grouped items makes the best sense. There is still a citation tag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked the splitting a bit; besides perhaps short paragraphs it looks ok. Nergaal (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I spent some time cleaning up the citations as best I could; quite disappointing. They aren't completely clean, but Marskell can decide if they're good enough. Author format is all over the place, there were accessdates with no URLs, there are still missing language icons, there are dead links, still a citation needed tag, and many of the sources are quite dubious and it's surprising that such a common topic can't rely on better sourcing. It's unclear why some sources are listed in References and others aren't. It's also surprising that the Elements group is still not formatting citations completely and consistently. I won't mind if Marskell decides this is good enough to keep, but the quality is disappointing and it's not our best work. I hope the Elements Project will bring future FARs to standard before entering Keep declarations and waiting for other editors to do the cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is quite disappointing... that after all this time there isn't a bot that can do the mindless job of auto-formatting the refs. There seems to be two general ways that work for FA-level referencing, and I am very surprised that there isn't a taskforce trying to put up two bots to do them. Is it actually that hard? Or if a bot is that hard to implement, why isn't there a project dealing only with refs formatting of FACs?
This would leave the members that are not signed up for WP:ReferencesAreTheONLYImportantThingInAnArticle, but for WP:ICareAboutATopicOtherThanFromattingRefferences actually enjoy adding to the meat of the article, not to the glitter! Instead a good percentage of all FACs and FARs have to go through a loooong debate over formatting refs, and who is not bored enough to do them. It wouldn't be a problem, but it drains attention from other artices/projects... and for example, if it wasn't for this really anal part of FAR, people would have worked for two more FACs , copper and chlorine. Nergaal (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nergaal, the reason we're focusing on references here is because that's the biggest problem with the article and it's the reason the FAR was created in the first place. A Featured Article is supposed to be Wikipedia's best work in all aspects, which means that the meatiness of an article does not excuse its flaws. You're frustrated that there isn't a bot to do the tedious work for us, I've been working 50+ hour weeks, and mav has been in Egypt. As valid as these excuses are, the fact of the matter is that the work has not been done. So let's do it! Let's all buckle down, pitch in a little, and get this done! Issues to be dealt with:
  • Inconsistent author formatting
    All citations now use author=Last, First and coauthors= First Last, First Last
  • Missing language icons
  • Dead links
    Not really sure what you want here. I scanned a good chunk of Notes and the entirety of References and External Links, and all of the URLs were good. I replaced one citation marked with the dead link template, but that contained a working link to a subscription database. Are you asking that all references requiring subscriptions be replaced?--Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation needed tag
    I removed the unsourced statement. It seemed to have been copied from air hunger, which has some decent references, none of which cover the material in question. The material was added about 2 years ago by User:Badocter, who has since retired from editing and left no email address. Helium air hunger yielded 0 results on EBSCO, and 9 irrelevant results on Nature. Given that the information was totally non-crucial anyway, it seemed to make the most sense to just delete it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questionable sources
Sandy, just to clarify, by "missing language icons", do you mean the interwiki links? Or do you mean missing language= parameters in the citations? I assume it's the latter. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To answer Nergaal's question, why not do the sourcing correctly the first time, so the citations don't have to be cleaned up by a bot or by another editor? Are you unfamiliar, for example, with the standardized formatting for PMIDs provided by the Diberri template filler? If you simply format all your journal articles to agree with Diberri, and use his template filler for PMIDs, there would be no problem. If the Elements Project had citation standards (as bio/med articles do, by conforming to the Diberri format), the inconsistency wouldn't be there to begin with; look at any bio/med article (autism, Asperger syndrome, DNA, etc; notice the clean citations and consistent author names and formatting; compare that to the Elements articles.) This isn't a bot problem; it's a WikiProject Elements problem. You all have had enough FACs and FARs that other people shouldn't have to clean up your articles for citations, MoS, etc. at this stage; you aren't novice editors. Cryptic C62, there are some sources that are not in English; they need language icons, or to have the language parameter filled in the cite journal. I see that has now been done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. I had never seen Diberri's tool before. Later today I'll scan each of the citations for unusable links, list them here, and either try to correct them or replace them with other sources. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 10:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither. It seems very nice, but unfortunately many (most?) chemistry journals are not on Pubmed. --Itub (talk) 10:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I just checked and they have more chemistry journals than I expected. Apparently I just have had back luck in the past, and I do use some of the more obscure journals that are not included. --Itub (talk) 11:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I certainly sympathize with Nergaal about the over-emphasis of the formatting of citations; Readers don't really care if we mix 'page' with 'p.', if an author's first name is put before his last or if a web ref is missing an accessdate, etc. Since I contribute mostly by adding prose (hint: by adding real value to readers), I don't count those type of issues as very important. What is very important is completeness, readability, factual accuracy and, pursuant to the last point, the presence of inline citations for figures/numbers, and controversial or surprising points. MoS issues are far lower on my priority list (esp for FARs with bigger issues) and I hope everybody else's here as well. So if you think MoS issues are important, then go ahead and fix them with a light heart (knowing that others don't like to do that). --mav (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our readers might or might not care or notice, but we have in the Elements Project are a whole lot of editors who have been through numerous FACs and FARs and should know the basics and the standards by now, should be able to maintain the articles to standard, and need not be relying on others to explain standard stuff on FARs or to do the work themselves. These things shouldn't keep coming up with experienced FA writers (when a relative newcomer or less experienced FA writer appears to help out on a FAR, it's more understandable to have to dig in and do the work ourselves, but there are a lot of y'all and you should be able to maintain your FAs, or at least not question why your FARs are taking so long if you aren't doing the work). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, are we done yet? Thanks to Cryptic, all the issues seem to have been solved. Nergaal (talk) 04:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said earlier I wouldn't mind if it was kept, but I've spent a lot of time on this article already, and don't have time for yet another look; last time I checked, it wasn't ideal, but it was close enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. As far as it goes, Mav is correct that reader could care less about ref formatting etc. But I tend to view it in terms of broken window theory: by paying attention to the small issues you wind up paying attention to everything. I have never audited refs and not found myself also auditing prose and factual accuracy. So I don't think we should throw up our hands and say the MoS doesn't matter. In any case, this has moved to keepish territory so I'll get it out of here. Marskell (talk) 08:35, 5 August 2008 (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 kept by User:Marskell 08:39, 5 August 2008 [18].

Isaac Brock edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: WikiProject Canada; WikiProject Military history: British military history task force, Napoleonic era task force, Canadian military history task force; WikiProject Biography: Military work group, Politics and government work group Ultra! 19:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the only significant editor (137 edits at the time of writing), and FA nominator, of the article, Scimitar. I have also notified Military history WikiProject, WikiProject Biography, and WikiProject Canada.

I do believe that this article no longer meets the criteria for an FA-class article. I believe that the article has broken, specifically, 1c and 1d.

In support for my assertion that the article has broken 1c, I would like to provide the following evidence:

  • "best remembered as a brilliant leader and strategist for his actions while stationed in the Canadian colonies." This is a quote of a sentence in the introduction of the article. This opinion is not cited.
  • "He earned a reputation during his early education as an assiduous student, as well as an exceptional swimmer and boxer." This is also not cited.
  • "He kept a reputation as a physically commanding man throughout his life, and is said to have stood between 6 ft 2 in (1.9 m) and 6 ft 4 in (1.88 and 1.93 m) in height. he was amazingly strong and bright, he also excelled in the arts." Again, no citation.
  • "quick rise through the ranks which many commented on at the time." No citation.
  • "His nephew and biographer (Ferdinand Brock Tupper) asserts that shortly after joining the regiment, a professional dueler forced a match on him. As the one being challenged, Brock had his choice of terms, and so he insisted that they fight with pistols. His friends were shocked, as Brock was considered only a moderately good shot, while this man was an expert. Brock, however, refused to change his mind. When the duelist arrived at the field, he asked Brock to decide how many paces they would take. Brock subsequently insisted that the duel would take place, not at the usual range, but at handkerchief distance. The duelist declined and subsequently was forced to leave the regiment. This contributed to Brock's popularity and reputation among his fellow officers, as this duellist had a formidable reputation, and thus bullied other officers without fear of reprisal. During his time with this regiment, Brock served in the Caribbean. At some point during his service there, Brock fell ill with fever and nearly died; only recovering once he had returned to England." No citations presented.

At this point, I believe I have shown the article breaks 1c. It should be noted that the article only has 10 citations. This leaves a lot of the article unsourced.

In support for my assertion that the article has broken 1d, I would like to provide the following evidence:

  • "he had the privilege of serving alongside Tecumseh". I think this comment speaks for itself.

There is more evidence that can be provided, but I do not wish to clog this request with a large amount of evidence. I hope that a quick visual examination of the article by editors will result in the realisation that this article is unworthy of FA-status in its current state.

Thank you in advance for reading, and for getting involved on this issue.EasyPeasy21 (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are undoubtedly some rather POV sentences, and not much inline citing. However, there are a number of online sources listed in References, and External links which can probably be used to provide inline cites. I've also just quickly skimmed his ODNB article, which certainly backs up some of the specific things you pick out above, so I'm not sure it's beyond redemption. David Underdown (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (sorry, unfamiliar with process) The sentences, admittedly, are POV in some instances, although it would not take much to correct them. All of the uncited references are backed up by the references at the bottom of the page; I didn't realize that inline citation was needed so extensively when I wrote the article. All that said, I can't say as I'm terribly invested in what happens to the article given that I've since pretty much abandoned Wikipedia as an editor.--Scimitar parley 18:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just cited a bunch of the opinions, thanks to Tupper's book (available at project Gutenberg, if anyone doubts my veracity). My wording is actually quite restrained compared to the praise heaped upon Brock by virtually every commentator in the field. I dare say that these citations (which took about 5 minutes) would have been done if it had been brought up during the FA process, and also that the editor who nominated this article for removal might have been able to do them himself from the provided references in less time than it took to nominate the article! --Scimitar parley 18:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, looking at the FAC for this article, I'm reminded of the fact that at that time nobdy seemed to feel that massive inline citation was a big deal, the article text is not controversial and is adequately backed up by the references at the bottom of the page. It's been quite a while since I was a serious editor here, so this is an honest question- when did inline citation become a requirement for non-controversial featured articles that are heavily referenced otherwise?--Scimitar parley 18:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"the editor who nominated this article for removal" Scimitar, I nominated this article for a review, as opposed for it to be removed.

I believe that Scimitar has made good progress in getting the article back up to current FA standards. However, the article still needs much more work, imho. For example, it is stated "The invasion was quickly halted, and Hull withdrew, but this gave Brock the excuse he needed to abandon Prevost's orders." Whilst I am sure this is correct, it does sound like something that needs to be verified. Listing what sources of information were employed in the writing of the article at the bottom of the page, is not sufficient for an FA-class article.

Other examples of sentences that do sound like they need to be verified include:

  • "Detroit was a major victory for Brock because it wounded American morale, and eliminated the main American force in the area as a threat, while at the same time boosting morale among his own forces."
  • "Finally, it secured the support of Tecumseh and the other American Indian chiefs, who took it as both a sign of competency and a willingness to take action.
  • "However, Brock had gauged Hull as a timid man, and particularly as being afraid of Tecumseh's natives."
  • "He was hampered in these efforts by the thrusts of Governor General George Prevost (Prevost replaced Craig in late 1811), who favoured a cautious approach to the war."
  • "This hostility came from three sources: grievances at British violations of American sovereignty, restriction of American trade by Britain, and an American desire to gain territory by invading and annexing the poorly-defended British North American colonies." Some people will consider this statement controverisal, as some people argue that the American desire to conquer Canada did not exist to a great enough degree for it to be a reason for the War of 1812 occuring.

Scimitar, I do not know how the criteria for FA articles has changed exactly since 2005, but it is clear that they have changed. More is required of an article in 2008 for it to become FA-class, then it did in 2005. As one editor said regarding the FA review of an article called Brain Close, "Holy cow. It illustrates how much FA standards have risen in just a few years." EasyPeasy21 (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I saw that this article was up for FA review, and have tried to make a few improvements. If the problems are only those listed above by EasyPeasy21 and others, they should be straightforward to fix. The four bulleted items listed just above by EP are what all the books say, with the possible exception of the last. It's just a small matter of referencing them properly. I hope to do more work on this myself between now and June 18. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixes needed; I fixed the ref placement. There are spaced emdashes; the article should consistently use either unspaced emdashes or spaced endashes. There are missing hyphens and WP:MOSNUM issues (spelling out numbers vs. digits). External links might need pruning per WP:EL, and there are a few unformatted citations (see WP:CITE/ES). Also, decide if references have author last name first or first name first, be consistent. Overall, not in bad shape. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and POV (1d). Marskell (talk) 12:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*I still think this needs work. There are some quotes that need citations, and the section on his early life is very short, which raises concerns about comprehensiveness. I'm going to try to help out a little next week. DrKiernan (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I do not believe that the article is yet at FA standard, for the reasons that DrKiernan has stated. However, I believe that it is realistic to say that this article can be brought to that level soon. As a result, I am neither for or against downgrading the article atm. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*There's a problem with the main image. I've nominated it for deletion at commons. Two of the others are missing sources. I've tagged them and notified the uploaders. DrKiernan (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still some work going on, so leaving this up. Marskell (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Work is progressing nicely, and on a quick flyover, I don't see glaring issues, but there is still quite a bit of citation needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:I know it may not look like it, but I do still intend to do a little more work on this. DrKiernan (talk) 06:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think the concerns raised in the review have been addressed. DrKiernan (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2008 (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 kept by User:Marskell 17:20, 18 August 2008 [19].

The Supremes edit

Review commentary edit

The article hasnt been reviewed in close to three years. Im guessing standards have improved somewhat. The article needs a good copy edit, the language and grammer are not up to FA standard. The article is hardly sourced and some sources are unreliable such as youtube. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 15:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC) Withdraw nomination, KEEP - Article has greatly improved, well done to all involved. — Realist2 21:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications

Yeah I feel the article has been inaccurate to some degree. FuriousFreddy worked his butt off to make that a great article. I hate that some people chose to link YouTube videos to the article. BUT for the majority of the article, it did seem "featured" since a featured article star icon is still on it. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 16:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please complete the nomination by following the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to notify significant contributors and relevant WikiProjects, and post the notifications back to the top of this FAR. Thank you. --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 16:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did notify people, I was unaware they needed to be added here too, ill get right to it. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 16:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments That entire discography section needs to be replaced by just a list of studio albums. (See: R.E.M., Radiohead) Pretty much all those album covers do not satisfy our fair-use criteria, and the sound samples (max 3-4) need to discussed in the prose. Of course, this is the easy part. indopug (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DONE - Comments by Indopug appear to be done, the samples have been removed it appears. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 15:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's the logic behind using a listign of albums to summarize the career of a singles-oriented act? When the article was originally done as a featured article, we took the U.S. and U.K. top ten singles (because it was a NPOV way of summarizing the best known songs without us having to arbitrarily pick them). --FuriousFreddy (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixes needed. WP:MOSDATE (sample: between August 22 of 1964 and December 27 of 1969 ...) WP:MOSNUM (sample: ... ended its eighteen-year existence in 1977.) Unencyclopedic prose: The Supremes became hugely popular with international mainstream audiences. Lack of citations (sample: In 1971, Ballard sued Motown for $8.7 million, claiming that Gordy and Diana Ross had conspired to force her out of the group; the judge ruled in favor of Motown.) Citation cleanup needed, including unformatted citations and dashes on page ranges. Concerned that edit history shows little work being done here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clearly no one works on this article anymore, I honestly havent got the time to get this article up to FA standard, it would take weeks, time I personally cant afford. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 17:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Honestly, it'd take far too much time and far too much work to fix this article. However it'd be left up to would be taking on a one-or-two-person job, since Wiki articles about non-hip-hop African-American subjects aren't very popular with Wikipedians unless somebody dies. Not to mention that Wiki article requirements have gotten pretty ridiculous over the last four years (like the massive number of citations expected of featured articles, whether they truly need them or not), to the point where you can't even write a decent article without dedicating salary-level effort to it. And yes, it is godawful-looking right about now. Delist it, and hope that anyone who wants to learn abou The Supremes or Motown actually picks up a book instead. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It will indeed take a mammoth amount of work, black music has few strong writers on wikipedia. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 00:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1c) and referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 21:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - No new citations have been added in the last month. Many sections and paragraphs have no cites at all. Also, citations are not formatted properly or consistently and some of the references are from non-RS or random websites. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold Very close; and citations are very easy to find. I making efforts to format the existing refs; but its painful boring work :( Ceoil sláinte 21:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You got that right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist as nom - Since I nominated this article for review 6 weeks ago it has only had 78 edits, included in that count is vandalism and reversion of vandalism. There is just no motivation for this article. A terrible shame really, this is one of the few articles on black music/black artists that is featured. Im sure it's placing will be filled nicely by yet another punk rock band. Wikipedias music department moves one step closer to a complete white wash (no pun intended). — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 13:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have some paintence Realist! Its on hold...work underway! And what value does the number 78 have? Pha. Put more though into your opinons that featured article shouild be delisted, and have more good faith in the work of other editors. ( Ceoil sláinte 13:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, don't patronize me. I'm quite capable of reaching a conclusion of my own. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 14:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prove with facts rather than with vaugue statements and broad summaries. ( Ceoil sláinte 15:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughs, lets not fight, as we often edit the sames areas and both friends with Wesley. If you could highlight what you think needs to be done yet, well that would be a great help, and we will get closer to fixing this. Sorry if I was patronising. ( Ceoil sláinte 15:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - I'm really sorry to have to vote to withdraw this article, but for me it no longer a featured article. This might well have reached FA standards in 2005, however it's 2008 and the criteria for FA has gone up a few notches. For me, it is the lack of citation that is worse; the sections such as Impact, Name and personnel changes, Slowdown, Exit Diana Ross and The "New Supremes" barely have any sources. What I am worried about is the community is seeing the star in the top right hand corner of the page, and is getting the wrong impression of what a Wikipedia FA article is. It might be good for this article to be delisted, and if Ceoil feels strongly enough, could bring the standard up to today's FA requirements and re-nominate. Good luck. Eagle Owl (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Owl; its clear that citations are the biggest obstacle, and to be honest I've only been tinkering around with copy editing and MOS stuff for the last while. I'm not even sure I be able to verify all of it, but we'll see. Would you mind watchlisting this page, and when I'm done I'll ask for a second view. If its still not up to scratch, then fine, I'll take you advise and go the longer route. Thanks anyway. ( Ceoil sláinte 19:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holding still given that Ceoil has asked for it. Marskell (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold, Ceoil is working on this and it's coming along nicely; I'll run through when he's closer to done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Status: Work is on going; reasonaly happy with cites; looking for a copyeditor. ( Ceoil sláinte 21:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get off my ass soon enough. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promises from a self confesed LA layabout. Hmm. I'll believe it when I see it; dude... ( Ceoil sláinte 10:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Realist is doing a very fine copy edit. I'm hoping we should be done here soon. Ceoil 01:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree, its coming along nicely, it's still a little under sourced but I'm going to buy some books and help out with that too, sourcing is generally the easy part as all this info seems to be accurate from my knowledge of The Supremes. — Realist2 (Speak) 02:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agree there are gaps re refs left yet. But most center around chart positions imo, and these can be easly fixed with this link. ( Ceoil sláinte 03:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update This is moving along but is going slowly; more because I havn't been to edit much recently rather than because its not do-able. Its very close now - some citing, a bit of cutting, bits of MOS pruning and a ce spruce. The likelyhood is finished by the end of the weekend. Jesus, this page is a wash of green and orange. Ceoil sláinte 20:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think a Musical style section is needed, and a few samples too. indopug (talk) 06:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Musical style is covered variously through out the article, and I added a few samples. The article is at a stage now where I need specific feedback to carry it across. Realist has a headache, but has promised to revisit in a day or two. Ceoil sláinte 08:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm up to looking through it today. — Realist2 14:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Don't spare the horses! Ceoil sláinte 14:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks really good. If that one fact tag can be resolved then this should be kept. --maclean 06:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • DONE — Realist2 07:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was quick! I guess that is a keep from me then. --maclean 07:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep presuming resolution of the one fact tag I just added. I did a full copyedit; the prose wasn't bad but there were a lot of book titles lacking italics, dashes were inconsistent, and the external links needed to be pared down. All done. Also attacked the navigational footer template to clean up song title formatting (italics and quotes both was a bit much). Maralia (talk) 04:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the edits. I cut the statement you added the tag to; it was a bit crufty and trivial. Ceoil sláinte 20:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done all. Nice to get that last formatting look over from Maralia. Marskell (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2008 (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 User:Marskell 11:33, 29 August 2008 [20].

History of Limerick edit

Review commentary edit

User:Seabhcan (only major contributor and nominator), WikiProject European history and WikiProject Ireland notified

Article needs FA review fundamentally for 1c, having only a single footnote and that without a page number. There is a list of references, but without inline citations its impossible to know where or how they are used. I think there are also some deficencies in 1a, 1d and 2a as well as an image claimed as fair use without an adequate rationale, but these are all fixable fairly simply, unlike the dearth of citations.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensiveness (1b) is a greater concern to me. There is a rather sudden jump from 1200 to 1642, meaning much of the later medieval period, the Tudor period and the plantations is completely excluded. There is another sudden jump within the misnamed "The famine" section, which actually includes details of a time of prosperity. The source of the famine and why Limerick's prosperity fell is not explained thoroughly enough. Half the article is on 20th century history with the remaining half covering over a thousand years; that seems unbalanced. I would like to see more information on the earlier history added to the article. DrKiernan (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Limerick is a small city and there just isn't very much documented history for the periods you discuss. For the medieval and tudor periods there is a good deal of information in other articles, but little information is known of how Limerick was specifically faired during these times. ... Seabhcan 15:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can probably accept that but the article on the Plantations mentions the Munster Plantations and that estates in the County of Limerick were seized after the Desmond Rebellions. Is anything further known on this? DrKiernan (talk) 07:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments In looking for sources, I found Ferrar's 1787 History of Limerick online at the Limerick City Library in several pdf sections and will try to extract some early info from it. Does anyone have access to The History of Limerick City, by Sean Spellissy (1998)? I can't get access to it where I live, maybe someone else can assess it. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: this article is going to need a lot of basic cleanup. I'll list all of the MoS issues if someone succeeds in citing the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC. No edits since my last comment, so I haven't listed the MoS issues yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing. Marskell (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ww2c is working on this, and given his track record, I'm inclined to hold. ( Ceoil sláinte 20:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I am slow at these FAs, but I am still hoping you can get the Spellissy history book. I can't get it and I really think we will need it to move this anywhere near being complete. ww2censor (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images User:Seabhcan, can you give more details of the copyright of Image:O'Connell St, Limerick City, 1960's.jpg? Did you take the picture yourself, is it a family snap or is it scanned from an old postcard/book? Ideally, Image:Sarsfield.gif should have information about when, who and where it was first published (although it is obviously very old). DrKiernan (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The O'Connell st image is a scan of an old postcard. Unfortunately, the postcard doesn't have any publisher details, or copyright information. ... Seabhcan 19:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the O'Connell St postcard is certainly not 70 years old and Seabhcan does not hold the copyright on it, so it cannot be PD. The Sarsfield image is found in several places online but they may well all be copies of ours. It is most likely 18th or 19th century but I could not find it easily. Any suggestions DrK? ww2censor (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not terribly fussed over the Sarsfield image, it's probably safe to assume its ancientness. The postcard is published without notice in a foreign country prior to 1996. Providing it has not since been republished with a copyright notice, I believe that makes it public domain in the US. I have updated the tag. DrKiernan (talk) 07:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixes needed: there are quotes in WP:ITALICS and breaching WP:MOS#Quotations; inconsistent date linking (some full dates are linked, others aren't); WP:NBSP attention needed (example, 7 p.m.); Image captions need to be descriptive (see Celtic Tiger section); missing accessdates as well as incomplete references (example: Limerick City Library); inconsistent date formats in citations (example: ... Press Release. Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism (Ireland) 1999-11-03. Retrieved on August 5, 2008); book sources need page numbers and incorrectly formatted book citations (example: ^ Shalom Ireland: a Social History of Jews in Modern Ireland by Ray Rivlin, ISBN 0-7171-3634-5, published by Gill & MacMillan); mixed citation styles, breaching WP:CITE, {{citation}} is used along with the cite xxx templates, resulting in inconsistent citation style; incorrect use of WP:MOS#Ellipses; incorrect punctuation in image captions per WP:MOS#Captions; incorrect us of WP:MOSBOLD in the WP:LEAD; more problematic, someone should check the prose (sample of less than compelling prose: The arrival of the Normans to the area in 1173 changed everything.) Undercited and uncompelling prose, including parenthetical deviations to other articles), combined with incorrect use of italics: Sarsfield sailed to France with 19,000 troops[citation needed] and formed the Irish Brigade (see also the Flight of the Wild Geese). After these forces had left the treaty was repudiated by the Williamites, for which the city became known as The City of the Violated Treaty[1] and is a point of bitterness in the city to this day. Large amounts of uncited text, sample: No statistics exist on how many people in the Limerick area died during the famine. Nationally, the population declined by an average of 20%, half of whom died and half emigrated. While the Great Famine reduced the population of County Limerick by 70,000, the population of the City actually rose slightly, as people fled to the workhouses. Unless there are dramatic improvements shortly, I'll be a Remove. I stopped there without a serious review; there's likely more, as this was a very quick glance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - I agree with above comments made by SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs). In addition, there are still plenty of sections lacking in-line citations, and the lede of the article is a bit too short and does not provide an adequate summary of the article as per WP:LEAD. Cirt (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My main problem is that for about a week nobody seems to work on the article.--Yannismarou (talk) 07:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not that far from keep territory. I was hoping ww2censor would check back in. I'll ping him. Marskell (talk) 08:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am not certain I can do much without some assistance. As SandyGeorgia says it needs several MOS fixes, some of which I may have introduced with recent edits, but those can be fixed. However, I have looked around for citations for many of the uncited texts and didn't want to remove anything uncited right away before making it comprehensive. The balance of the citations needed must be around somewhere and even though Ceoil said he could get the Spellissy book, that I cannot get, he has not done so yet. Seabhcan, the article initiator, seems to have gone AWOL for the last 6 months except for a few posts, he seems to be offline totally. So I am tending toward a Remove unless there is some other help being offered. ww2censor (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If Seabhcan isn't digging in, then I'm a remove as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll remove. Thanks ww2 for doing your best. Marskell (talk) 10:41, 29 August 2008 (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 User:Marskell 11:34, 26 August 2008 [21].

Eifel Aqueduct edit

Review commentary edit

Notified WP Germany and WP Architecture, principle editor no longer active.

A 2004 promotion, this article is lacking citations and needs a MOS tuneup and images check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untouched since nominated, move to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), MoS (2), and images (3). Marskell (talk) 13:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the article first came up for review, I searched my architecture and ancient history books for references and found none. The web seems to have nothing either, although my searching talents are pathetically lacking as I am a book person. Could it possibly have a more common alternative name? —Mattisse (Talk) 17:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One hit on Google Books for "Eiffel Aqueduct",[22] nine for "Eifel Aqueduct".[23] Jappalang (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per lack of citations. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove, very few citations. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:42, 23 August 2008 (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 User:Marskell 11:34, 26 August 2008 [24].

The Cantos edit

Review commentary edit

Notified the nominator and main contributor User talk:Filiocht, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poetry, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books‎ and Wikipedia talk:Version 0.5‎.

1(c) Needs more in-line citations for quotations and opinions. Also some of the sections seem a little lengthy. Pictures seem small which shouldn't take as long to sort out as the inlines which will take quite a lot of work. Tom (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in-line citations are an issue fair enough, but luckly some strong online sources have been left in the "References" section. I deforced the picture sizes (about 4 seconds work), but is "some of the sections seem a little lengthy" really any reason to remove a featured article. Do you mean the article is too lenghty to get through, or it strays off topic in areas, or it needs to be broken in sub-sections. Ceoil 19:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

had put 'lengthy' point as an additional thought but you're right that it is not a reason for removing so have struck and thanks for sorting images. Tom (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment About a year ago I raised some concerns I had with The Cantos on its talk page (and I almost nominated it here then). I, like the nominator, thought that, to reach current FAC standards, the article should have better inline citations and structural issues. As I noted in my criticisms then, the very flat structure of the article makes it difficult to navigate and daunting to approach; there is little concentrated discussion of the work as a whole; also, some of the subsections are way too large. Please see the extended discussion that has already taken place under the heading "Sorely lacking". -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The wisest Wikipedians will fix the mising images to this version [25] and then preserve it for posterity. This is my one and only comment on this ludicrous nomination. Giano (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rmr, I would'nt go as far as 'lacking' but you do have a point. My openion is that its a fine article that needs a small amount of though and work (structural issues can often be fixed using ctr/c ctr/v!), and inlines. Some of the prose reads as essayish - The most striking feature of the text, to a casual browser, is the inclusion of Chinese characters as well as quotations in European languages other than English, but again a ce can fix that with a few days effort. I'd be hopeful for this one; lots of sources, and well, it was written by Filiocht, so its quality is a given, IMO. ( Ceoil sláinte 21:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how else to say this, so I will be completely blunt: this article is probably one of the best that Wikipedia has to offer, and an article of this scope should be approached, first and foremost, on the basis of content, and not form. That questions over this article should be raised over inline citations is akin to discussing Abraham Lincoln's presidency in terms of his acne. Nandesuka (talk) 04:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think this article is necessarily doomed; but for it to remain an FA, people need to fix the problems, not ignore them. Calling this nomination "ludicrous" or this article "one of the best", does not in any way address the serious concerns brought forth, that in its current state, The Cantos is illegibly structured and not verifiable. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its very early days yet though, mrfstar; and its just the way of FAR that words like thoes get tossed around. Rather than get bogged down on these things, maybe just focus on actionable issues. ( Ceoil sláinte 02:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC Way too much original research. The language style seems more like a critic at a news paper giving his opinion, dropping a few names, and lacking any in-depth critical approach. I'm surprised it hasn't been given the "essay" tag, since it reads like a freshman term paper. Grammar errors and run on sentences are through the roof. This needs to be removed, since it would require more than a month of work to bring it up to par. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, with the amount of critical review and interpretation, there should be at least 40 sources for references. Those given do not represent an adequate portion of critical theory, let alone the main stream theory behind the Cantos. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the WP:FAR instructions; the review period is at least two weeks; moving to FARC is not an option one day into the review. The purpose of the review is to identify issues and discuss improvements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nandesuka on this; it is a damn fine article, with or without inlines, and other issues can be fixed without too much effort, and IMO the addition or not of footnotes is just a small detail. The "concerns" about inlines are formalism concern only as its not doubted that anything in the article is untrue. Structural problems can be resolved, and the language style Ottava mentions just needs a few hours copyediting to rectify. I'm going to commit to this, but I'd hope that the argument here is more constructive than principaled. ( Ceoil sláinte 01:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine article? The sentence structure is horridly sloppy and reads like a report. There is nothing academic in the actual page, let alone something useful. Cliffnotes has a better summary than the page. I wouldn't want any of my stdents to use it as a critical resource. The whole page needs to be deleted and started from scratch. There is nothing worth salvaging. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added - excessive amounts of red links. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A thats a little harsh, Ottava! Deleted? Ppfff, come on man. You have to admit at least it has nice pictures ;) Ceoil 11:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
What happened with the Samuel Johnson page is it required a lot more work later to purge all the inconsistencies and strange things left in. Language like "The most striking feature of the text, to a casual browser" is strange on multiple levels, with the abrupt pausing/asides, with the dramatic claims to knowledge, and the lack of really telling anything explanatory about the piece. Then the next line follows with, "Recourse to scholarly commentaries is almost inevitable for a close reader", which is obvious that any close reader would use scholarly commentary (unless they didn't care). However, it doesn't actually say why they would need it. Thats another problem that I forgot to mention - the paragraphs tend to operate on a logical progression that leaves out a lot, as if they assume a certain audience that comes in with that piece of information. It is almost a "wink wink, nudge nudge" in words. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Work is underway Rima, or at least will be soon. So you dont have to judge it at this stage; wait until it gets to FAR/C. Now is the time for offering constructive suggestions only, or editing directly as you did earlier. ( Ceoil sláinte 15:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this was the FAR? Wasn't it moved up to the top because it moved on? Or perhaps I am just confused. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your confused ;0 First stage (FAR) comments, bitching and cat fighting; second satge (FAR/C) voting, moaning and groaning. ( Ceoil sláinte 16:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I was clear when I said I doubt that it could be completely recoverable without deleting a large amount of text and starting over. :) Remember, if it does fix everything, then it wont be the same page as it was before, or even close. Plus it will take a long time. Either way, the page it was wont exist, so, it will be removed one way or the other. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ottava, please note that declarations of "Remove" and "Keep" are not made in this section. FAR aims to assist in the improvement/updating of FAs, and if at all possible should be a positive process. I find your angle negative and combative, especially given the expertise of at least one of its main contributors, who made a comment further up. I note that your strong assertions come without supporting detail. At this stage, they can't be taken seriously. I'm sorry to speak firmly, but I think you're misconstruing the aims and the tone of this process. Please provide specific examples and details if you intend to persist in your critiqueing. Not happy. Tony (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava: "a long time": you got that right. So what, its worth it. Ceoil 17:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Tony1, the policy of Wikipedia requires consensus, which means that all opinions must be heard. I am saying that this needs to be moved to the next phase. That is clearly stated in the clause I quoted on Sandy's page. If you do not like it, please remove the clause from the FAR guidelines. Furthermore, "expertise" means nothing. No one owns the page. This is Wikipedia. The language is incredibly poor. As Wikipedia states, everything will be heavily criticized and edited, and if you cannot handle it, do not submit. This process is to remove articles that do not meet FA standard. It is clear that this article does not, and probably can not. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the process is not "to remove articles that do not meet FA standard", and this page is carefully designed with the intent that articles aren't defeatured as long as editors are willing to work on them. At minimum, FAR lasts a month, some last as long as three. Settle in and identify actual, actionable, concrete issues that need to be changed; vague comments about it being an awful article will only be ignored. Articles move to FARC if no one is working on them and no improvement is seen after two or three weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either show where it says I am not allowed to express my concerns that it must proceed to the process, or strike your comment as being patently absurd. No where does it say that I have to wait two weeks to say such. You are clearly wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ottava is being remarkably specific about his concerns with The Cantos. Certainly he is being more specific in his criticisms than other editors are in their praise. There is no need to jump on him for mentioning "FARC" a bit too early. He's not denying anyone the chance to fix all of the issues he has mentioned. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 06:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Woah Ottiva; The next phase will happen after time, and after the people working on the page are happy to offer it for judjement. I hope you will be one of these people, because we need all hands on deck on this one. ( Ceoil sláinte 17:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think this can be accomplished. Each individual Canto set is notable on its own, and to cover the required breadth of material would justify many splits from the pages. This would require sections to be summarized and broken down. Then there needs to be indepth analysis of the critical themes and interpretations. Then there also needs to be an extensive background section added to explain what happened during the publishing. There are hundreds of references that would be needed to be added. From what I can see, just adding in 10 references and making it work takes about 5 days for one person. There needs to also be a community consensus on a lot of other additions and changes, which I doubt can happen during this time. The Cantos are large and have a lot of critical theory behind them. You could almost justify having a WikiProject devoted just to Ezra Pound because of them. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)#[reply]
Good Christ, could you please be more optimistic. If complex articles such as WB Yeats, Shakespeare or Mary Shelly can reach FA, well, why not this. ( Ceoil sláinte 18:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know it can get to FA. However, it would be completely new and take a lot of time. There would be a lot of splits, which would require significant consensus. Can this process handle such a thing? Thats my only concern. I would suggest that the league of copy editors be brought in at least once its done. Also, can someone take the "posterity" edition and place it on a subpage and then possibly link it to the milestone so there is some idea what it was before. Everyone knows that the page will end up being vastly different, but the original was an FA, and there probably should be some linkage back to that FA edition so people can see what was originally made an FA. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "posterity" editions are listed in articlehistory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discssion between Ottava and myself has been taken to our talks, as there is no pont in publicly airing openions such as above. Its going to be a long project though, most likely ;) ( Ceoil sláinte 02:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I've never commented on an FAR before, so forgive me if I suck at this. :) The lack of inline citations has already been mentioned, but I'm also concerned with the article's lack of comprehensiveness. Most of it deals with the individual cantos, but nothing is said about the project's genesis, inspiration, or even Pound himself. I would suggest implementing a "Background" section, or something similar, to describe in detail information that is somewhat addressed in the first section of the lead; otherwise, the article does not adhere to WP:LEAD. I'm not a fan of Pound, but although I have studied him somewhat, I was mostly confused by the article. It has promise but, wow, is it confusing. I could possibly provide some reference help, but I currently have two projects (one at FAC and one at GAN) of my own to handle. Let me know. María (habla conmigo) 15:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree with María, and to some extent also with Ottava R. I'm not particularly bothered with the lack of citations per se. Or rather, there should be citations only in so far as there should be a more comprehensive account of the work and its importance. Instead, we have a canto-by-canto account or even summary of the poem within which more general musings are occasionally interleaved. For instance, the article states that "Much critical discussion of the poem has focused on the relationship between, on the one hand, the economic thesis on usura, Pound's anti-Semitism, his adulation of Confucian ideals of government and his attitude towards fascism, and, on the other, passages of lyrical poetry and the historical scene-setting that he performed with his 'ideographic' technique." Yet it has nothing further to say about this (apparently) voluminous critical discussion. Or, later, the article states that "The Cantos has been influential in the development of English-language long poems" but gives almost no reason for this influence except, perhaps, that it is long. In short, if anything there is not enough original research here. I'm rather surprised at those who are so committed to defending the article, as though it were some kind of masterpiece. No: it's a more or less close reading (and really not even that, in that there's very little account of form or language) that misses the wood for the trees. In this sense, it's quite precisely unencyclopedic.
  • In short, the article needs restructuring. I'd be tempted to suggest that that canto-by-canto account of the poem be hived off into a separate article. Certainly, what there is on context and the writing process (for instance, the first paragraph of the section "I–XVI" and the first three paragraphs of the section "LXXIV–LXXXIV (The Pisan Cantos)") should be reorganized and not simply subsumed into the reading of the poem. But really, there's a lot to be done on this article. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What an article! I believe that, when it was promoted, it was probably one of the project's best. But it has almost no citations! Personally, I wouldn't touch the basic structure (per Giano on this), although this does not mean that certain deficiencies, such as the lack of an overall critical approach (per Ottava Rima on this), shouldn't be worked. And I'd really like to help with the citations, but I have no sources. And for such an in-depth material, I do not think that google-booking is enough. Sourcing is a big problem, even for such a great article.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image problems:

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), comprehensiveness (1b), and images (3).
and writing/structure (1a, 2b). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. There's no real work being done on this article, and doesn't look as though anyone's about to take it up. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist with Deepest Sympathy. Pity; I'm very dissapointed that a Filiocht FA has to go. Ceoil sláinte 08:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Per Ceoil.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2008 (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 User:Marskell 10:07, 25 August 2008 [27].

Helen Gandy edit

Review commentary edit

Wikipedia:WikiProject FBI notified. Sole editor User:PedanticallySpeaking last contributed to wikipedia in November 2007.

Nominating due to criterion 1c, no inline cites. --RelHistBuff 15:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renominated July 13, 2008: criteria 1c, no in-line cites. Buckshot06(prof) 04:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please contact the editors involved in bringing this article to FA status and post notices on WikiProject talk pages. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Numerous issues, article is in pretty bad shape and it doesn't look like anyone is working on it. If anyone does begin to work on it, I'll supply a list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed a previous PedanticallySpeaking FA, as I happened to have access to the same news archives he did. I suspect this is the case here and if so I can try to make fixes with regard to 1c... will be the weekend before I get to it. --JayHenry (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 07:37, 5 August 2008 (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 User:Joelr31 13:25, 20 August 2008 [28].

Battle of Hampton Roads edit

Review commentary edit

Notified Vaoverland, WikiProject Military history, and WikiProject Virginia

This article was promoted to FA status in December 2004. The article may have met the FA criteria back then, but it doesn't meet the current criteria. Criterion 1c seems to be the biggest problem for this article at the moment. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that I have also nominated another article for FAR, but be assured that I can handle commentaries on both pages. I've had multiple FACs and FLCs run simultaneously, with no problems. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This had struck me as a clear FAR candidate in the past. Referencing is virtually non-existent, and there are also some style problems e.g. the list-section for order of battle. There are also some stubby subsections. Content is by-and-large fine, though the article is a little on the short side, and the 'impact' section certainly needs to be considerably bigger. The Land (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must say the article in current form barely meets the current B-Class criteria for Milhist articles. Apparently it has not been maintained over the years. --Brad (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't even meet that because it has only 5 in-line citations. -MBK004 06:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lack of in-line citations is paramount. With the amount of work needed, you must be a masochist. If this wasn't an FA, I'd plaster the article with {{Morefootnotes}} at the top and a whole slew of {{fact}} tags. -MBK004 06:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The citations might be lacking but they are not 'difficult' citations, if you know what I mean - no profound understanding is needed, just a couple of history books, it's mainly narrative. The Land (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't bother reading the article (perhaps I should?), but is referencing the only issue? If it is, we might be able to save this article. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not quite the only issue but certainly the leading problem. The Land (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 08:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - 1c (the lack of in-line citations), 2a (the lead is too short), 2b (the style and sectioning doesn't hold up to other FAs of naval battles (Battle of Midway for example) -MBK004 14:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per 1c and 2a. Overall, my concerns have yet to be addressed. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove as per above. Wish I had time to make the save. --Brad (talk) 04:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per the lack of sufficient inline citations which are now expected in Wikipedia's best work. maclean 05:05, 20 August 2008 (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 User:Joelr31 13:25, 20 August 2008 [29].

Taiwanese (linguistics) edit

Review commentary edit

Notified Kaihsu, Jiang, WikiProject China, WikiProject Taiwan and WikiProject Languages

This article was promoted to FA status in May 2004. The article may have met the FA criteria back then, but it doesn't meet the current criteria. Criterion 1c seems to be the biggest problem for this article at the moment. I haven't looked at prose yet, but I will review later to see if it meets 1a. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely needs a whole host of references to stay featured. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 08:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per 1c. My concerns have yet to be addressed. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Inline citations are advised for statements such as "how one describes Taiwanese depends largely on one's political views", and "such claims are still controversial". Prose needs tightening. Article is off-focus in parts, e.g. Taiwanese puppetry and cuisine. Obsolete image tag on Image:Taiwanese Bible Chim-gian 1933.jpg could be updated. External links should be trimmed. DrKiernan (talk) 11:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove 1c. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. There is a lack of sufficient inline citations, as well as a mix of footnotes and embedded external links. The lead section insufficiently summarizes the content. maclean 04:48, 20 August 2008 (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 User:Marskell 13:21, 7 August 2008 [30].

Jerusalem edit

Review commentary edit

Notified WikiProjects Israel, Palestine, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism; notified all seventeen editors with more than 40 edits to the article. <eleland/talkedits> 21:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has serious problems with FA criteria 1b, 1c, 1d, and 1e. Specifically, it systematically neglects, minimizes, and downplays important aspects of the international controversy over the legal status of Jerusalem since 1967, and the "facts on the ground" created by Israeli policies in housing, entry visas, and political activity of the Palestinian population in the East. Attempts to redress these failings of accuracy and neutrality have let to edit skirmishes, so the article is also unstable. There are also somewhat less severe problems in the areas dealing with the British Mandate period and the 1947-48 war.

A chorus of UN Security Council resolutions (252, 267, 271, 298, 476, 478) have condemned Israel's occupation and attempted annexation of the Eastern sector. The wording has become progressively harsher as Israel continues to ignore the resolutions; by 476, they speak of "overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;" Israeli measures which "have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention." However, the lede continues being restored to a version which describes the occupation of East Jerusalem as merely a Palestinian view, and reduces this chorus of condemnation to a mere lack of "official recognition." Under "Establishment of the State of Israel," there is a vague and diffident account of the UNSC condemnation, which is described tendentiously as "non-binding," without a source. This last bit is particularily galling, as A) there is no international legal consensus whatsoever that resolutions such as these are "non-binding," and B) the article simultaneously describes an earlier UN General Assembly reccomendation as a "ruling," apparently because the resolution was favorable to Israel.

Israel has mounted a sustained, intense campaign to marginalize the Palestinian community in Jerusalem and fully "Judaize" the city. Palestinians are denied building permits, they build houses anyway because they need a roof over their heads, and then Israel comes in with soldiers and bulldozers and knocks the houses down. Palestinians leave for a month and while they're gone, their residency permits are suddenly, mysteriously revoked, again leaving them homeless. And outside the city, the figurative wall of Jewish-only settlements, coupled with the literal concrete separation wall, cut off Jerusalem from the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, with dire consequences for the economic and cultural life of the entire nation and cast doubt on the viability of any future Palestinian state. The article mentions almost none of this. Interestingly, it actually cites an article which discusses some of the issues; however, the main thrust of the article is completely ignored - instead, every sentence favorable to Israel is cherry-picked. All this under a section entitled "Palestinian claims," no less!

The same is true for Palestinian political activity. Israel has taken an extremely hard line against any organizing or electioneering in East Jerusalem. In 2001 they seized the tiny PLO office in Orient House, ransacked the place, and shut it down for good; the article merely mentions that it is "currently closed." During the 2006 Palestinian legislative election, Israel arrested every candidate who tried to campaign there. They originally planned to allow no voting, but then relented under pressure, and decided to allow Palestinians to vote for their preferred candidates, openly declaring that nobody suspected of holding the wrong loyalties would be blocked from the polling stations. The article doesn't mention this even in some vague abbreviated fashion.

What vague reference to "controversy" and "dispute" do exist, with no specifics presented, don't come close to comprehensive and neutral coverage. In addition, the massive watering-down of the controversy has led to factually dubious statements, such as the aforementioned "non-binding" silliness, and to article instability and even protection. In summary, this piece comes nowhere near meeting FA standards. It's a weak B-Class, in my opinion. <eleland/talkedits> 22:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I think this FAR is completely inappropriate. It reads as if Eleland is just trying to force other people's hands in a content dispute by hanging the threat of FA removal over their heads. Half of this is Eleland explaining why his position on something (I'm not sure what) is correct, rather than explaining why this article does not meet FA standards. While one might reasonably be able to argue that there is more to be desired from this article (like a good cleanup), Eleland's vision of what this article should look like really concerns me. There is excessive attention given to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and specifically what Israel is doing to Palestinians. This article is about the city of Jerusalem, not the about the conflict itself. Of course, the present-day conflict needs to be mentioned, but the details suggested by Eleland, if (all) included, would give undue weight to the conflict and Palestinian suffering. Eleland seems to be basing much of this FA on a rather recent (< 1-week-old) dispute, a dispute, incidentally, he has inaccurately portrayed. However, the lede continues being restored to a version which describes the occupation of East Jerusalem as merely a Palestinian view. What are you talking about? It didn't say that before Imad's edits nor after Jayjg's, and it certainly doesn't now. Eleland suggests that the article repeatedly takes the stance of Israelis, when I see little evidence of that happening. Just about the only time anything conceiveably related to the conflict is mentioned is when the capital issue is mentioned (as disputed by much of the international community). The second paragraph under "Palestinian claims" looks a little flowery, but that could easily be cleaned up -- no reason for an FAR. So, yes, much isn't said about Palestinian sentiment and treatment, but the same can be said about Israeli sentiment and treatment. And it shouldn't; this article is not about that. It's a weak B-Class, in my opinion. Unbelievable. -- tariqabjotu 00:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is a considerable number of editors who are worried about the neutrality of the article, and about the absence/minimizing of some significant information. Something that is apparent in the article talk page. Imad marie (talk) 08:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In my opinion, this article does not meet FAR standards: there is neutrality problem, the "citation need" appears twice, the article is not stable, and the section "Culture" contains a tag that says that the section has to be expanded. Idontknow610TM 17:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I hope that this FARC gains significant contribution from the normal featured article contributor and isn't just a place for those of us who have been active in the arguments around the page to continue it in another place. On one level I would like the FA status to be removed as it has been used by some editors as an excuse to say that all is right in the world and any claims that the article is politically biased are dismissed onthe grounds that this is an FA and all FAs will have been properly evaluated. Of course, the best solution for Wikipedia would be to fix things. My biggest gripe with the article is with the first sentence which makes it seem uncomlicated that the city is in Israel. This is clearly the de facto position but reflects an extreme view of the de jure position in international law. There is an equally extreme view that woul deny all legitimacy to Israel and refers to it as the Zionist Entity. But Positions on Jerusalem demonstrates that the position is complicated. Countries such as the United Kingdom believe that the position of Jerusalem is unresolved as it was intended to be a corpus separatum and was illegally occupied by Jordan and Israel. Others accept that the pre-1967 West Jerusalem is part of Israel but deny that East Jerusalem is. Having the opening sentence of our article assert uncomplicatedly that the city (imploicitly the whole of it) is part of Israel ignores the disputed status and fails to reflect a neutral point of view instead taking an extremist position in the dispute.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison between the first sentence of the article and people calling Israel a Zionist entity seems plainly unfair. Clearly, the latter is a more extreme and derogatory tactic. That being said, I'm not sure what else you're hoping the first sentence to say. That Jerusalem sits partially on the West Bank? Or are you expecting the whole intro to be reworded entirely? In any event, the biggest point of contention during the FAC was the introduction. There was a bit of discussion surrounding that before we settled on an introduction very similar to the one that currently resides in the article. So, it seems a bit strange to me that the current introduction was a product of the FAC, and now is a source of the FAR. But, for that reason, if a consensus for changing it again really exists, this would be the best place to initiate the discussion. I'm not sure if that's the case, though. However, I dispute the idea, which could easily be inferred from the tone of your comment, that the original writers of the introduction were not aware of the complicated issues surrounding Jerusalem (or, as Eleland has more directly suggested, knew about them and have intentionally suppressed them). Just as complicated as the issues is how to address them without taking the focus away from the topic of the article, which, after all, is a city with thousands of years of history and significance that continues to this day despite the conflict.
As for the rest of the article, I think the issues there could easily be addressed without the FAR as a motivator. If you think some of the people involved with the article or who had a vested interest in bringing this to FA status should get involved, you may want to notify them. However, I don't have the time at the moment to work on cleaning up this article or notifying others who certainly have an interest in maintaining this article's status. -- tariqabjotu 19:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further: I'm not sure if your referring to me, but I am going to stand by my statement that biased articles do not become featured articles. But this is also similar to saying bad articles don't become featured articles. This is not to say nothing should be changed; changes have obviously been made to the article in the sixteen months since this article was made an FA, and (many of them) rightfully so. Rather, this is in response to claims, either explicit or implicit, that there is a cadre of pro-Israel editors that have been defending the article against anything critical of Israel. The featured article process is supposed to gather opinions from a variety of editors, and this case was no different. While some may still contest parts of the article -- as you wish -- the assertions by some (not, apparently, you) that this article is a bastion of pro-Israel sentiment are off the mark and do not take into account the suggestions that were offered, considered, and/or implemented during the FAC. -- tariqabjotu 19:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, for taking the time to think about my comments. What I would regard as a preferable opening to the lede would be something like the following: (
Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם‎ (audio) (help·info), Yerushaláyim; Arabic: القُدس (audio) (help·info), al-Quds) is an ancient city of great significance to the three monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Following the Six-Day War of 1967, the whole city has been united under Israeli control, functions as Israel's capital, and has been expanded to be her largest city both in terms of populaton and area. However, the status of the city is internationally disputed.
I'd like to see if anyone has any observations I'm missing, but for now I don't have anything to dispute. -- tariqabjotu 06:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re-wording of my proposed text to highlight long history of international dispute follows: --Peter cohen (talk) 10:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם‎ (audio) (help·info), Yerushaláyim; Arabic: القُدس (audio) (help·info), al-Quds) is an ancient city of great significance to the three monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It has been fought over many times, including during the Crusades. Most recently, the whole city has been united under Israeli control following the Six-Day War of 1967. It functions as Israel's capital, and has been expanded to be her largest city both in terms of populaton and area. However, the status of the city continues to be the subject of internationally dispute.
I have listed on the Talk page several of some dozens of notes I have made on the text indicating why this article does simply not approximate to FA quality standards. It is not simply a matter that the political controversy on the city's status is consistently glossed over. The etymology section is woefully substandard, and indeed biased towards wild unhistorical etymologizing. Both I and User:Zero0000 have indicated how it should be handled. The section on Palestinians sounds like hype from a tourist brochure, whereas the record shows a situation of extreme administrative prejudice against Jerusalemite Palestinians, as Eleland has noted. The history section is poor, as Jewish editors themselves admit, particularly on the non-Jewish aspects of its traditions, but also the Jewish history of the city could be much improved. There are many sentences that require rewriting purely from a stylistic point of view.
Take, just these few arbitrary bits and pieces:-
‘client kings of Judea’
can mean they are clients of a power called Judea’ or ‘kings of Judea’ who are client of Rome.
'Hadrian proceeded to rename the entire Iudaea Province to Syria Palaestina after the Biblical Philistines'
You don’t in English ‘rename . .to’. Syria Palestina is not a naming after the Philistines. It is a restoration of the 6th century BC Greek designation of the area. Philistines are not identifiable with Syria.
'16th and 17th centuries, . . Regional trade flourished and Jerusalem's economy and population expanded.'
Elsewhere we are told that trade in Jerusalem was historically based on pilgrimage, which is, again, untrue. In any case the two sentences contradict each other. No hint here of the real state of the city in those centuries, by the way.
'foreign missions and consulates were established throughout the province that the Ottomans were unable to dislodge following re-occupation'
What was to be dislodged? the province or the consulates? In any case, 'following reoccupation' is obscure, and the point not reliably sourced.
'As the British Mandate for Palestine was expiring'.
'Expire' is an inappropriate word here, suggesting a natural end.
'the nascent Israeli troops'
(we are really meant to get the impression that the Israeli troops fought a war in swaddling bands?!!.
'Contrary to the terms of the Armistice Agreement of 1949 between Jordan and Israel, Israelis were denied access to Jewish holy sites,and only allowed extremely limited access to Christian holy sites.'
I.e. Israelis were denied access to Jewish sites, but could, rarely visit Christian holy sites. So what does this imply? Where are the Christians? Were they denied access? The subject makes Israelis the only relevant category in the disputes.(There should be more on the very strong Christian revival of interest in Jerusalem at that time. The Christian myths and work on the city spurred in turn the Jewish revival.
'The status of the city and of its holy places remains disputed to this day'
(IF you admit this in the text, then ‘disputed’ belongs to the lead definition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel). Yet all attempts to signpost the fact in the lead suffer massive challenges. The status of its holy places is too generic. Most are secured in law all accept, except for marginal areas of any one site.
'On December 5, 1949, the State of Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, proclaimed Jerusalem as Israel's capital' I.e. he proclaimed all of Jerusalem the capital of Israel, or West Jerusalem, the part in Israel's sector?
'It has also been critiqued for its emphasis'.
'Critique' as a verb is academic jargon for a critical review of some thesis. It is a textual operation. The word intended was obviously 'criticized' .
Dozens of other slipshod usages, unhistoric assertions, unsourced remarks ('sacred to the Jews from the 10th century'? No historian would underwrite this, since it cannot be documented), could be added to the list (I'll provide a full list if required). One can only remark on these, since editing the text tends to run into revert wars by hyperventilating editors. It needs to be thoroughly reviewed with a senior administrator, preferably two, imposing strict supervision, preferably with the most disputed element left until the end (i.e., the question of political status). The rest of the page is ragged and consistently uneven, and that should be addressed first. As a contribution and sign of good faith, I would be quite happy to provide a thorough, strongly sourced rewrite, according to the standard philological criteria, of the Etymology section, a section which does not involve political differences. On condition that the page is placed under intelligent, depoliticized supervision by administrators who care about textual quality. Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree with a statement high above that this article is about the city of Jerusalem, not about the Israeli Arab conflict itself. Unfortunately, Israeli articles are being attacked ferociously in wikipedia by many anon users (I'm not commenting on users on this page) in the hope of crushing the spirit of editors who works on Israeli related articles. Jerusalem is just a city in Israel, its capital, and it's not a political issue - or more accurately it doesn't have to be. People live there and the article is written about the culture, the government seats, the parliament, the geography, the climate of Jerusalem. It is quite understandable of course, but sad, that users like to exploit the platform to sway discussions to the conflict. This is the whole point of course - to de legitimize the state of Israel. It's a similar situation to if the New York City article would be attacked by supporters of Saddam or Castro for example. They would make it out that it's not of course, but it really is. The experienced editors like User:Eleland should know better not to be dragged to these anon users' wishes. If the article "downplays important aspects of the international controversy over the legal status of Jerusalem since 1967" it is because this is not Politics.com or Jerusalem-the-future.com . It is an Encyclopedia which describes the city of Jerusalem. Not more than a paragraph or two should be concentrated on political violence - it just opens the door for extremists to make antisemitic comments about Jews, about whether or not it is the capital (which is a fact on the ground) and whether or not Israelis should be allowed to be free in their country and write about their cities in wikipedia. Cheers, Amoruso (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In line with this, I think the most significant thing about Jerusalem is its religious history. Mecca starts with a mention of its status in Islam before moving on later to mention it is Saudi. Bethlehem, I think mistakenly, mentions it is Palestinian before mentioning its place in Christianity. And similarly, I think Rome's status as the core of the Roman Empire and the seat of the Roman Catholic church is actually more important than its being the capital of the youngish nation state of Italy. In my proposed opening to the Jerusalem above, I have placed the religious status first and the current political status of a city that has changed hands many many times second. I hope that you would agree that that is progress.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A palmary suggestion, beautifully worded,Peter. To respond to another editor's remarks, there are implicit and explicit politics in these textual redactions, indeed there's far too much politics driving our edits. The Jerusalem article, as it stands is a very good example of the former, while all attempts to challenge the covert drift are taken as 'political', whereas they are driven by a perception, not unfounded, that attempts at a comprehensive NPOV account of the city has yielded to a rather one-sided perspective, centered around the possessive myth of the eternal return, what was 'ours' in the beginning shall be ours at the end of time, and on the facts of recent acquisition. I would underwrite every word Peter has just written, a sense that 'eternal' cities, must be narrated sub specie aeternitatis and not in terms of the temporal politics that focus on possession. It has played a powerful role in the religious and literary imaginaries of three civilizations, and that unity of transcendental value should unite the various narratives, rather than divide them, as a politically-centered narrative does.
But my preoccupations remain predominantly those I alluded to above. Too many sections are simply not up to snuff, and ripe with errors, of detail, generalization, strategic underplayings of realities extraterritorial to the dominant impress of Jerusalem as a Jewish city, and issues of expression and style. Nishidani (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
R to Amoruso
I certainly understand and respect the argument that present-day politics ought to be minimized in an article about a city that is several thousand years old. I would be willing to leave this issue alone if the article just skirted modern times entirely; technically that's not acceptable in a featured article, but whatever, it's not my concern.
However it seems to me that nobody has yet proposed that politics be left out of this article. Rather, they've defined an extremist, irredentist "pro-Israel" position as being the natural, objective, apolitical state of affairs, and then proposed that Palestinian politics be left out of the article. This can be seen clearly in Amoruso's own comment. "Jerusalem is just a city in Israel, its capital," and to argue for any nuance beyond this fiat is an exploitation intended "to de legitimize Israel," comparable to supporting Saddam Hussein or Fidel Castro, linked to an effort to "crush the spirit" of Jewish editors, and a stalking horse for antisemitism. "Israelis should be free to write about their cities," the twin corollaries apparently being that 1) any city Israel manages to conquer becomes "its city" and 2) everybody else shouldn't be free to write about them.
This view would be at variance with WP:NPOV even if the issue were as clear cut as Amoruso pretends it to be; of course, it is not. Israel's official claim that all of Jerusalem is and ought to be Israeli is rejected by the entire international community. Even the United States, out at the extreme fringe of "pro-Israel" opinion, voted for the relevant resolutions. All fifteen judges of the ICJ reject this position. Every respectable map of the area uses the 1949 cease-fire line that divided Jerusalem in two, even though it is completely irrelevant "on the ground." The BBC apologized for calling Jerusalem Israel's capital, saying that "We of course accept that the international community does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and that the BBC should not describe it as such." Even Disney World, for pete's sake, took the same position.
If Amoruso wishes to believe that this is all a worldwide conspiracy led by Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro to crush the Jewish spirit, of which I am a hapless dupe, fine, that's his prerogative. It's not his perogative to demand that WP comply with such beliefs, or to present them as neutral, apolitical facts. They are clearly not. <eleland/talkedits> 18:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the article reads like a discussion of Jerusalem as an Israeli city, and the talk page reads like a discussion of the need to also treat Jerusalem as a Palestinian city. In my opinion, above all, the article should emphasize Jerusalem as a world heritage site that in fact belongs to all of us, including Israelis and Palestinians, but not exclusively. I think if it were to read in this way, then there would be more of a willingness to treat Jerusalem as a city that has, at different times and in different ways, been perceived as "the capital" of a variety of different peoples, whether in possession of a nation-state of their own or not.This is indeed what makes Jerusalem so significant, no?, not merely its status as today's capital of Israel or Palestine. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm just going to be brutally honest here, though not politically wise. It is incredibly tiresome to find editors whose main purpose for editing Wikipedia is to demonize Israel coming here to try to "punish" an article because it doesn't view the ancient city of Jerusalem through their incredibly narrow "Zionism is evil" lens. Tariqabjotu, who doesn't have a dog in the I-P fight, did an admirable job of creating an informative and well-written article about the city; those who lack either the talent or inclination to contribute in this way have come here to tear his work down. The main "issues" raised so far are trivial at best, and rank POV-pushing at worst. Yes, the article might benefit from a little more detail about the city's religious significance, and parts of the history section could be sharpened, but these are issues of personal preference more than anything else, and overall the article is top-notch. Using this process in an extortionist attempt to advance a political agenda is shameful. Jayjg (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: I suggest you focus less on being brutally honest and more on being intellectually honest. Your comments here, as on Talk:Jerusalem, are simply thesis statements (there's no real issue here, the article is informative and well-written,) followed not by supporting evidence or logical argument, but by insulting speculation about personal motives, mock astonishment, and other such histrionics. The one time, Jay, that you've actually cited a relevant source (Britannica) to support your position, you claimed that "you wouldn't see" it saying, in the introduction or anywhere else, something that it said in the very first paragraph. Apart from this one rather ineffective attempt, and from a torrent of personal attacks, all you've done is re-state your original premise, preceded by phrases like, "As has been previously pointed out to you" and "As can be clearly seen." If you haven't anything of substance to offer, then kindly desist from such useless and trivial exercises. <eleland/talkedits> 20:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    'It is incredibly tiresome to find editors whose main purpose for editing Wikipedia is to demonize Israel coming here to try to "punish" an article because it doesn't view the ancient city of Jerusalem through their incredibly narrow "Zionism is evil" lens.

  • There's nothing 'brutally honest' about this. It's terribly tiresome for all of us 'on both sides' to find irresponsible POV editing for political or national or partisan ends. It happens to be an unfortunate reality that I/P articles by their very nature deal with mediating a variety of strong and opposed perspectives (not, as often as some would wish, simplified oppositions between an Israeli' and a 'Palestinian' perspective). Their editing, for that reason, requires particular talents, equanimity and a capacity to listen. If you think there are specific editors here whose 'main purpose is to demonize Israel' name them. Perhaps there are, but I see none. The implicit corollary in your declaration is that 'there are no editors in Wikipedia whose main purpose is to demonize Palestinians, when not eliding them from the cognitive map of the area'. Arguments are to be addressed on their merits, not by preemptive torpedoeing of their proponents by raising suspicions about their mala fides. Finally, it is not to 'tear down' an article that one notes that two sections are lamentable sub-par. The Etymology section is, precisely because it has been written to highlight the 'Hebrew' etymologies for the city and apparently secure its jewish identity linguistically, a disgrace. Had it not been politicized, we should have had no problem in simply drafting what any reference book says of its etymology, that the term is Semitic, predating historical Hebrew and the Jewish presence in the city by nearly a 1,000 years. Afterwards, the word, assimilated into Hebrew, developed a rich series of folk etymologies, that happen to be just that, speculative attempts to give a foreign word a religious significance within Judaic tradition. Is it pushing a Palestinian POV to note this? It is a good example where an apparently non-political issue, from a technical point of view of pure linguistics, has unwittingly assumed a strong POV colouring, innocently perhaps, because not all are familiar with the philology of the term Nishidani (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Jerusalem is currently the capital of Israel. Other countries can decide that New York should be the capital of the US because it has special significance for more people, but it is not up to other countries or entities to decide the capital of another, sovereign state. Whether that is legal by international standards or even accepted by other countries is really moot , unless they try to take it over like the Crusaders or Saladin. Right now it is in Jewish (Israeli) hands (again). There is absolutely no way that a Jewish/Arab-Muslim consensus about this city will be reached either here or in "real life" in the near future. The article will never be written to please both sides. Already a user suggests another believes in " a worldwide conspiracy ... to crush the Jewish spirit." One might be excused for thinking this latest effort to de-feature the article is part of the endless propaganda(and real) war [31] being waged, part of the asymmetric warfare cycle, at minimum transparently an attempt to instill WP:POV. The substance of this article reaches back thousands of years; tens of centuries. The debate that's being raised here is a little over 60 years old. Can't we just leave contemporary political arguments out of it for once? There are plenty of blogs and political interest groups concerned with (the status of) Jerusalem from both sides. [32] Don't let's import the battles to Wiki. There is absolutely nothing wrong about correcting errors of fact, if indeed there are factual errors in the article. But if unhappy with the politics of it all, how about starting a whole new other, "Jerusalem" article, calling it "Political Jerusalem" or "Muslim/Arab/Palestinian Jerusalem" or "Arab East Jerusalem" or something, and give as much time to the Israeli/Jewish perspective as the Arab/Muslim perspective has enjoyed in this article? This has been considered a good 'featured' article and doesn't need to be burdened with these politics. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Exactly, as you say, Tundrabuggy, "The debate that's being raised here is a little over 60 years old." Jerusalem's significance reaches far beyond this debate. Despite the fact that the city is thousands of years old and has wide-reaching historical significance for many peoples worldwide, about 2/3 of the article focuses on Jerusalem's significance as an Israeli city. I am a Jerusalemite, and would welcome an entry called: "Israel's capital, Jerusalem"; however in an encyclopedia entry on "Jerusalem" I expect to see an emphasis in tone on the broader significance and context of the city than we see here. (It's all a matter of flow and organization - much of the content is there, but because of the article's ordering, the emphasis of the entry is on Jerusalem as a center of Israeli governance rather than Jerusalem as a center of world history.)
In particular, although personally I am secular, it stands out as quite bizarre that one has to scroll halfway down the article to get to the "religious significance' section.
Jayjg says that a little more religious significance would be useful, as would some sharpening of the history section. Well, let's get to it then - as we have seen in the debate over the capital issue, a few sentences, and their placement, make an immense difference in conveying the tone/focus of an article. It's easy enough to move the religious significance section up, to start...LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I hate to be the guy that adds the "citation needed" tags in article and I always try to avoid doing so, but some subsections in the history section (of an FA by the way) are almost completely unreferenced. I placed several tags where needed and I can't believe no one has brought this up (actually I didn't look at above conversations so I'm not sure). We get these passages referenced, improve the general style, add info on the Arab Jerusalemite culture as well as the Arab, Crusader and Mamluk history in the city and this article could be saved. The "status" sentence is an issue, but I don't think it'll bring down the article. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I won't waste bytes by repeating what Tariq and Jayg said. I agree with their words here. The issues raised here are mostly minor stylistic issues, or issues of personal preference. Some of the less-than-optimal phrasing is a natural result of a heavily edited article, and basically "crops-up when no one's looking". A simple cleanup would solve these in less time than this discussion is taking up. The article could refer more to the Arab aspect of the city, both today (mainly in the Culture section), and in the past (History section). While it's easy to refer to such points to claim the article is biased, it's also misleading; this information isn't there not because "pro-Israeli" editors removed it, but simply because no one wrote it. It wouldn't be prohibitively difficult for one of the Arabic speaking editors to research this issue, but I guess it's easier to complain and argue against an article than do something productive. I also find it in very poor taste that people are, on the one hand, complaining over lack of stability of an article, and on the other causing it. okedem (talk) 07:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThanks for the previous two constructive comments, AlAmeer son and Okedem. The article is not a disaster by any means despite the contested sentence. It just needs some finetuning. Who is willing to do it, rather than just complaining? I'm afraid I will not have the time myself in coming days... LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion Perhaps a good model, as far as ordering goes, would be Rome? The Rome entry, I see, emphasizes the city as the capital of Italy as opposed to a world heritage site (contrary to my arguments above) however it gives due emphasis via placing an "Architecture, landmarks and city layouts" section after "history" and before "Government". I think what this article is perhaps missing most of all is a "Landmarks" section? What do others think? Or are the landmarks simply too numerous to count?LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. If some doubts persist as to the inability of many editors to perceive obvious bias in word choice, I would ask them to see the recent edits designating the Moroccan Quarter as a 'slum'. All of the old City was, technically a slum. The Moroccan Quarter alone is a 'slum', a word prefacing a comment on its being razed (slum clearance, a sanitary measure) to allow Jewish access to the wall. People who note this kind of operation and protest it are not, in Jayjg's description, 'demonizers of Israel' who set out to 'punish' Israel. They are readers who are appalled by the inability of otherwise forthright editors to see the implications of the choices they make, as though our perspective is the only real option available. True, there follows a long setpiece to satisfy the 'minority' (opposition): several notes on foreign condemnations. As Peter Cohen, LamaLoLeshLa and others have pointed out, one could well wipe out most of this political documentation, reduce it to a single phrase, with sources, and used the saved space to actually provide a little detail on that historic quarter, now razed, with its two mosques. Instead, a waqf property, with attached mosques, razed to the ground is described implicitly as an improvement on access to the wall. The indelicacy of the editors who support this is, frankly, quite unbelievable (were it not so frequent). Perhaps, since one doesn't expect much to change (people are conservative about this text, I am conservative culturally; what was, should be remembered), one could open up an article on the Jerusalem we have lost, the many historic areas destroyed, from the 19th through the twentieth century (Jordanians in 1948 included), down to the present destruction of archeoligical ground sites in Silwan. I live in Rome, and in reading of such razings, recall spontaneously what was done in this city: Quod non fecerunt barbari, fecerunt Barberini. Nishidani (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment First, it seems to me that many of the comments above have nothing to do with FA criteria and whether the article meets them. I think there are some obvious problems with the quality of the writing, and the article doesn't seem all that stable right now. As for neutrality, I don't think it is a great distance away from something acceptable - but the editing process at the moment does not appear to allow improvement in this regard. As things stand, I wouldn't be keen to send my students to this article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason the article is "not all that stable" is because POV-pushers keep trying to insert their nonsense into it; a bit of a Catch 22 there, destabilize the article, then come here claiming it shouldn't be a FA because it's unstable. As for the rest, it's actually Tariqabjotu who has brought up the most serious issue with the article: that it focuses far too much on the post-1948 history, and the material is chosen to push various POV agendas. But try to actually cut that down to size, and the howls of protest would spring up from the our victimhood must come first and foremost!!! crowd. Jayjg (talk) 06:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - Just had a quick look, and found plenty of problems:
    • The neutrality tag raises an eyebrow—it certainly wouldn't pass the FAC process with that, suggests failure of criteria 1d and possibly 1e.
    • No reference for: "A city called Rushalimum appears in ancient Egyptian records, which many scholars believe to be the first reference to Jerusalem"
    • The footnotes need cleaning up: "Ceramic evidence indicates the occupation of Ophel, within present-day Jerusalem, as far back as the Copper Age, c. 4th millennium BCE,[25][5] with evidence of a permanent settlement during the early Bronze Age, c. 3000-2800 BCE.[25] [26]" - Some are together, some have a space. Some are after a period, some after a comma.
    • "King David reigned until 970 BCE." - Very short, can this sentence and the one after be changed to improve flow?
    • There are citation needed tags. This article fails 1c.
    • Though not a reason for delisting, this article is overlinked. Please consider reducing the number of linked words to only necessary ones.
    • No reference for "Enforcement of the ban on Jews entering Aelia Capitolina continued until the 4th century CE."
    • Space between footnote: "In 1517, Jerusalem and environs fell to the Ottoman Turks, who remained in control until 1917.[59] The Ottomans built tanneries and slaughterhouses near Christian and Jewish holy places "so that an evil smell should ever plague the infidels." [62]"
    • "[67]In the 1860s, new neighborhoods began to go up outside the Old City walls to house pilgrims and relieve the intense overcrowding and poor sanitation inside the city" - Missing space after footnote.
    • Unsourced paragraph: "At the end of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Jerusalem was left divided between Israel and Jordan (then known as Transjordan). The ceasefire line established through the Armistice Agreement of 1949 between Israel and Jordan, cut through the center of the city, and left Mount Scopus as an Israeli exclave. Barbed wire and checkpoints divided the city, and military skirmishes frequently threatened the cease-fire."
    • Unsourced paragraph: "After the establishment of the State of Israel, Jerusalem was declared its capital. Jordan formally annexed East Jerusalem in 1950, and declared the Palestinian Arab population to be Jordanian citizens. This move was not internationally recognized. In 1951 the Jordanian King Abdullah was assassinated by a Palestinian while visiting the city."
    • Current refs 2 and 6 contains article context.
    • Refs 60-67 need formatting correctly. Do not repeat book title and first author name if the same book is referenced more than once. Please add the missing ISBNs and format in the correct way.
    • Current ref 74 is missing access date.
    • Current refs 85, 87, 93, 94 are not formatted.
    • There are many other citations which need fixing for consistency and accuracy, please go through all of them.
    • I have not checked image copyright/rationales, so it might fail criteria 3 for images.
    • I have not checked the prose, but it might need a polish to satisfy criteria 1a for prose of a "professional standard".
    • In conclusion, this does not meet the FA criteria. It fails 1c, 1d, possibly 1e, and 2c.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (a) The lack of a ref for Rushalimum (which should be Rušalimum/ Urušalimum, since the Execration texts allow both forms) is easily fixed, by inserting:- G.Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren (eds.) Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, (tr.David E.Green) William B.Eerdmann, Grand Rapids Michigan, Cambridge, UK 1990 p.348</ref>. Of course, this won't solve the problem, that the whole etymology section must be completely written since it is a hodge-podge of folklorish etymologies.

(b) King David's reign and times being conjectural must be phrased to reflect that conjectural status.

(c) Mt Scopus was a Jewish enclave, but demilitarized, and with a perimeter on the mountain, defining (doc. and map 21 July 1948) that enclave from the rest of the hill. Israel insisted the whole site was Israeli territory. In practical terms it wasn't part of Israel, since the agreement of 7 July 1948 allowed passage of two convoys per month to maintain the Israeli position, which included the Arab village of Issawiyya. Hence the incident as late as April 1952, when Israel violated the agreement on non transporting military material into Mt Scopus by hiding it in the convoys. When you simplify, everything tilts POVwards.

(d) I have been blocked as many others, for ever using the word 'Palestinian' by pro-Israeli editors who insist on 'Palestinian Arab', esp. for this period. So it caught my attention again that when King Abdullah was assassinated, it wasn't a Palestinian Arab (Mustafa Ashu of the the Sheikh Jarrah suburb of Jerusalem) but a Palestinian tout court, a good example of double-standard composition. etc.Nishidani (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • There are a couple of unformatted citations, such as http://www.merip.org/mero/mero080400.htmland (which is a dead link anyway).
  • Dead links:
    • Citation 101 ^Official site of Bezalel Academy of Art and Design: (Hebrew) & (English)
    • Citation 102 ^"About JCT". Jerusalem College of Technology. Retrieved on 25 March 2007.
    • Citation 124 ^(Hebrew) "Home". Hapoel Migdal Jerusalem. Retrieved on 7 March 2007.
    • Citation 131 ^"The Rockefeller Archaeological Museum". The Israel Museum, Jerusalem. Retrieved on 28 February 2007. --maclean 07:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are neutrality (1d), comprehensiveness (1b), referencing (1c), and stability (1e). Marskell (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Often with reviews of this sort we've shut them down early because FAR is not dispute resolution. Given the concerns raised above, I think this should go through the full review process. I can't order people to keep it short or to avoid threaded conversations, but that's my hope here to make this easier to close. Make precise declarations of keep or remove directly focused on the FA criteria. For longer comments, what Wackymacs has done above is preferable—specific textual issues raised or addressed, rather than lengthy discursions about POV. Marskell (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove per my comments given in the reviewal process. Numerous problems with the article as already mentioned by Marskell. The references are not good enough, the prose is poor in places and the article is not considered comprehensive or stable. Little has been done to fix these problems in the past weeks since the FAR started. If this went up at FAC today, it would not pass. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has some issues, granted, but none severe enough for FA removal. The article is comprehensive, and the stability issue is caused by people edit-warring with the specific intent of causing FA removal. The issues raised are minor, at best. The people arguing for FA removal would have spent less time and effort simply fixing those (non-controversial) problems, instead of complaining about them. However, this FAR was political from the start, initiated because some editors want the article to discuss the conflict at every single paragraph. This would be a prize for them. Quite frankly, the simplest thing to do would be to just revert the article to the version that got FA. okedem (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issues are far from minor. This article has [citation needed] tags-an absolute no-no for a featured article. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 19:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Minor. None of the tagged sentences have any importance, and were added recently. They can be removed in a heartbeat. okedem (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then why not remove them now? You think this should be Kept, but you're suggesting that things be changed/removed, which suggests the current revision is not FA standard. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 20:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove The quality of this article is obviously substantially lower than it was the day it was promoted. And that's a real shame, because as I mentioned (and Marskell implied) the tenor of the opening statement to the review was way out-of-line. Removing this article's FA star may seem, as Okedem suggested, like a "prize" for some editors, but the poor state of the article can't be ignored. Unfortunately, no one at this point seems to want to put any effort into fixing this article. For those who have been constantly attacked as unreasonably pro-Israel, that's understandable. For those who have been on the offensive, attacking editors who have contributed to the article, it's merely unfortunate you didn't put that energy into proposing (new) alternatives. Over the past few weeks alone, we have seen the article descend even further in quality, highlighting violations of (4) length / summary style, as excessive detail regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict still keeps getting added. There are times when the article is not (1a) well-written, (1e) stable, or (2c) consistently cited, but that is primarily due to sloppy insertions of new (and frequently unnecessary) elements. The fact that the article may not appear (1b) comprehensive is primarily due to the fact that too much space is devoted to the past sixty years, suggesting that we need to say a heck of a lot more about pre-20th century history (while more could be said, not tons more should). Neutrality is not, in my opinion, a major concern, except insofar as it relates to undue weight given to the entire conflict (rather than just Israel or just Palestinians); the tags make the problem seem worse than it is. Are these things, and the issues that don't fit concretely under FA criteria, able to be fixed in a few weeks? Absolutely, but not without a great deal of patience, patience I don't think anyone has it this point. But, FA removal is not forever. The article can be put into the shop, ideally without the destructive instigators, and brought back via FAC. -- tariqabjotu 20:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm really sorry to see that the nominator put this article here, mainly in order to make a political statement. This, however, does not alter the reality: The article has indeed many problems. Without reading in detail, the first thing I saw is its overciting, which makes it difficult for anybody to read it. And there are many other issues the above reviewers mentioned (for instance, why is reference 6 so looooong, when there is a seperate [?] notes section?). Happy to see that there are no POV tags.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I couldn't tell which type of 'overciting' you were referencing (no pun intended), but there are two types I'm thinking of: we can either cite too many statements, or cite certain statements with too many sources. The former I think is impossible on this article; the subject of the article is an invitation for people who want to fling accusations of bias and misrepresentation to do so, and I think it would be best if nearly everything was cited. The latter, however, I think is a problem. Reference 6, as you mention, looks ridiculous. Certainly, debatable statements can have multiple references, but seven lengthy citations seems overboard. As for the separate sections for notes, I don't understand why this has been brought up; that is a perfectly acceptable way of presenting endnotes. -- tariqabjotu 12:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did not say it is not acceptable! I have used such sections repeatedly. I just said that since there is such a section, why having this long note in citations? And my question mark has to do with the fact that this notes section has no "heading"! That's all! By overciting I mean that there are too many citations, even in the middle of sentences, breaking them and making the reading a tough task. Why don't you ask Sandy about how to place them at the end of the sentences (unless is is an absolute need to cite something in the middle of a sentence) and group them (I'll mention Tourette syndrome once again as a model on this issue!).--Yannismarou (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Apart from the issues concerning referencing etc., the article needs recasting sio that the emphasis is on Jerusalem as an ancient city notable predominantly for its major religious significance and this recasting should begin with the lead. The conflict of the past 60+ years is just another variation of the religious wars that have gone on for many centuries and should be discussed in this context. WP:RECENT may be only an essay but it ost certainly applies here.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove It's taken me over an hour and six edits just to check the most elementary data (the population). During this I found mistakes in template use, mis-numbered references, duplicated references, incorrectly formatted references, references which did not match the information they were next to, and references which contradict each other, e.g.[33][34][35] in addition to MoS breaches [36]. This indicates to me that the rest of the article probably suffers from the same problems. DrKiernan (talk) 08:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All you did was nitpick. There are featured article criteria, which enjoin you to analyze the article as a whole rather than base an objection to featured status on trivial, and in a couple cases repetitive or misleading, complaints. There were no misnumbered references (merely a difference of opinion on whether a reference in a footnote goes before one in the body). Also, the duplicated reference was not an exact match. So, basically, you're left with a (common) WP:DASH error, and some other issues with a few references that were added recently. And because (gasp) you found a few mistakes in the article, that must mean the article as a whole is a minefield of referencing issues. You're certainly not going to see if that's the case, or look at the other FA criteria, because it took you a whole hour to look at a few references (that long; really?). The focus of FARs should be long-standing issues, not recent, minor referencing mistakes that take a couple minutes of one's time to fix. Featured articles are not intended to be perfect at every level, which is why the quality of the article as a whole should be considered. Further, if it took you "over an hour and six edits just to check the most elementary data", you need to be more efficient and use the Preview button; that alone is not a sign that an article should not be featured. -- tariqabjotu 13:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're quite wrong. This edit shows that I removed an exact duplication [37]. This version, before my edits, shows clearly that footnote 5 came before footnote 4 (you can't actually see the identifier for footnote 5 in the lead because it is mal-formatted). The length of time I have spent on the article is indicative of the great effort I have gone to fact-check, assure reliability and ascertain MoS compliance. This article has failed on those counts. Finally, why are you berating me when we are both "voting" remove? The contentious and argumentative attitudes of you and the other contributors to this article is one of the main causes of the article's poor state. DrKiernan (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exact duplication? No, they're not, given the two links go to articles with different titles. Misnumbered reference? Okay, this was a mistake on my part; I didn't realize the (current) reference [v] was also in a footnote. So you are correct that the numbering was out of order. Regardless, me voting "remove" does not mean I should sit by and let misguided reviews stand. This isn't about forming rigid gangs of pro-FA-removal and anti-FA-removal editors; it's about providing feedback for improving the article and deciding whether this should still be a featured article, based on the criteria which does not, in fact, call for this level of nitpicking. You found that maybe one percent of the references had minor issues. Okay, big deal. We're human; people make mistakes and others are not entirely experts on wiki-code. It is especially conceivable that the errors you mention were due to a mistake by one or two people considering the errors you found surrounded a similar topic (population and demographics). These people, who exist all over Wikipedia, do not kill featured articles. When someone comes across obvious mistakes, like the ones you found, you fix them (as you did) and move on (as you didn't do). What kills articles is long-standing, unresolved problems with this article. If you think my "contentious and argumentative attitude" is what has caused the downfall of this article, you really haven't been paying attention. On the contrary, I was a primary reason it was featured in the first place. -- tariqabjotu 16:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I must interject here, seeing two good editors arguing. Tariq has obviously provided enormous effort for this article, from it's original nomination through to this review. I can understand that he's frustrated and that little nitpicks seem trivial when compared with the larger issues surrounding this article. DrK, meanwhile, is absolutely one of the best editors the FA review has—in no way a member of a "rigid gang". Any work he is putting in is because of an earnest desire to save the article, as he has done so often before. I think this probably can't be saved, unfortunately; I'll leave the review up another day to see if there are any last comments. In the meantime, AGF is needed all around. Both of you want to improve content and needn't view the other's efforts badly. Marskell (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I didn't say he was part of a rigid gang. He asked me "why are you berating me when we are both "voting" remove" and my response was that we're not part of a rigid gang. -- tariqabjotu 18:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Fair enough, Tariq. I was only trying to deescalate. Marskell (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I apologise to Tariq for using a poor choice of words in my edit summary. DrKiernan (talk) 07:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • (An aside: I wish everyone was so gracious as to apologize, like you.)LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. I don't see that more time is going to add much to this article. I am acutely aware of the problem of using FAR as a club in the middle of a content dispute and it's unfortunate that that has happened here. At the same time, if even the long term page builders suggest removing than I think it must go. Marskell (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2008 (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 User:Marskell 13:21, 7 August 2008 [38].

Paragraph 175 edit

Review commentary edit

User:Jmabel, User:Amys, WP:WikiProject LGBT studies, and WP:WikiProject Germany have all been notified. —Angr 16:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an old FA, from 2004, when FA criteria weren't applied as strictly as they are today. It has a number of issues:

  1. Lack of inline citations. Most (but not all!) direct quotations are cited, but individual claims in paragraphs are not. One claim has been tagged "citation needed" for almost a year and a half!
  2. Much of the article seems to use German Wikipedia as a source, but Wikipedias are not considered reliable sources.
  3. The non-free images Image:Poster against Paragraph 175.jpg and Image:Paragraph175filmdvdcover.jpg are problematic. Both are larger than 100,000 pixels (i.e. not low-resolution); neither is used in conjunction with direct critical commentary (neither the poster itself nor the film itself is discussed in the text), and Image:Poster against Paragraph 175.jpg doesn't even have a fair-use rationale.

For these reasons, I don't think the article is up to FA standard. —Angr 16:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I basically translated this from the German Wikipedia at a time when our (and their) citation standards were a lot more lax. The German original had been heavily discussed and vetted. I'm quite confident it is an accurate article and extremely informative on its topic. But there is almost no chance that I can bring it up to current FA standards. I never saw the sources myself; they are in German, which I read decently, but not well enough to work my way through multiple books and do re-research (especially now that I'm working an intense, full-time job); and, in any event, I doubt that any large number of those sources would be available to me here in Seattle. So even though I translated the bulk of this, I'm very unlikely to be able to help.
I would strongly recommend improving the citations in the German original and then bringing them over rather than working on this primarily and directly in the English Wikipedia. And I realize that will probably not be a fast route to bringing this up to the level of citation currently required for an FA. - Jmabel | Talk 04:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I'm not at all sure Image:Poster against Paragraph 175.jpg rises to the level of copyrightable (so there may be no rights issue at all). In any event, it would be trivial to overwrite the image with a lower resolution equivalent: it's a rather minimal black-and-white poster that would look almost identical as a very coarse JPEG. - Jmabel | Talk 04:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, their citation standards are still lax. I live in Germany and read German easily, but I too have an intense full-time job and don't have time to go to the library to do the amount of research required to bring this up to today's FA standards. I think the drawing of the fist is enough creativity to make the poster at least potentially copyrightable; the representation of the § symbol as a meathook might or might not be. (I have no idea whether German law required registration of copyright in 1975; in order for it to be PD in the U.S. it would have to have been PD in Germany as of 1-1-1996, and I don't know how to go about determining that.) —Angr 06:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In Germany, there is no registration required. Since the enactment of the Urheberrechtsgesetz (1966), works are protected 70 years p.m.a. Greeting, -- kh80 (talk) 09:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then if the poster meets Schöpfungshöhe, then it's not PD. I'd expect the drawing of the fist is enough to make it a kleine Münze, but I'm no lawyer, and the German articles are so full of legalese they make my eyes cross. —Angr 13:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and images (3). Marskell (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Short lead, listy in some parts, undercited, and not at FA level at all. Therefore, as it is now, it should be removed. As a jurist, I feel tempted to try to improve, but my knowledge of German law is too limited, and, in order to look through German sources, I would like to have the cooperation a good German speaker. But again I do not if it can be saved within this FARC's time limits.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - short lead, lack of references. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove, unimproved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. The article has a lot going for it, but its dearth of inline citations is a problem (especially for the tables of Prosecutions/Convictions numbers). The lack of english references doesn't help its case, either. --maclean 05:22, 7 August 2008 (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 User:Marskell 17:20, 18 August 2008 [39].

Military history of Canada edit

Review commentary edit

Notified WP Military History, WP Canada, SimonP, Michael Dorosh‎ and Brian Crawford.
  • Factual accuracy is lacking. Claims, with the exception of the most modern events, are largely unverifiable against reliable sources.
  • The article has a number of style issues including dead wikilinks, an overwhelming table of contents and a number of cases of POV
  • Images that lack source information and possibly inappropriate copyright status of multiple images:
Image:Canadian 1918 antiaircraft team.jpg sourced
Image:Sopwith Dolphin photo2.jpg deleted

Labattblueboy (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with those comments. The article's structure is rather odd and the amount of space given to various topics doesn't seem to match their importance (eg, why are there seperate sections on the formation of each of the services and a section on the Invasion of Iraq which basically states that Canada didn't participate in this war?). The article is also overly focused on Canadian military deployments, and has next to nothing on changes to the military's structure and equipment - for instance, there's nothing on the amalgamation of the services into the Canadian Forces! The article also needs a lot more citations. Given the amount of work required, I don't see any alternative to eventually de-listing this article. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a valiant effort, but for the length, it lacks references. It also needs to be edited for style. The Americans in 1775 were not rebuffed by locals; I'd say they were rebuffed mostly by indifference. Rebuffed is a strong word to use here, and needs to be disussed. This is just one example. --soulscanner (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incorrect layout, incorrect lead, unformatted citations, I didn't look any further. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too agree with these comments. There are some unnotable inclusions such as dramatizations. We can't list every film in which the Canadian military was included. The article has overly emphasized land-based units/the army. I've tried to rectify this, but more work needs to be done. I have also just completed a section on unification. Still some POV that needs fixing, and lots of copyediting to do. Also, the heading structure/organization needs a major overhaul.--BC (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are factual accuracy (1c), style issues (2), and images (3). Marskell (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove I don't feel that the concerns raised have been sufficiently addressed. DrKiernan (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove The article remains largely unreferenced and unbalanced and is not of FA standard. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:04, 14 August 2008 (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 User:Marskell 17:20, 18 August 2008 [40].

Objectivist poets edit

Review commentary edit

User:Christian Roess and WikiProject Poetry have been notified.

Article lacks consistent in-text citations, as required by FA criterion 2c, and all but one of the references are simply listed at the bottom of the article, with no footnote links. –Dream out loud (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple issues. You name it, it has it. 5 edits since 05 feb. ( Ceoil sláinte 20:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC - this article lacks a lot of key features and would require a lot of work to bring it up to par. It seems from lack of interest that this will not happen any time soon. It is best to remove it until someone in the future wishes to bring it up to par and then try to put it through FAC. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:FAR instructions; keep and remove are not declared in the review phase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My remove means that there is no possible way to repair it. This section is reserved for suggestions on how to repair or thoughts on the matter. I'm following the instructions quite clearly by letting people know my thoughts now. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the above to make it clear. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 12:47, 26 July 2008 (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 User:Marskell 17:20, 18 August 2008 [41].

San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge edit

Review commentary edit

Notified WP NRHP, WP Bridges, WP SF Bay Area, WP California, Sam‎ and Leonard G.‎.

An August 2005 promotion, this article is largely uncited (including hard data and direct quotes); has an inadequate lead; needs an image review and is burdened with excess images; has several sections tagged; has an WP:MSH issue (strange section, "The Bay Bridge at a glance"); has unformatted citations; the text contains external jumps; needs a MoS tuneup (example, dash issues throughout); and needs attention to Wikilinking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like overview section could be combined into the lead with some rewrite, but I'm not sure if the entire set of information in the third paragraph should be included. I've moved all of the images to commons, and removed the excessive ones, but I'm still trying to figure out how to format the earthquake damage and retrofitting images to make them work. The "Bay Bridge at a glance" section seemed like a rehash of the infobox so I removed it. I've moved the external jumps into ref tags and formatted them. I'll try to template the citations next. -Optigan13 (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the dash in the page title and text (it is now a spaced en-dash as per the MOS). I've also fixed all the redirects. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Just had a quick look, and found plenty of reasons why this should be delisted:

  • Lead needs expanding per WP:LEAD
  • "Overview" section has one reference only, could probably be merged into lead.
  • Article is full of uncited paragraphs/sections, fails FA criteria 1c-desperately needs better referencing throughout.
  • "In fiction" section needs to be removed or merged with another section-its too short.
  • The prose is poor fails FA criteria 1a, one example at random: "James Rolph, a mayor of San Francisco from 1912 to 1931," - Why "a" mayor?
  • What makes http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/BayBridgeT33.htm a reliable source?
  • Dead ref: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/trivia.htm#Little_known_facts
  • Current ref 1 is missing publisher info.
  • The references listed under the References section should be used as footnotes appropriately instead.
  • In conclusion, this article is all over the place. Fails to comply with MOS guidelines, let alone the FA criteria.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 19:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC, still largely uncited, no lead, MoS issues, image layout issues, numerous tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), LEAD (2a), and images (3). Marskell (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per my comments at the review. Serious problems with referencing, MoS issues and other problems throughout which have not been attended to. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 14:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Major lack of referencing. The lead is too short, and some of the prose is choppy, as well. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's still probably going to fail on referencing and prose, but can someone take another look at the lead and the images to see if they are ok or what changes are still needed. -Optigan13 (talk) 02:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suspect that this will be delisted. I find this process to be unpleasant. This article met all the criteria that were in place 3 years ago when it was promoted. The technology for citations had not matured at the time. I put a bit of effort into bringing it to FA standards then, and I'm not interested in doing it again. Instead of this process which encourages comments in which reviewers write a sentence about changing an "a" to a "the" or changing the type of dash in the title, you could just make the changes. Add "citation needed" templates where you think they should go. A more constructive effort would help improve the article, instead of complaining about its fault. Perhaps after a few weeks of people trying to fix things it would be FA worthy. I am discouraged by this process. It is not inspiring me to fix the article. Perhaps someone else will be inspired to fix it after it is delisted. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 10:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry that you feel that way, but it is understandable, you've still done a lot of great work regardless of whether it still meets the current FA criteria so thanks. I tried to go through and tag with some fact tags on issues that I think would need citation. Someone may want to go over this and make sure I didn't over do it. I also used the caltrans facts at a glance to fill in a lot of minor info. The main things I was tagging for were numbers, especially toll rates, and the construction information. I'm not sure how much of the construction info is just industry standard and how much is unique, but on specifics like 15-25 cm protrusions a citation would help. I'll try to go through the sources as well and clear up some of those fact tags and reduce the usage of the caltrans facts as the main citation. Thanks in advance for any further effort. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2008 (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 User:Marskell 17:20, 18 August 2008 [42].

Butter edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: User:Bunchofgrapes, Wikiproject Food and Drink, Agriculture, Culture

Criteria concerns:1a, 1c

  • Shapes, History, Production and storage-cooking have increasingly unsourced content.
  • Needs an infobox, categories, and two or more image need diminishing.

Shouldn't be tough. Ultra! 18:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Infoboxes are not required by WP:WIAFA; since you brought the FAR, can you just add the categories and reduce the images? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, and notified. Ultra! 19:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a rancid FAR. Amazing that anybody bothers to take their work through FAC any more. Bishonen | talk 04:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
So time to give the article a good 'churn' then (chuckle)....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree the article needs more sources or at least more inline citations so it is obvious where the information is coming from (the production section has none and throughout the article there are several other paragraphs with no apparent sourcing must prominently in the storage and cooking section). How much is taken from the publications listed in the reference section, if everything in the article is covered by them could the individual sections/paragraphs/statements be better attributed by someone who has knowledge of them? Guest9999 (talk) 04:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously, the material in lead needs to be in the body of the text, o needs an etymology section. Prose is somewhat repetitive and I have started trimming. More to come. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some inconsistencies with units throughout the piece, generally metric is used first followed by imperial but there are instances where American units are used first and one instance where for some reason grains appear to be used instead of ounces. Guest9999 (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here's the thing Guest9999. I am glad you have pointed this out. Now, as at least the order of units should be pretty straightforward to fix, it would be great if you could get stuck in and help fix these too. I didn't write this article - at FAR, many of the original contributors are no longer active or may not be able or willing to keep the article at FA status, so hence no-one will (likely) take responsibility for making sure this one survives FAR. If you could chip in it would be extremely helpful. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will try and brush up on the relevant guidelines for units. Whilst you say it will be straight forward there are many quite trivial issues involved such as the order, whether to abbreviate or not, what units to use, what abbreviations to use that I am currently not familiar with. I mentioned it hoping that someone with the pre-existing knowledge to deal with the issue would notice; as it was I was just as likely to change to a different - if more consistent - incorrect presentation of the units as to "fix" the problem. Guest9999 (talk) 00:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've given it a go. Guest9999 (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. I have rather stupidly overcommitted, with Ant at FAC and other things. FA and GA food articles are thin on the ground and it'd be a shame to lose one. My mother has a library of cookbooks that I will try to get some refs from. Now tehre are teh online references..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a) and referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RemoveHold The extent of citations and the quality of prose aside (happy and sad respecitvaly), there are gaps in the articles coverage; such as the huge flucations in its commodity value over the last 5 years, in particular in the last 12 months. Butter was a cah cow until the early 1990s and has fluctuated hugely since; 5 years ago you couldn't give the stuff away, now the price of fats are so high deritives are all that can be sold. Branding, marketing or subistutes are also not mentioned. Ceoil sláinte 17:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I spent the first third of my life milking cows, and the second third hammering sales men over the price of butter, I'll take this on. Its nice too see a core article like this brought so far, and it is a topic very close to me. Ceoil sláinte 20:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a topic so close to me that I probably have some of it in my stomach right now. And Ceoil, seeing you show up to help another article at FAR, I must finally admit it: I'm in love with you. Marskell (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you pick butter to tell him that? Sheesh, what's this world coming to; btw, you can't have him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats very sweet, Marskell. I suppose I'd better do some work on the article after that ;) Ceoil sláinte 21:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Betty bought a bit of butter, but the butter Betty bought was bitter, so Betty bought a bit of better butter..) but seriously, I have no book sources for this (my mother has a huge cookbook library but no $#*^#^* books on butter!!). I can help copyedit once Ceoil buffs it a bit. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are some cookbooks in my kitchen, but I don't know how to use them. Let me know if I should look up some cooking factoid. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: print sources on the way; but appearently they are crossing europe by elephant, given the time taken so far. So hold a while yet. ( Ceoil sláinte 15:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was distracted; unlikely to get to add to this. ( Ceoil sláinte 21:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since Ceoil can't get to this, then Remove. (If someone else shows up who can complete the citation work, I'll list other issues.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Laxton (1998), p. 184
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/August_2008&oldid=235552467"